United States: Global Health And Safety Initiatives

Last Updated: August 10 2011
Article by Donald C. Dowling, Jr.

Reproduced with permission from BNA Occupational Safety & Health Reporter, vol. 41, no. 16 (Apr. 21, 2011), © 2011 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) www.bna.com

International HR Best Practices Tips: Global Workplace Health And Safety Compliance: From The "Micro" (Protecting The Individual Traveler) To The "Macro" (Protecting The International Workforce)

Laws regulating workplace health and safety are local to each jurisdiction. And therefore so is compliance. Regulation of workplace machine guarding, protective eyewear, and ergonomic keyboards, for example, differs depending on the jurisdiction, as do workers' compensation systems. This is why multinational employers approach most aspects of workplace health and safety compliance from a local perspective, from the ground up. A top-down, cross-border compliance strategy may not work if the laws to be complied with do not cross borders.

But even so, some workplace health and safety compliance challenges do transcend jurisdictional borders and do command the attention of a multinational's headquarters. Truly cross-jurisdictional aspects to workplace health and safety compliance tend to cluster at the "micro" and the "macro" ends of the spectrum—the "micro" level of protecting individual expatriates and individual business travelers, such as staff sent into danger zones, and the "macro" level of propagating company-wide initiatives on basic workplace health and safety topics, such as global cardinal safety rules and global pandemic plans applicable across a multinational's worldwide operations. Accordingly, this article addresses the "micro" and the "macro" levels of international workplace health and safety compliance. Part 1 of the article discusses multinationals' duty to protect individual employees overseas, in danger zones and otherwise, and Part 2 addresses cross-border workplace health and safety initiatives, like global cardinal safety rules and global pandemic plans launched across a multinational's workforces worldwide.

Part 1: Duty to Protect Individual Employees Overseas

Whenever a major safety threat erupts in some part of the world, multinationals scramble to understand what duties they owe their employees working in harm's way. For example, when a coup erupted in Egypt in early 2011, multinationals had employees stuck in life-threatening situations—employees like Google's regional marketing head Wael Ghonim, who was captured by Egyptian rioters and held for 10 days. Ghonim tweeted: "We are all ready to die.1" Then, on February 11, in a widely-publicized incident, an Egyptian mob beat and sexually assaulted CBS News Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan. Shortly thereafter, an earthquake, a tsunami, and a nuclear plant meltdown struck Japan; multinationals with employees in harm's way faced another crisis.

Beyond Egypt and Japan, employee security is vital to multinationals operating in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan, in terrorism-prone areas like certain parts of the Middle East, and in high crime areas like certain parts of Africa and Latin America. In January 2011, for example, a Mexican gunman murdered Nancy Davis, an American missionary working in Tamaulipas State.2 These international employee security risks extend even beyond places recognized as danger zones: Staff traveling to, say, Zurich or Sydney can get hit by drunk drivers or stabbed by robbers—and sue.

Liability exposure in the overseas-employee-injury context can be significant, sometimes "bet-the-company" litigation. After four Blackwater Security guards were killed and strung from a Fallujah bridge in March 2004, their estates filed a multi-plaintiff wrongful death action that ultimately involved proceedings in several forums (Nordan v. Blackwater), including Ken Starr representing Blackwater before the U.S. Supreme Court.

How must a multinational protect individual employees outside the U.S.? Does the duty change if the country gets on a U.S. State Department watch list? What is the risk analysis? Answering questions like these requires drawing four key distinctions:

1. Safety/security issues versus legal issues

Good corporate social responsibility means implementing effective workplace health and safety measures. In addition, occupational health and safety laws worldwide tend to impose a general duty of care requiring employers to offer reasonable safety protections.3 What, specifically, constitutes adequate safety measures depends entirely on context: In a factory it might mean supplying gloves, machine guards and emergency-stop buttons. In an office it might mean supplying keycards, ergonomic keyboards, and staircase hand rails. In a war zone it might mean supplying guards, body armor and evacuation services. But in contexts like war, terrorism and crime, health and safety regulations can be vague, leaving employers with only the broadest default legal advice—"heed the duty of care." In the real world, employers need answers to highly specific questions. (Can we provide guns? Does a State Department warning mean we must evacuate expatriates? What about locals? What about the "Rambo" employee who insists on staying put?) Getting answers to these questions from a lawyer may be less helpful than getting answers from an expert in security or crisis management.

