On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Employment Discrimination Law & Litigation 2017

Released on: Jun. 26, 2017
Running Time: 06:09:18

This program, designed for employment law practitioners and human resources professionals at all levels, brings together prominent practitioners from the management and plaintiffs’ bars, in-house counsel, EEOC representatives and members of the judiciary, to analyze and provide practical guidance on the latest developments in the employment discrimination arena.  In addition to providing critical updates on recent developments in the law, our expert faculty will offer their respective perspectives on addressing potential employment discrimination issues in the workplace proactively, as well as in litigation.

Any attorney or human resources professional who advises or represents employers, employees, labor unions or government, or who has judicial/arbitral/mediator responsibility will benefit from this program.

You will learn:

  • Changes in federal agencies in the wake of the new Presidential administration and how they might affect the advice you give, the strategies you choose, and the settlements you propose
  • Disabilities discrimination and workplace accommodation update
  • Developments in the burgeoning area of retaliation claims in discrimination cases
  • Alternative dispute resolution techniques for all types of discrimination cases
  • Ethical considerations that frequently arise in the course of discrimination cases

This program is designed for attorneys and human resources professionals at all levels who seek an in-depth analysis and discussion of workplace discrimination claims, and the resolution of those claims, both inside and outside of the courtroom.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:09:18]

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

  • Opening Remarks and Introduction* [00:07:17]
    Theodore O. Rogers, Jr., Anne C. Vladeck
  • Employment Discrimination Claims Under a New Presidential Administration [01:01:36]
    Barbara B. Brown, Hon. Denny Chin, James D. Esseks
  • Disabilities Discrimination and Accommodation Update [00:58:58]
    Elizabeth Grossman, Tracy Richelle High, Hon. Cheryl L. Pollak
  • Retaliation Claims [01:00:48]
    Jonathan E. Sokotch, Jill L. Rosenberg, Pearl Zuchlewski
  • ADR in Employment Discrimination Cases [01:01:35]
    Mark E. Brossman, Martin F. Scheinman, Darnley D. Stewart
  • Damages in Discrimination Cases [00:58:28]
    Hon. James C. Francis IV, Kathleen M. McKenna, Debra L. Raskin
  • Ethical Considerations – Knotty Issues in Employment Discrimination Cases [01:00:36]
    Louis P. DiLorenzo, Janis M. Meyer, Susan Ritz

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Barbara B. Brown, Jeffrey Wohl and Carson H. Sullivan, Regulatory and Case Law Developments
    Barbara B. Brown
  • James D. Esseks and Ria Tabacco Mar, Gender Identity Discrimination and Sexual Orientation Discrimination as Sex Discrimination in Federal Law (March 31, 2017)
    James D. Esseks
  • Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D., Employment Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities: Evidence from Matched Pair Testing (September 2016)
    Elizabeth Grossman
  • Tracy Richelle High and Christina Andersen, Issues Arising Out of the Reasonable Accommodation Requirement Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (April 7, 2017)
    Tracy Richelle High
  • Trends in Retaliation Law (March 31, 2017)
    Gena Palumbo, Pearl Zuchlewski, Jill L. Rosenberg
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Employment Context
    Mark E. Brossman
  • Damages in Discrimination Cases
    Debra L. Raskin
  • Some Ethical Dilemmas Presented to Practitioners in Employment Discrimination Cases
    Louis P. DiLorenzo
  • Selected Materials: Ethical Considerations in Joint Representation of Employer and Individual Executives and Employees
    Janis M. Meyer
  • Selected Materials: Settlement Conditioned on Restricting Lawyer’s Practice
    Janis M. Meyer
  • New Protections for Whistleblowers at Non-Profits (April 7, 2017)
    Susan Ritz

Presentation Material


  • Employment Discrimination Claims Under a New Presidential Administration
    Barbara B. Brown, Hon. Denny Chin, James D. Esseks
  • Disabilities Discrimination and Accommodation Update
    Elizabeth Grossman, Tracy Richelle High, Hon. Cheryl L. Pollak
  • Retaliation Claims
    Jill L. Rosenberg, Jonathan E. Sokotch, Pearl Zuchlewski
  • Damages in Discrimination Cases
    Hon. James C. Francis IV, Kathleen M. McKenna, Debra L. Raskin
  • Ethical Considerations - Knotty Issues in Employment Discrimination Cases
    Louis P. DiLorenzo, Janis M. Meyer, Susan Ritz
Co-Chair(s)
Theodore O. Rogers, Jr. ~ Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Anne C. Vladeck ~ Vladeck, Raskin & Clark, P.C.
Speaker(s)
Mark E. Brossman ~ Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
Barbara B. Brown ~ Paul Hastings LLP
Hon. Denny Chin ~ United States Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Louis P. DiLorenzo ~ Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
James D. Esseks ~ Director, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender & HIV Project, ACLU Foundation
Hon. James C. Francis IV ~ United States Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Elizabeth Grossman ~ Director, PAIR & PABSS Programs, Disability Rights New York
Tracy Richelle High ~ Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Kathleen M. McKenna ~ Proskauer Rose LLP
Janis M. Meyer ~ Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
Hon. Cheryl L. Pollak ~ United States Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
Debra L. Raskin ~ Vladeck, Raskin & Clark, P.C.
Susan Ritz ~ Ritz Clark & Ben-Asher LLP
Jill L. Rosenberg ~ Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Martin F. Scheinman ~ Arbitrator/Mediator ,
Jonathan E. Sokotch ~ Vice President, Associate General Counsel GS Employment Law Group, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC
Darnley D. Stewart ~ Outten & Golden LLP
Pearl Zuchlewski ~ Kraus & Zuchlewski LLP
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.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Employment Discrimination Law & Litigation 2018 (New York, NY) Jun. 18, 2018

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Employment Discrimination Law & Litigation 2018  
Employment Discrimination Law & Litigation 2017 Anne C Vladeck, Vladeck, Raskin & Clark, P.C.
Theodore O Rogers, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
 
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.