On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Psychological Issues in the Workplace 2017

Released on: May. 17, 2017
Running Time: 03:26:52

Psychological issues in employment law are unavoidable, fascinating, and often the key to preventing and resolving workplace disputes.  When understood, they help to determine counsels’ day-to-day advice and litigation strategy.   When misunderstood, they exacerbate workplace disputes, divert attention from strategies that resolve conflict, and lead to missteps by employees and employers alike. 

Attorneys and mental health professionals can work together to understand and constructively address psychological issues in the workplace.  With the prevalence of mental disability accommodation requests, concerns regarding potential or actual workplace violence, and emotional distress claims in litigation, doing so has never been more important.  Yet attorneys and mental health professionals struggle too often to communicate effectively.   

This program brings together the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, prominent practitioners from the plaintiffs’ and management bars, psychologists and a psychiatrist to transcend the jargon, identify practical ways of working together, and to describe effective strategies to avoid, pursue and resolve litigation.  They will address in a clear and pragmatic way key legal and ethical issues at the intersection of employment law and psychology.    

You will learn:

  • Update from the EEOC on key mental disability issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act, including reasonable accommodation issues and the undue hardship defense
  • Perspectives from members of the plaintiffs’ bar regarding the pursuit of emotional distress claims in employment litigation, the use and misuse of mental health professionals, and mental disability claims under the ADA and local laws
  • The current state of the debate regarding the presence and assessment of implicit bias in the workplace and courtroom, from performance reviews to jury selection
  • The use, validity and reliability of tests that purport to measure implicit bias
  • Ethical issues that arise when lawyers, mental health professionals and human resources professionals work together to prevent and respond to violence and bullying in the workplace

Special Feature(s)

  • Convenient half-day program format
  • Earn one hour of Ethics credit

In -house employment and labor counsel, outside counsel for employers and employees, human resources executives, and forensic mental health professionals will benefit from this program.

Lecture Topics [Total time 03:26:52]

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


  • Program Introduction* [00:11:11]
    Stephen P. Sonnenberg
  • Mental Disability and Emotional Distress Claims: Views From the EEOC and the Plaintiffs’ Bar [01:14:50]
    Stephen P. Sonnenberg, Edward Hernstadt, Christopher J. Kuczynski, Debra L. Raskin
  • Fact or Fiction – Implicit Bias In The Workplace and Courtroom; Psychological Tests, Screening and Jury Selection [01:00:28]
    Gregory Mitchell, Jill E. Huntley Taylor, Ph.D., Darnley D. Stewart, Neal D. Mollen
  • Ethical Issues and Professional Responsibilities: Preventing and Responding to Workplace Violence and Bullying [01:00:23]
    S. Jeanine Conley, Susan Ritz, George W. Woods, Jr., M.D., F.A.P.A.

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Selected Recent Decisions Regarding Mental Disability Issues
    Alison Lewandoski, Stephen P. Sonnenberg
  • Bouveng v. NYG Capital LLC, 175 F.Supp. 3d 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)
    Edward Hernstadt
  • Bianco v. Flushing Hosp. Med. Ctr., 79 A.D.3d 777 (N.Y. 2010)
    Edward Hernstadt
  • Olsen v. Cty. of Nassau, 615 F.Supp.2d 35 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)
    Edward Hernstadt
  • Phillips v. Bowen, 278 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2002)
    Edward Hernstadt
  • Psychological Issues in the Workplace
    Christopher J. Kuczynski
  • Mental Disability Claims; Mental Examinations and Psychological Testing in the Workplace and the Role of the Treating Therapist and Mental Health Experts During Litigation
    Debra L. Raskin, Yannick A. Grant
  • The Power and the Problems of “Evidence” of Implicit Bias in Employment Discrimination Cases
    Neal D. Mollen, Sarah G. Besnoff
  • An Implicit Bias Primer (February 14, 2017)
    Gregory Mitchell
  • Implicit Bias: Meaning, Measure, Meaningfulness
    Jill E. Huntley Taylor
  • Practical Guidelines for Employers, Littler on Prevention of Violence in the Workplace, §2 (LexisNexis 2016)
    S. Jeanine Conley
  • Psychologically Impaired Attorneys and a Lawyer’s Ethical Responsibilities
    Susan Ritz
  • Cognition and Aging: The Growing Understanding of How Medical Illness Presents with Psychiatric Symptoms
    George W. Woods

Presentation Material


  • Program Introduction
    Stephen P. Sonnenberg
  • Mental Disability and Emotional Distress Claims: Views From the EEOC and the Plaintiffs’ Bar
    Edward Hernstadt, Christopher J. Kuczynski, Debra L. Raskin, Stephen P. Sonnenberg
  • Fact or Fiction – Implicit Bias In the Workplace and Courtroom; Psychological Tests, Screening and Jury Selection
    Gregory Mitchell, Neal D. Mollen, Darnley D. Stewart, Jill E. Huntley Taylor
  • Ethical Issues and Professional Responsibilities: Preventing and Responding to Workplace Violence and Bullying
    S. Jeanine Conley, Susan Ritz, George W. Woods, Jr., M.D., F.A.P.A.
Chairperson(s)
Stephen P. Sonnenberg ~ Paul Hastings LLP
Speaker(s)
S. Jeanine Conley ~ Littler Mendelson P.C.
Edward Hernstadt ~ Hernstadt Atlas PLLC
Christopher J. Kuczynski ~ Assistant Legal Counsel and Director of the ADA/GINA Policy Division, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Gregory Mitchell ~ Joseph Weintraub–Bank of America Distinguished Professor of Law, Thomas F. Bergin Teaching Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Neal D. Mollen ~ Paul Hastings LLP
Debra L. Raskin ~ Vladeck, Raskin & Clark, P.C.
Susan Ritz ~ Ritz Clark & Ben-Asher LLP
Darnley D. Stewart ~ Outten & Golden LLP
Jill E. Huntley Taylor, Ph.D. ~ Director, Dispute Dynamics, Inc.
George W. Woods, Jr., M.D., F.A.P.A. ~ Lecturer, University of California, Berkeley Law School
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.

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

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

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand 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:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

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.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. 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.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.