But after someone gets hurt, even an employer that had solicited expert advice and that had implemented expensive precautions may face a claim. After all, an employee who sues will be one who was injured or killed. And after an injury happens, an allegation that security was too lax can look compelling. To make the case, the victim just points to the injury itself. If the employer provided a bodyguard and a bullet-proof vest, the employee victim says the crisis demanded two bodyguards and an armored car.

2. Health/safety regulation versus personal injury litigation

Legal systems impose duties of care on employers in two separate ways: occupational health and safety laws administered by a government agency and private rights of action for workplace injuries. Distinguish these two. Occupational health/safety regulations are tough laws. A serious violation in some countries (France, Italy, Russia) can send a manager to prison. These laws can get incredibly granular, imposing detailed mandates in contexts as specific as machine-guarding, window washing and iron smelting. But as mentioned, health/safety regulations tend to be vague about third-party actions, like war, terrorism and crime, beyond employers' control, and so they may play a lesser role in contexts involving violence. Therefore, multinationals assessing employment risk in danger zones focus more on their exposure to personal injury claims—such as U.S. court lawsuits demanding a jury and millions of dollars.

3. Local employees versus expatriates and business travelers

In assessing a multinational's exposure to employee personal injury lawsuits, distinguish foreign-local employees from expatriates and business travelers visiting temporarily. The population of locals may be far greater. When crisis erupted in Egypt, HSBC Bank had 1,200 Egyptian employees but just 10 in-country expatriates.4 Even so, on a per-employee basis, exposure as to the visitors may be far greater, for two reasons:

  • Work hours vs. 24 hours. An employer tends to be responsible for local employee safety/security only during work time. Locals caught up in an altercation off-the-job should not implicate the employer if their injuries are not work-related. Expatriates and business travelers, though, are different: While overseas on business, a visitor can be deemed to be "at work" 24 hours a day/7 days a week—even while out drinking.5
  • Capped local worker injury claims. The U.S. and some (but not all) other countries offer employees special systems that pay a guaranteed recovery for a workplace injury. Under "workers' compensation," an employee injured on the job (even in an act of violence) can bring a claim for a capped recovery without having to prove employer fault, even if the employer did nothing wrong. The trade-off inherent in workers' compensation is that it offers an exclusive remedy: Employees can be barred from suing employers outside the system. But the "workers' compensation bar defense" to personal injury civil lawsuits, clear as to local employees, gets fuzzy as to expatriates and business travelers injured abroad. These travelers might sue their employer for personal injuries either in the local host country or—more likely—in their home country (regular place of employment). U.S.-based employees injured abroad might sue in an American court.

4. Personal injury lawsuits versus workers' compensation claims

A U.S. employee maimed or killed stateside, even a victim of a mass killing like the Virginia Tech shootings or the Oklahoma City bombing, rarely ever wins an uncapped wrongful death claim against the employer. The workers' compensation bar affirmative defense/exclusivity of the workers' compensation system almost always stands, except as to certain intentional torts.6 Our focus, though, is on Americans injured while working abroad. Does the fortuity of an incident occurring across the border let an employee beat the U.S. workers' compensation bar and win an uncapped personal injury verdict from an American jury? The answer is "maybe." When a U.S.-based employee gets hurt on an overseas business trip of under a month, case law usually upholds state workers' compensation payouts and the exclusive remedy/bar defense.7 The more complex scenario is where an American gets hurt while abroad on a business trip of over a month, or after the place of employment shifted abroad. These cases turn on their facts.8

Strategic employers sending American staff abroad, especially into danger zones, try to structure postings to retain both U.S. workers' compensation remedies and the bar defense. This approach is fair because it offers American staff their very same remedy available for domestic workplace injuries and violence. Insurers sell a product called "foreign voluntary workers' compensation coverage" that pays no-fault workers compensation awards to covered employees injured outside the U.S. A common mistake, though, is to assume that merely buying this coverage automatically extends the workers' compensation bar defense to foreign-sustained injuries. Multinationals need an affirmative strategy to extend the bar abroad. One theory is to offer foreign voluntary coverage expressly in exchange for a written consent to limit personal injury remedies to the state workers' compensation system and policy benefit. To induce the employer to buy no-fault foreign coverage, the expatriate covenants that the state system plus the policy will be his exclusive remedy against the employer for injuries sustained abroad.

Another strategy is to require that staff traveling into danger zones sign assumption-of-risk waivers acknowledging and accepting all dangers inherent in the posting. But in recent decades American courts have been reluctant to enforce employee waivers to defeat claims of employer negligence.9 If an employer invokes assumption of the risk to block even a workers' compensation award, a U.S. employee might argue unconscionablility. Waivers may be more appropriate for a family member like a "trailing spouse" who asks to accompany an employee overseas. That said, in this context a choice of forum clause selecting arbitration may be enforceable.

