Archive for the ‘Employment’ Category

Loans for Self Employed : Supporting the idea of being independent

"Dreams are the gateway to success " - If you think you can you surely can make it , though its easy to dream but tough to mark one's presence. Self employment is chosen by people who want to mark their individual presence in the world of business. Desire to rule the world is a trait commonly found in self employed persons. Your dedication, hard work and sincerity towards your work without adequate capital resource are futile.However, for people who are self employed and don't have access to that extra sum of money that can make the task easier.Hoe to get hand onto that extra sum of money which can be used for investing in a new venture or to buy that latest technology that has just hit the market.Well, the answer to this question can be easily traced with the introduction of loans for the self employed in the loan market.

With the entry of loans forself employed it has become easier for self employed people to get an easy financial help. With the increasing number of people who prefer to work for themselves, loans for self employed have now become affordable and widely available. Loans for self employed are tailored to meet the financial needs of self employed people. They may need funds to expand or to start a new business. Self employed people are identified as people who operate their own business as a sole owner or as a partner or a profession. Independent consultants and contractors are also classified as self employed. Loans for self employed can be secured or unsecured one. Secured self employed loans are secured against the collateral of the borrower such as a car or a house. Unsecured self employed loans are not secured by any collateral,best suited for those who can not afford to offer collateral.Loan for self employed becomes one of the most popular finance options for the self employed people because it moulds repayments according to the income of the self employed. How much is to be paid and when it is to be paid will be decided by the borrower himself. The feature of flexibility comes in three forms- underpayment, overpayment, and payment holiday.

Another feature of loans for self employed is that they allow the borrowers themselves to certify their income. In the absence of any accounts or not well maintained accounts, self employed borrowers are refused loans by most loan providers. The self employed people are normally seen to not disclose their actual income as this will require them to pay higher tax. However, when they approach loan providers for loans, they do not want the income revealed to be considered. This will qualify them for a lower value of loan. However, the loan providers who know how the self employed people function, create specific finance options for them. They allow the self employed people to themselves certify their income. Therefore, self employed people need not feel that they do not have sufficient finance opportunities. Proper search can lead them to loan providers who are ready to mould the features of their loans in order to serve the self employed people.

Christian Phelps is a Masters in Accounting and Financial Management from Lancaster University Management School . He has been working with loan for self employed since his academics got over. To find Self employed secured loan,unsecured self employed loan visit /

Racial Discrimination Related Victimization in Employment


Race relations victimization is different than color discrimination or ethnic discrimination or racial harassment or racial segregation -race victimization or color victimization need not include discriminatory practices to be illegal ~it need only be about race equality.

It is possible for one in race relations law, even if not subjected to race discrimination, to suffer unlawful race relations victimization, entitling to legal remedies.

Race relations victimization is, on its own, contrary to nondiscrimination policy -in race equality legislation under the Race Relations Act, and in employment law, unlawful.

In race relations laws also workplace victimization can be without race discrimination or racial abuse; and, employment tribunal compensation for race relations victimization, if it is with racial discrimination or ethnic relations abuse -be it racial segregation or color discrimination or ethnic prejudice or any other kind of racist abuse, for 'injury to feelings' is limitless -racial victimization exempts on its own from a year's service requirement to sue, if terminated, also for reinstatement.

Only indirectly is race relations victimization to do with one's color, race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, citizenship; it is not directly about racism in ethnic relations, racial segregation, race equality, as such -it is about detriment over concern with those at the workplace caused one by way of retaliation, and because it is about race equality it is called race relations victimization.

Race relations victimization is, in racial equality legislation -under the Race Relations Act, basically, this:-

If one complains…

...that one has been, or is being, treated less favorably on racial grounds by one's employer -to the employer or to a tribunal or to the race relations board or seeks advice from the advisory arbitration and conciliation service (or friend or colleague -or anyone)...

...or if one agrees to, e.g., give evidence or support anyone, or lawfully do anything, in relation to race discrimination to the detriment or possible detriment of the employer…

…or if one does not do any of those things but is suspected by the employer that has done or would or could or might do so…

...and because of that race relations related act or suspicion if one is subjected to a detriment by the employer or for or on behalf of the employer, in respect of one's employment…

...that is unlawful race relations victimization of one.

In race relations victimization it does not matter, e.g., if one's complaint was of racial abuse in personal service (e.g. house help) exempted in nondiscrimination policy, or of race discrimination over a genuine occupational qualification (e.g. straight haired model) exempt under the Race Relations Act, or, if one was wrong and it was not race discrimination -if it is a complaint of race equality in good faith any detriment because of it caused one (even if not discriminatory practices detriment) is illegal race relations victimization.

Also, in race relations law, it does not matter if the employer did not know of the race relations victimization -if the racial victimization is by someone to do with that employment (including a colleague -unless the employer can prove that all reasonable steps were taken to ensure compliance with racial equality laws, including e.g. ethnic victimization) there is vicarious race equality liability for race relations victimization.

The motive or intention is irrelevant in race relations victimization -so is being unconscious of subjecting to racial victimization -if less favourable treatment (even if it is not itself race discrimination) is shown and it relates to racial equality, that is race relations victimization and there is racial victimization liability: Swiggs & Others -v- Nagarajan, 1999, HL.

Race relations case law suggest that for a claim to succeed under the Race Relations Act the employee's complaint to the employer about racial equality which resulted in race relations victimization, must have been made before the race relations victimization took place if victimization was dismissal -before the employment contract ended: Post Office -v- Adekeye, and, Negorajam -v- Agnew 1974 EAT.

The employer needs the employee's consent to put it right if it is not in an internal appeal, and also in race relations this is so, if the race relations victimization is termination -because that ends the employment contract (which, if not specifically made, the law deems to have existed): James -v- Waltham Holy Cross UDC, 1973, NIRC ~but an employee, before suing under the race relations law for racial victimization, must protest with written cause the race relations victimization to the employer for response in 28 days, considering arbitration for conciliation or settling.

It is not a defense in race relations victimization for the employer, if later information showed the employer to have erred, that at the time of the race relations victimization information was not available to suggest that the detriment would be racial victimization -the employer must put right that error ~this (Williamson -v- Alcan UK Ltd., 1978, EAT) is regarded a principle of employment law, and if does not, that too, in race equality law, is unlawful race relations victimization.

If one suffers race relations victimization, one may serve on the employer a racial discrimination questionnaire (within three months of when one first knew of the race relations victimization -or if one has lodged one's racial victimization claim with an employment tribunal [for which there is a time limit of three months] within 21 days of lodging it), using the employer's answers to why subjected to alleged racial victimization as evidence of race relations victimization -failure to answer or vague or ambiguous replies entitle drawing inference in race relations victimization claims.

In racial equality case law there appears to be a judicial expectation that a race relations complaint should specify or include the allegation that it relates to racial discrimination -British Airways Engine Overhaul Ltd. -v- Francis 1981 dismissed the case because the race relations complainant had not alleged that the complaint related to race discrimination (that in later protected acts [whistle-blowing, asserting a statutory right] reasonable clarity suffices may make same applicable to race relations victimization).

In race relations victimization the onus of proof is normally on the employee alleging racial victimization, but this can move to the employer because the employer must state a reason for the detriment alleged to be race relations victimization, and employment tribunals have to have regard to the reason stated by the employer -this applies also in race relations victimization cases ~it is important to show the employer's reason not to be, or be capable of not being, the reason or main reason for a detriment alleged as racial victimization.

If it is not shown to be a race relations matter, even if the detriment is proven, it is not racial victimization -Baker -v- Cornwall County Council 1990, and, York Truck Equipment Ltd. 1990 EAT) held the detriment not related to racial equality but disciplinary and so, not race relations victimization ~in racial victimization one must show not only that there had been a race equality issue followed by a detriment but also that the detriment would not have arisen but for a race equality issue for it to be race relations victimization.

In race relations cases the basic consideration in race relations discrimination applies also to race relations victimization and is whether the alleged racial discrimination or race relations victimization arouse from a racial equality matter -the 'but for' rule: would the detriment have still been suffered, or would it not have been but for racial inequality, or in the case of race relations victimization a race equality enquiry or complaint or act of the employee -or the employer's related suspicion? If the detriment alleged to be victimization would not otherwise have been suffered, it is unlawful race relations victimization, entitling to a remedy.

Laws change, these are brief guidelines.

The author's favourite site is the Teacher of Teachers

Employer Liability When Employees Use Internet Communications For Offensive Purposes

What happens when you have a rogue or even out of control employee that uses an office computer to send or even post threats of great bodily harm or uses an office computer to generate other highly offensive communications? Can an employer who ends up being sued for such conduct assert a defense of immunity under the provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C. 230. This particular federal law defense of immunity actually does preempt inconsistent state law that might otherwise impose liability in certain circumstances. The Act immunizes "provider[s]... of an interactive computer service" (the employer) where "another information content provider" (the employee) has initiated the offending activity.

While the facts considered recently by a California Court of Appeal in Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790 are unquestionably extreme and will not likely be encountered in garden-variety employment situations, the CDA immunity defense could well apply in more benign or commonplace circumstances as a result of the court's ruling in this particular case.

In the Delfino case, the court considered a situation in which unbeknownst to his employer, a very angry and upset employee sends anonymous emails to various adversaries. He also created posts on Internet bulletin boards, threatening great bodily harm and death to these various individuals.

In making this illicit communications, the employee used the computer systems of his employer. The victims of these horrible threats and postings ended up contacting the FBI. The FBI in turn traced the emails and postings to the employee's office computer. This was accomplished by by tracking the emails and postings back through the originating IP address.

The employee admitted that he engaged in the in the conduct of which he was accused. In the end, criminal charges are filed against him.

The employer terminated the employee. The victims of the employee's threats sued the employee and the employer for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision or retention. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed the employer was aware that the employee was using its computer system to threaten them. The further argued that the employee took no action to prevent the co-defendant employee from continuing to make threats over the Internet.

The ultimate question before the court in the case was: Can the employer be liable under these circumstances?

Some may consider this particular scenario far fetched. The case was presented as one of first impression in Delfino v. Agilent. The California appellate court determined that an employer could in fact assert the immunity defense under the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C. 230.

In asking the court to dismiss the plaintiffs' case, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment, in which it asserted that the employer was a "provider... of an interactive computer service", and therefore entitled to complete immunity under the CDA. Section 230(c)(1) states that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The statute also preempts inconsistent state law that would impose liability, saying: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section." Section 230(e)(3), italics added.

The primary goal of the CDA has been to control the exposure of minors to indecent material over the Internet. Nonetheless, one of its other important purposes is "to encourage [Internet] service providers to self-regulate the dissemination of offensive materials over their services." This was determined in the case of Zeran v. America Online, Inc. (4th Cir. 1997) 129 F.3d 327, 331, cert. den. (1998) 524 U.S. 937.

The CDA also been enforced in a manner so as to avoid the chilling effect on Internet free speech that would occur if tort liability ended up being imposed on companies that do not create potentially harmful messages but are simply intermediaries for their delivery. Id. at 330-331.

Accordingly, Section 230(c)(2) immunizes from liability an interactive computer service provider or user who makes good faith efforts to restrict access to material deemed objectionable. However, the provider must make a good faith effort to restrict access to material that is deemed objectionable.

Drawing on prior CDA cases that actually were beyond the employment context, the Delfino court ruled that there are three essential elements that a defendant must establish in order to claim section 230 immunity. These three elements are determined by the court are:

(a) the defendant is a provider or user of an interactive computer service;

(b) the cause of action treats the defendant as a publisher or speaker of information; and

(c) the information at issue is provided by another information content provider. Gentry v. eBay, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 816, 830.

