10.2190/QGJU-66FQ-MAMK-NWQH QGJU66FQMAMKNWQH 5 The Nuremberg Rule in the Workplace: An Observation 153 164 20020509 20020509 20020509 20020509 QGJU66FQMAMKNWQH.pdf http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=QGJU66FQMAMKNWQH 2 Franklin Anderson George Munchus III Frank Watkins Steven Brown Attorney, Alabama and Mississippi University of Alabama, Birmingham Birmingham, Alabama <p>Several paradoxes appear in federal law requiring "responsible persons" to remit money held in trust to the Internal Revenue Service (the "100 percent penalty rule"): An employer may fire a person who acts as required by law without any adequate legal remedy for the aggrieved employee.</p><p>Under other circumstances that seem similar, courts have found duress, extortion, and conspiracy to support criminal convictions of senior officials under the Hobbs Act and RICO in employment settings. However, in several reported "100 percent penalty" cases the weaker, poorer, subordinate employee is prosecuted by the United States and the stronger, richer, senior executive who ordered the misconduct is ignored. Thus, an employed person is presented two choices: break the law, or be fired without legal protection and probably never work again in a remotely similar position.</p>