Part 2: Health and Safety Initiatives Launched across Workforces Worldwide

Having looked at multinationals' obligations to protect individual employees (particularly expatriates and business travelers) in the international context, we now turn to the other end of the spectrum: health and safety initiatives extended across a multinational's entire global workforce—that is, imposing global health/safety baselines, like cardinal safety rules and pandemic plans, across a multinational's worldwide operations.

Multinationals' workplace health and safety concerns increasingly transcend national boundaries. Proactive multinationals are now starting to take steps toward aligning, across their worldwide operations, those aspects of health and safety with a cross-border dimension. In general, these headquarters-driven cross-border health/safety initiatives fall into two categories:

  • Targeted health/safety programs addressing serious risks that transcend national borders, such as pandemic policies and crisis plans focused on terrorism and natural disasters
  • General health/safety standards imposed across worldwide operations, such as a global code of conduct safety provision, a set of company "cardinal safety rules," or a manifesto on health/safety principles like Sony's "Global Policy on Occupational Safety and Health"10

In a perfect world, a single set of global legal principles would govern a multinational's global health and safety policy. Indeed, there is such a thing as "international workplace health and safety law"—the International Labor Organization, the European Agency for Safety & Health at Work, NAFTA, industry associations and others have promulgated robust sets of cross-jurisdictional workplace health/safety standards. But even so, regulation of health and safety in actual workplaces remains stubbornly local. Every country imposes its own workplace safety code comparable to U.S. OSHA, with hundreds or thousands of detailed regulations addressing minutely specific workplace risks. Any employer needing to know, for example, how to store chemicals, how to guard a paper shredder, or how to administer vaccine during a pandemic needs to start by checking law in each affected jurisdiction and also checking local collective agreements.

The multinational employer, however, increasingly wants to know: How, in the face of disparate local safety regulations, does a multinational implement a workplace health/safety initiative across its worldwide operations? The answer is to tailor the initiative accounting for legal compliance in each affected country. Keep the global initiative flexible and modify it in each jurisdiction. In addition to aligning with local safety regulations, nine other issues can come into play:

