Site Search
Archived Webinars

The Trump Administration's First 100 Days: In-House Guide to Key Policy & Regulatory Developments

Presentation | Recorded Webinar

 

The Trump Card: Effectively Using Demands for Adequate Assurance of Performance

Presentation | Recorded Webinar

 

The Antitrust Refresher You Might Really Need: Understanding and Managing Risk

 

Presentation | Recorded Webinar

 

Don't Pull That Credit Report So Fast: The New Pitfalls of Employee Background Checks

Presentation | Recorded Webinar

 

Can You Really Anticipate Harm in Commercial Agreements? Drafting Liability-Limiting Clauses

Presentation | Recorded Webinar


Cybersecurity For In-House Counsel: Achieving Compliance (And Beyond) In A Breach-A-Day World

Presentation | Recorded Webinar

 

Anticipating the 2016 Election Results: What Corporate Law Departments Need to Know

Presentation | Recorded Webinar

 

Going, Gone, Global: What In-House Attorneys Need to Know About Immigration Law

Presentation | Recorded Webinar

 

What To Do When The Government Comes Knocking

Presentation | Recorded Webinar

 

Enforcement Actions: The Current Landscape - Tougher, Faster, Smarter

Presentation | Recorded Webinar

 

In-House Economics for 2016: Managing the Supply and Demand for Legal Services in Law Depts.

Presentation | Recorded Webinar

       

Archived Webinars
Wednesday
Jun032015

Recent Supreme Court Decision Acts as a Reminder to Employers about the Perils of Making Unsubstantiated Assumptions about an Individual's Religion

By: Amanda J. MacDonald

On Monday, June 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in its religious discrimination case against Abercrombie & Fitch. The Court found that the retailer may have violated Title VII by refusing to hire a job applicant because she wore a hijab even though the retailer did not have actual knowledge that the job applicant wore the hijab for religious reasons. 

Click to read more ...

Monday
May042015

EEOC Landmark Transgender Discrimination Case to Proceed

By: Anne-Marie Vercruysse Welch

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan issued a decision permitting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") to proceed to trial on a claim of sex stereotyping brought on behalf of a transgendered employee. This decision comes on the heels of the EEOC achieving a $150,000 settlement in its only other transgender discrimination case.

Click to read more ...

Monday
Apr202015

EEOC to Issue Proposed Rule on the Impact of the ADA on Wellness Programs

By: Kristi R. Gauthier

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") continues to scrutinize employer wellness programs and recently filed several lawsuits against employers claiming that certain wellness programs violate Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").  To provide guidance to employers, the EEOC issued proposed rules addressing how the ADA applies to wellness programs that are part of employer sponsored group health plans.  The EEOC's proposed rule will provide much needed guidance to both employers and employees about how wellness programs offered as part of an employer's group health plan can comply with the ADA consistent with provisions governing wellness programs in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA") as amended by the Affordable Care Act.

Click to read more ...

Friday
Apr172015

DOL Issues Much-Anticipated Fiduciary Definition and Conflicts of Interest Rule

By Douglas J. Ellis / Apr 16, 2015

After numerous fits and starts, and some awkward backtracking, the Department of Labor (DOL) proposed its new revised fiduciary definition rule on April 14, 2015. Labor Secretary Thomas Perez stated that the new rule is intended to force advisers and consultants working with retirement plan sponsors, plan participants or other fiduciaries and IRA owners to put their clients' best interest ahead of their personal interest and curb the "corrosive power of fine print and high fees." The proposed rule has the potential to significantly increase the scope of who would qualify as a "fiduciary" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code (Code), and consequently would be subject to the duties and obligations, not to mention the liabilities, of a fiduciary (including being subject to lawsuits) under those laws.

Click to read more ...

Monday
Mar302015

United States Supreme Court Decides Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

By: Nicole M. Paterson

On March 25, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Young v. United Parcel Services, Inc., 575 U.S. ____, (2015). Employers had hoped this decision would clarify whether employees with work related injuries were "similar in their ability or inability to work" for the purposes of determining the accommodation required for a pregnant employee under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act ("PDA"). The PDA requires employers to treat "women affected by pregnancy . . . the same for all employment-related purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work." 42 USC § 2000e(k). However, despite a ruling from the Court, employers are left without a bright-line rule as to whether, and under what circumstances, employers that offer limited light duty to non-pregnant employees must offer the same light duty to pregnant employees.

Click to read more ...

Page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 27 Next 5 Entries »