NewsArticles

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

TRIDENT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ACQUIRES AAMPRO, INC.

WHITEHOUSE, NEW JERSEY, October 24, 2002. Trident Systems International, Inc. (Company) (OTCBB: TDSY) announced today that on October 17, 2002 it acquired Professional Employer Consulting Services, Inc. dba AAMPRO ("AAMPRO"), a Whitehouse, New Jersey-based professional employer organization pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement by and between the Company, AAMPRO and the stockholders of AAMPRO. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Company issued 10,790,000 newly issued shares of common stock in exchange for all of the issued and outstanding shares of AAMPRO, making AAMPRO a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. The change of control was a result of the payment of the consideration for the acquisition which was intended to be a tax-free stock exchange.

The Company, through its newly acquired subsidiary, will refocus its business as a professional employer organization ("PEO"). AAMPRO provides a broad range of services comprised primarily of employee leasing and human resources management. These services include payroll and benefits administration, health and workers' compensation insurance programs, state and federal labor compliance, tax filings, safety program design and management and other related services to small and medium-sized businesses nationally with a primary concentration in the tri-state (New York/New Jersey/Pennsylvania) marketplace. AAMPRO was organized as a corporation in 1995 and has provided PEO services since inception.

AAMPRO's services are designed to improve the productivity and profitability of small and medium-sized businesses by relieving business owners and key executives of many employer-related administrative and regulatory burdens their enables them to focus on the core competencies of their businesses.

Concurrent with the acquisition, Alan Sporn resigned from the Board of Directors, and Stephen Farkas was appointed to replace him. In addition, on October 17, 2002, Alan Sporn resigned as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and was replaced by Stephen Farkas as CEO and Chairman.

CEO of AAMPRO, Stephen Farkas commented that "We are very excited and poised to begin this new chapter in our company's growth cycle. We now have a platform that enables the company to execute its short term and longer term expansion plans."

Trident Systems International, Inc. CEO Selected By Presidential Business Commission

WHITEHOUSE, NJ, Nov. 07, 2002 (INTERNET WIRE via COMTEX) -- Trident Systems International, Inc. (Company) (OTCBB: TDSY) congratulates its CEO Stephen Farkas on his selection to serve the State of New Jersey on the new Presidential Business Commission.

The PRESIDENTIAL BUSINESS COMMISSION (PBC) is an elite group of leading business and professional people who will be advising the Republican leadership with respect to strategic planning. Mr. Farkas was selected based on his outstanding contribution as an Honorary Chairman of the Party's Business Advisory Council, a position he still holds.

Commenting on Mr. Farkas's selection, Congressman Tom Delay of Texas (Majority Whip) said, "I am grateful to have Mr. Farkas's expertise and personal input as a resource in the 2002 election."

About the Company: The Company, through its newly acquired subsidiary AAMPRO, Inc. ("AAMPRO"), has refocused its business operations as a professional employer organization ("PEO"). AAMPRO provides a broad range of services comprised primarily of employee leasing and human resources management. These services include payroll and benefits administration, health and workers' compensation insurance programs, state and federal labor compliance, tax filings, safety program design and management and other related services to small and medium-sized businesses nationally with a primary concentration in the tri-state (New York/New Jersey/Pennsylvania) region. AAMPRO was organized as a corporation in 1995 and has provided PEO services since inception.

AAMPRO's services are designed to improve the productivity and profitability of small and medium-sized businesses by relieving business owners and key executives of many employer-related administrative and regulatory burdens that enable them to focus on the core competencies of their businesses.

How to avoid liability for a supervisor's sexual harassment by Charlie Morgan, JD, CPCU

The United States Supreme Court issued two rulings in 1998 that greatly clarified the previously murky questions of when employers may be liable for sexual harassment. The Court set a standard of corporate conduct by which employers could protect themselves from employees' harassment claims. Before these decisions, employers were in a quandary as to what steps were required to avoid liability for a supervisor's sexual harassment of an employee. The Supreme Court de-cisions gave the American business community a clear set of guidelines as to what minimum standard of behavior was required to avoid liability for sexual harassment by supervisors

Zero tolerance

Basically, an employer has to demonstrate the existence of an anti-harassment policy that demonstrates zero tolerance for this kind of behavior. This policy has to be endorsed unequivocally by the management of the firm, preferably by some kind of emphatic en-dorsement by the Chief Executive Officer. The policy itself must be widely disseminated throughout the company to assure that all employees are well versed on the elements of the program. A common mechanism to disburse this information is the employee handbook. Employers should have each new hire read the entire handbook, drawing particular attention to the discussion of the sexual harass-ment policy. As a further precaution - to avoid a situation where a future victim or perpetrator of ha-rassing behavior argues that he or she did not know of the policy - have all employees acknowledge in writing that they were specifically trained in this area.

The Supreme Court decisions gave the business community a clear set of guidelines as to what minimum standard of behavior was required to avoid liability for sexual harassment by supervisors.

An additional component of the anti-harassment policy is that the victim of the objectionable behavior would have alternative avenues of redress in the event that the perpetrator was in fact the employee's super-visor. Finally the complainant should be made to feel that there would be no possibility of retaliation on the part of anyone in the company.

Once a company had demonstrated that all of these elements were present, the burden of proof would then shift to the employee to demonstrate why he or she didn't seek help through the established procedures.

Tangible employment action

To avoid liability; employers have to demonstrate the employee suffered no tangible employment action. If a supervisor takes a tangible job action based upon the employee's rejection of unwelcome sexual demand; the employer will automatically be liable - whether or not it had an anti-discrimination policy or the employee sought help under that policy.

To protect themselves from harassment claims, employers should not only establish and-harassment policies and procedures, but also through ongoing training instill in their workforce the awareness that abuse of anyone's supervisory authority win not be tolerated.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidelines that clarified the concept of "tangible" employment action. While a "tangible" job action may seem to be self evident, the concept as pre-sented in the guidelines is actually more complicated than it might first appear. The question is whether the supervisor is attempting personal threats or intimida-tion, or in reality is skillfully employing the authority vested in his or her position by virtue of the job de-scription. In other words, as noted in the guidelines, "a tangible employment action is the means by which the supervisor brings the official power of the enterprise to bear on subordinates." The guidelines offer these examples:

It requires an official act of the enterprise;
It usually is documented in official company records;
It may be subject to review by higher level supervisors; and
It often requires the formal approval of the enterprise and use fo its internal processes.

The EEOC noted that such actions generally result in some kind of economic hardship and they can only be exercised by someone acting with authority vested in them by the employer. To further clarify this issue, the EEOC listed the following examples of what should be considered as tangible employment actions;

Hiring and firing,
Promotion and failure to promote,
Demotion,
Undesirable reassignment,
Compensation decisions, and
Work assignment.

Limits on authority

To protect themselves from harassment claims, em-ployers should not only establish anti-harassment policies and procedures, but also through ongoing training instill in their workforce the awareness that abuse of anyone's supervisory authority will not be tolerated. That is, despite the presence of actual authority be-stowed by the firm by virtue of the supervisory fuction, it must also be well understood by all employees that there are also significant limitations on this power. Finally, employers should emphasize that any hint of abuse of supervisory authority for ulterior motives will be dealt with harshly.

For more information: You can review the EEOC's guidelines, which are posted on its website: www.eeoc.gov/docs/harassment.html.