On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Cutting-Edge Employment Law Issues 2018: The California Difference

Released on: Sep. 20, 2018
Running Time: 06:20:05
This full-day event addresses the issues confronted by employment law advisers, litigators and human resources management and professionals, with particular emphasis on California State law considerations. The program combines a comprehensive review of case law and regulatory developments, an in-depth analysis of emerging issues, and practical guidance about best practices to maximize employment law compliance, mitigate legal risk and achieve business objectives.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:20:05]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks* [00:09:26]
    Laura L. Ho, Timothy J. Long
  • Hot Topics for California Employment Law Practitioners [01:03:15]
    Laura L. Ho, Timothy J. Long
  • Key Wage & Hour and Class Actions Updates [01:00:29]
    Andrew P. Lee, Robert R. Roginson
  • Pay Equity in Law Practice [01:01:30]
    Erin M. Connell, Deborah K. Marcuse
  • #MeToo: Trends in the Courts/Outside Hollywood [01:00:58]
    Caroline P. Donelan, Jessica Stender
  • Top Employment Law Issues for In-House Counsel in California [01:00:45]
    Victoria R. Carradero, Sara E. Dionne, John T. Mullan
  • Ethical Challenges When Your Case Is on the Front Page [01:03:42]
    Ben Hancock, Jason C. Marsili, Robert A. Hawley

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Laura L. Ho, Mengfei Sun, Timothy J. Long and Alex Mitchell, Hot Topics for California Employment Law Practitioners
    Timothy J. Long, Laura L. Ho
  • California Employment Law Update 2018, Key Wage and Hour Developments
    Andrew P. Lee, Robert R. Roginson
  • Suits By Suits: Equal Pay Developments and Implications for Law Firms (June 2018)
    Erin M. Connell
  • Second Amended Class Action, Collective Action, and Individual Complaint, Campbell, et al. v. Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, et al., Civ. No. 1:16-CV-06832 (JPO)(BCM) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2017)
    David Sanford
  • Order re Discovery Disputes, Campbell, et al. v. Chadbourne & Parke LLP, et al., No. 1:16-CV-06832 (JPO)(BCM) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2017)
    David Sanford
  • Order re Document Request No. 40, Campbell, et al. v. Chadbourne & Parke LLP, et al., No. 1:16-CV-06832 (JPO)(BCM) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2017)
    David Sanford
  • Notice of Consent Motion for Approval of Settlement of, and Dismissal of, Plaintiffs’ Equal Pay Act Claims, Campbell, et al. v. Chadbourne & Parke LLP, et al., No. 1:16-CV-06832 (JPO)(BCM) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2018)
    David Sanford
  • First Amended Class and Collective Action Complaint, Knepper, et al. v. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C, et al., No. 3:18-CV-00303-WHO (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2018)
    David Sanford
  • Declaratory Judgement Complaint, Demand for Jury Trial, Knepper, et al. v. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C, et al., No. 3:18-CV-00304 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2018)
    David Sanford
  • Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Knepper, et al. v. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C, et al., No. 3:18-CV-00303-WHO (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2018)
    David Sanford
  • Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Ogletree’s Motion to Transfer Venue, Knepper, et al. v. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C, et al., No. 3:18-CV-00303-WHO (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2018)
    David Sanford
  • Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Knepper, et al. v. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C, et al., No. 3:18-CV-00303-WHO (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2018)
    David Sanford
  • Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Its Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Its Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Knepper, et al. v. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C, et al., No. 3:18-CV-00303-WHO (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2018)
    David Sanford
  • First Amended Complaint, Bertram v. Proskauer Rose LLP, No.1:17-CV-00901-ABJ (D.D.C. Apr. 25, 2018)
    David Sanford
  • Class and Collective Action Complaint, Demand for Jury Trial, Doe, et al. v. Morrison & Foerster, LLP, No. 3:18- CV-02542 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2018)
    David Sanford
  • #MeToo: The Law, Trends in the Courts, Emerging Responses, and Potential Changes on the Horizon (June 22, 2018)
    Caroline P. Donelan, Jessica Stender
  • Timothy J. Long and Annie H. Chen, Top Employment Law Issues for In-House Counsel in California
    Timothy J. Long
  • Victoria R. Carradero and Maggie W. Trinh, Navigating Workplace Drug Policies
    Victoria R. Carradero
  • Microaggression and Microinequities in the Workplace: What Is the Issue and How Is It Best Dealt with? (June 22, 2018)
    Jennifer Schwartz
  • Ethical Challenges When Your Case Is on the Front Page
    Robert A. Hawley

Presentation Material

  • Hot Topics for California Employment Law Practitioners
    Laura L. Ho, Timothy J. Long
  • Key Wage and Hour Developments Affecting California Employers and Employees
    Andrew P. Lee, Robert R. Roginson
  • Pay Equity in Law
    Erin M. Connell, Deborah K. Marcuse
  • #MeToo: Trends in the Courts, Emerging Responses, & Potential Changes on the Horizon
    Caroline P. Donelan, Jessica Stender
  • Top Employment Law Issues for In-House Counsel in California
    Victoria R. Carradero, Sara E. Dionne, John T. Mullan
  • Ethical Challenges When Your Case Is on the Front Page
    Ben Hancock, Robert A. Hawley, Jason C. Marsili
Co-Chair(s)
Laura L. Ho ~ Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho
Timothy J. Long ~ Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Speaker(s)
Victoria R. Carradero ~ Curley, Hurtgen & Johnsrud LLP
Erin M. Connell ~ Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Sara E. Dionne ~ Counsel, Employment Law Department, Sutter Health
Caroline P. Donelan ~ Blank Rome LLP
Ben Hancock ~ Litigation Reporter, The Recorder & Law.com
Robert A. Hawley ~ Former Deputy and Acting Executive Director- State Bar of California,
Andrew P. Lee ~ Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho
Deborah K. Marcuse ~ Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP
Jason C. Marsili ~ Rosen Marsili Rapp LLP
John T. Mullan ~ Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, LLP
Robert R. Roginson ~ Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Jessica Stender ~ Senior Counsel, Workplace Justice & Public Policy, Equal Rights Advocates
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Cutting-Edge Employment Law Issues 2019: The California Difference (San Francisco, CA) Sep. 25, 2019

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Cutting-Edge Employment Law Issues 2018: The California Difference Timothy J. Long, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Laura L. Ho, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho
 
Cutting-Edge Employment Law Issues 2017: The California Difference Timothy J. Long, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Laura L. Ho, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.