In considering the first element (whether the employer was a provider or user of an interactive computer service), the court ruled the question a matter of first impression. In its judgment, the court specifically held: "We are aware of no case that has held that a corporate employer is a provider of interactive computer services under circumstances such as those presented here. But several commentators have opined that an employer that provides its employees with Internet access through the company's internal computer system is among the class of parties potentially immune under the CDA." Delfino, 145 Cal.App.4th at 805.

Prior courts had interpreted the term "interactive computer service" broadly in their own decisions and rulings. (For example, in Batzel v. Smith (9th Cir. 2003) 333 F.3d 1018, 1030, fn. 15, cert. den. (2004) 541 U.S. 1085), the court held that the employer was a "provider of interactive computer services" under the CDA. Id. At 806.

Considering the second element of the test, (whether the cause of action treated the defendant as a publisher or speaker of information), the court found that plaintiffs, in alleging that the employer was liable for the employee's cyber threats, sought to treat the employer "as a publisher or speaker" of those messages. (sec. 230(c)(1).) Id.

On the last element of the test, (whether the information at issue was provided by another information content provider), there was no dispute that the employee was the party who had authored the offensive e-mails and postings. Moreover, there was no evidence that the employer played any role at all in "the creation or development" of these threatening and offensive messages and postings. Id. at 807-08.

In the end, the court concluded that the employer satisfied all three of the elements necessary to establish immunity under the CDA. Therefore, the court of appeal did affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer. The court of appeals agreed that the grant of immunity under the CDA was proper pursuant to the terms and conditions of that law.

In its decision, the court also noted that, even if plaintiffs' claims had not been barred under section 230(c)(1), granting summary judgment to the employer was nonetheless proper. The court reached this conclusion because plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case on their claims against the employer. Id. at 808. In this regard, the court specifically held that there was no indication that the employer ratified in any manner the employee's conduct, and that the employer could not be liable under theory of respondeat superior. Id. at 810-12. In addition, there was not even any evidence that the employer was even aware of the employee's conduct. Id. at 815.

In its holding and order, the court affirmed the long established principle that an employer will not be held vicariously liable for an employee's malicious or tortious conduct in a situation in which the employee substantially deviates from his employment duties for personal purposes. The court additionally offered what can be considered an important teaching point on the theory and principle of ratification under California law.

The court noted that imposing derivative liability on the employer for an employees actions need not be founded on respondeat superior. Such liability can also be based upon the doctrine of ratification as discussed in Murillo v. Rite Stuff Foods, Inc. (1998) 65 Cal. App.4th 833, 852). In that case, the court observed that an employee's actions may be ratified after the fact by the employer's voluntary election to adopt the employee's conduct. This is done, in essence, by treating the conduct as that of the employer's own. Id. at 810.

In considering what evidence can support the ratification theory, the Delfino court cited the California Civil Code 2339. The court, in citing that provision, determined that an employer's failure to discharge an employee after knowledge of his or her wrongful acts may be used as evidence that can support ratification of that employee's conduct.

In the end, there were a number of lessons that have been learned in the aftermath of Delfino. This includes the fact that although employers can take some degree comfort that the CDA can offer them immunity if out of line employees make offensive or threatening Internet postings or emails, conservative employers should take corrective actions immediately against offending employees when such conduct is discovered. This action potentially should include termination, if the circumstances so warrant. Employers should institute certain policies and procedures that prohibit employees from using the employer's computers to post or send threatening or offensive information. Moreover, since CDA immunity will be lost if the employer cannot establish that the information at issue was "provided by another information content provider", cautious employers will also need to avoid any conduct that would suggest the employer has promoted, sponsored, initiated, or ratified the offending material in any way, shape or form.

Robert Masud, Esq. is the principal of Masud & Company LLC, a law firm for the world of business, finance and the internet. Find out how our lawyers can help you at

La Law Defenders? Role on Various Employment Stages

Los Angeles is one of the most highly developed and economically stable cities in the world. It is one of the leaders in international trade, entertainment, aviation, apparel and tourism.
It is also a home to various industries such as media production, finance, telecommunications, law, modern medicine, health and transportation.


As it is, employment in Los Angeles is without a doubt on the rise. Consequently, employment problems will surely arise.


Whenever employment problems occur, victims may turn to Los Angeles Employment Law Defenders. They are helpful whether the problem arises in the pre employment, stage, employment proper or post employment stage.


Stages of Employment
Employees must be on guard of the different stages of employment. This is because employment problems may happen not only when an individual is rendering actual services but also during the application stage. The various stages of employment include pre-employment, employment and post employment.


Pre-employment Stage


Under federal law, an employer does not have to hire most qualified applicant. However, an employer cannot base his/her hiring decisions on personal circumstances of an applicant that are not work-related. These circumstances often include:


Religious Beliefs


During an interview, the interviewer cannot ask questions relating to these circumstances. It can only ask questions on personal characteristics if it could prevent the applicant from fulfilling the job’s requirements.



A previous employer may be asked of any non-confidential information about a previous employee. This information must be true and must not maliciously harm the employee. Otherwise, he/she may be liable for defamation in case of false information.


To avoid any liability, it has become a normal practice for employers to comment only on past employee's job performance. They confirm only dates of hire and separation, plus wage or salary information.


It is during the employment stage that various violations of employees’ rights are taking place. These violations include discrimination, illegal dismissal, nonpayment of holiday pay, harassment and other work related disputes.


Employees at Will

In California, employees are presumed to be "at will" or those who can be terminated for any legal reason.


Generally, employees who signed an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons enumerated in the contract. In California, the at-will presumption can be overcome by evidence showing that employer's power to terminate is limited in some way.


Workplace Protection

Federal and state laws require that most employers provide a place of employment that is safe and free from hazards. Otherwise, an employee may anonymously complain about an unsafe work environment. The employee, in turn, is protected from employer’s retribution.


Workplace Injury

Worker's compensation laws are enacted to compensate employees who have been injured or killed in work related accidents. Dependents of a deceased or injured employee may also be entitled to benefits.


Employers, on the other hand, may be protected by limits placed on the amount of an employee's recovery depending upon the classification of his or her disability: permanent total disability, temporary total disability or temporary partial disability.


Sexual Harassment

An employer may be liable to an employee for any act of "sexual harassment". It includes any unwelcome sexual advances, conduct or other physical or verbal acts of a sexual nature, which occur in the workplace.


A professional help is required in determining the existence of harassment because the laws provide what conduct, or pattern of conduct, constitutes actionable sexual harassment.


Discrimination and Wrongful Termination

Employers are not allowed to terminate or discriminate against employees for the following reasons:


Sexual Preference



Unemployment Benefits

Unemployment benefits are based on combinations of federal and state statutes.

Unemployment compensation programs provide monetary compensation to workers who have been illegally terminated. Employees who voluntarily terminate their employment for "good cause" may also be entitled to benefits.


In California, the Employment Development Department oversees the unemployment insurance program pursuant to the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Code and Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.


An understanding of these various employment stages could spell a lot of difference in pursuing your claims. If you are in Los Angeles, its employment lawyers are always ready to defend you in court or settlement.


Our> Los Angeles Employment Law Defenders expertly assist our clients in pursuing their employment claims. For a  free case analysis just log on to our website.


Jean is a content writer for the web page of one of the prestigious law firms in Los Angeles. She also worked as a legal analyst for a Florida based company and a paralegal to a credit cooperative. She hopes to publish her own book someday.


Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Alexa rank

Alexa rank is unknown.

PHP/MySQL Components, WordPress Plugins, and Technology Opinions at