Ron: Let's say a player starts a game like "Timber", where the advanced rules are 5-lives only, and has a great game from the start, bordering on a personal best or even world record, with lives remaining. Almost happened to me last evening in practice..assume this was the correct month for "Timber", as I am aware of the 48 hour thing.

If a player hits "F12" for the screen shot after the 5th life loss, and still continues their game for record tracking purposes, would the portion of the game up to the point of the 5th life loss still count for the Advanced DECA, or would the score be invalidated for the DECA yet viable for the Cubeman MAME rankings ?

invalidating decsa-21invalidating decsa-24

Because the EEOC acts not only on behalf of private parties but also “to vindicate the public interest” in preventing employment discrimination, such settlement terms would impede the enforcement of Title VII.

As one court explains: “In many cases of widespread discrimination, victims suffer in silence.

Out-of-court settlements represent a second obstacle to transparency.

In the vast majority of cases, settlement agreements resolving sexual harassment claims in exchange for monetary payments require that victims not speak publicly about the settlement’s terms or any details of the circumstances giving rise to the litigation.

Without the benefit of legal counsel, and when, as may turn out to be the case with some of the Weinstein allegations, sexual harassment does not rise to the level of criminal sexual assault, workers are right to be uncertain about what NDAs prohibit.

That, along with the accompanying risk of getting fired, can discourage employees from speaking up.

However, if an alleged harasser publicly discloses or makes denials about the same information, then under confidentiality agreements that are mutually binding on both parties, the harasser could be sued for breach of contract and prevented from being able to in turn sue victims for the same.

Herman Cain, for example, made himself vulnerable to a lawsuit when, during his presidential run in 2011, he derided women who went public with their sexual-harassment claims against him, rejected their allegations as false, and denied settlement amounts reached in litigation they brought.

These include rules governing how to interpret confidentiality requirements—specifically, those in non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), out-of-court settlements, and arbitration provisions—that can limit what employees are allowed to say about sexual harassment.

(While Weinstein reportedly deployed NDAs and settlements to silence alleged victims or prevent supervising employees from speaking about reported misconduct, other employers—like Fox News, in response to claims made by Gretchen Carlson, and Sterling Jewelers, to name a couple recent high-profile stories—have reportedly invoked arbitration provisions requiring confidential adjudication of harassment claims.)The first of these approaches is NDAs, which employers regularly include in employment agreements.

The same is true for non-disparagement provisions in employment contracts: It’s an unfair labor practice to have employees agree not to “publicly criticize, ridicule, disparage or defame” a company or its “directors, officers, shareholders, or employees.” So while these provisions still persist in boilerplate form in most employment contracts, they can violate federal labor law if put to use.