![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Matter of Infosys, Ltd.- "This case presents essentially two questions. 1) Did the CO correctly determine that the possibility that workers might be required to relocate was not subsumed in the Employer‘s description of the work locations as ―various unanticipated locations through the U.S?‖ 2) Assuming the CO reasonably concluded that relocation was not subsumed in that language, did it violate due process or fundamental fairness to apply that determination to cases already in process where no guidance on that question had been issued and hundreds of essentially identical applications had previously been certified? We answer both these questions in favor of the Employer. ... In the absence of any guidance on that point, and in the face of 500+ applications having been approved before the CO even thought to inquire about the issue, it was fundamentally unfair for the CO to impose this new approach to pending applications. Therefore this denial must be reversed"
[Hats off to Pia Kappy!]