  1. Duty of care: Most countries impose a duty of care on employers, and one big reason multinationals launch global health/safety initiatives is to comply with this duty, reducing legal exposure in new contexts like pandemics and terrorism. Breaching safety duties can mean criminal penalties—in May 2010, for example, Russia joined France, Italy, and many other countries in criminalizing certain workplace safety violations. As discussed in part 1, as to civil lawsuits, the first defense to an employee personal injury claim alleging breached duty of care should be to assert any local equivalent to the U.S. state "workers' compensation bar" defense—but some jurisdictions (such as England) offer no such defense while others (such as in Latin America) let an employee surmount the bar by proving mere negligence.
  2. Existing policies and rules: Countries from Finland to Malaysia and beyond require employers to issue written health and safety policies, and countries from France to Japan and beyond require employers to post written work rules. Any new global health/safety initiative will likely bump into issues addressed in existing local health/safety policies and work rules. Amend accordingly: A global health and safety policy needs to align with these local rules, or else launching the global policy requires amending the local rules.
  3. Employee representatives: Many jurisdictions, including Australia, Brazil, China, Finland, France, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Ontario, Poland, Quebec, South Africa, Sweden and Thailand, require employers (at least in some contexts) to sponsor health/safety representatives or committees, and then to consult with them on workplace health and safety. That means a new global health/safety policy will likely require amending local protocols, to accommodate it. In amending local health/safety plans to align with some new headquarters-level health/safety initiative, be sure to involve these representatives as necessary. Specialized health/safety representatives aside, many countries confer on ordinary labor representatives—trade unions, works councils, worker committees—a "mandatory subject of bargaining" right to consult on health/safety issues affecting terms and conditions of employment. (In some countries, government labor agencies may also play a role.) These representatives may not have an absolute right to veto a new health/safety initiative, but they may be able to void a plan that an employer implements unilaterally. And failing to consult can amount to an unfair labor practice.
  4. Medical attention: Those global health/safety initiatives focused on pandemics and crises often implicate the special issue of workplace medical care. Employer-provided medical care raises legal issues including: employer (or workplace nurse) practicing medicine, doctor/patient privilege, regulation of prescriptions, drug importation and employer distribution of drugs/vaccines. In some countries, including Brazil and Italy, large employers have on-staff doctors who can facilitate solutions. But outside of "staff doctor" countries, a particular challenge is how an employer can require employees, during a pandemic, to submit to diagnostic exams or to take vaccines/medicines. The analysis often depends on whether the employer mandate is reasonable. A related issue is employee medical care outside the workplace: In countries where government medical care systems or insurance pick up sick employees' medical costs, even employees who succumb in the workplace may be able to access medical treatment without adding to the employer's marginal costs. But be sure to account for the special problem of immigrants, expatriates, mobile employees and business travelers unable to access home-country medical systems.
  5. Isolation: Another issue particular to global pandemic plans is how to reserve an employer's right to isolate, keep out, or "quarantine" employees who might be infected by a communicable disease outbreak. Pandemic plans may seek to restrict employee travel—business and personal—into infected areas, or restrict return-to-work after a trip into a problem region. Isolation orders and travel bans get scrutinized in light of employee rights, so a global plan should spell out procedures that are anchored in reasonable medical advice.
  6. Shut-downs: Global crisis policies often cover workplace shut-downs, such as shut downs required by in a pandemic, hurricane, or terrorism. The main employment liability here regards pay: In many countries an employer that shuts down temporarily will be obligated to pay those employees willing to work. (Sick workers often collect sick pay from either the employer or the state under local sick-pay systems.) Some countries, though, let employers suspend operations—and pay—because of a genuine force majeure. Other countries allow mandatory furloughs. Account for these in the global policy.
  7. Data privacy: Routine workplace health/safety procedures involve tracking and reporting accidents and incidents. In a global pandemic or crisis, tracking and reporting becomes vital. Employers may have urgent medical reasons to get workers to disclose whether they or their family members are affected, where they have recently traveled and whom they have been exposed to. Some employers use employee-travel-tracking software to monitor employees' whereabouts. But jurisdictions with robust privacy laws restrict employers from collecting (or forcing workers to divulge) most personal data—particularly health information, which in the European Union is subject to special restrictions on processing "sensitive" data. Therefore, process employee health-status data carefully. A global crisis or health plan should spell out those situations where workplace safety or public health concerns reasonably justify the employer's personal inquiries. Invoke any employer duty to report incidents to public authorities or to maintain a safe workplace.
  8. Discipline: All global health/safety protocols should be flexible as to the discipline imposed for any given safety infraction, because the discipline issue implicates local law. Global pandemic and crisis policies can implicate discipline issues around employees refusing to report for work, refusing business travel or insisting on working from home. Local law may support a no-show employee whose refusal to work is reasonable, leaving employers free to discipline only for unreasonable absences. As such, pandemic or crisis protocols should impose clear rules prohibiting unreasonable employee behaviors. Build in procedures for communicating when the workplace is safe.
  9. Language: Some jurisdictions, including Belgium, France, Indonesia, Mongolia, Quebec, Turkey, and much of Central America, specifically require that employee communications, or at least work rules, be communicated in the local language. Even in places with no "language law," any health/safety plan addressed to local employees should be comprehensible to them.

For the most part, workplace health and safety is an inherently-local topic that depends intrinsically on each local jurisdiction's own workplace health and safety code and workers' compensation system. But in this age of multinational employers' headquarters-driven human resources initiatives, many multinationals find a strong business case to align a few key aspects of workplace health and safety across borders. In particular, there is the "micro" level issue of protecting individual expatriates and business travelers in the international context (such as staff sent into danger zones) and there is the "macro" level issue of propagating company-wide workplace health and safety initiatives (such as cardinal safety rules and pandemic plans) across a multinational's worldwide operations. Account for both issues strategically.

Footnotes

1. See S. Green, Corporate Counsel, 2/9/11.

2. See Riccardi & Wilkinson, L.A. Times, 1/28/11.

3. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Agency § 492.

4. See S. Green, supra note 1.

5. See, e.g., Lewis v. Knappen (NY 1953); Matter of Scott (NY 1949); Hartham v. Fuller (NY App. 1982); Gabonas v. Pan Am (NY App. 1951).

6. See, e.g., Ferris v. Delta (2d Cir. 2001); Werner v. NY (NY 1981); James v. NY (NY 1973); O'Rourke v. Long (NY 1976); Barnes v. Dungan (NY App. 2005); Briggs v. Pymm (NY App. 1989).

7. See, e.g., Sanchez v. Clestra (NY App. 2004). As to work on U.S. government contracts, see Defense Base Act, 42 USC §1651.

8. See, e.g., Kahn v. Parsons (DC Cir. 2006).

9. See, e.g., Lane v. Halliburton (5th Cir. 2008).

10. Sony's policy is available at: http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/csr/employees/safety .

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions