|
|
 |
|
Viewing report
|
|
|
|
The Instant Impact of Rederford v. U.S. Airways (1st Cir. Dec. 14, 2009) on Employment Lawyers and the Discharge of Employment Discrimination “Claims” in Bankruptcy
ExecSense, May 2010, Minutes: 60
“The Instant Impact of Rederford v. U.S. Airways (1st Cir. Dec. 14, 2009) on Employment Lawyers and the Discharge of Employment Discrimination ‘Claims’ in Bankruptcy” is a time efficient way to be in-the-know on the most up to date facts and ramifications of this case and take proactive steps on behalf of current and prospective clients it could impact the most. Take the 60 minutes to view this webinar (on your computer, mobile phone, iPod or printed out) to make sure you have answers ready to key questions you are sure to be asked on the immediate ramifications of this decision by colleagues, clients and other professionals with whom you discuss the case, as courts may now find that equitable claims that can be viably replaced with an alternate remedy involving the right to monetary payment are discharged in bankruptcy as well as traditional monetary claims.
Upon ordering, ExecSense will email you a link to download the webinar for viewing on your computer, mobile media device (iPod/iPhone, Blackberry), or printed out. The downloaded files will include the PowerPoint presentation, audio narration and jpeg images of the slides (for watching on your mobile media device).
The webinar is led by an expert on the effect of bankruptcy on employment discrimination claims, Julie Pace, and focuses on:
- Everything you need to know in 60 minutes about the impact of the First Circuit’s ruling on the discharge of employment discrimination “claims” in bankruptcy
- Perspective on how the First Circuit’s decision may affect the type of employment discrimination claims that are discharged under section 101(5) of the Bankruptcy Code, and specifically the circumstances under which equitable claims should be discharged
- The 10 questions being asked the most by employment lawyers and their clients with respect to how this decision will impact them and what proactive steps they should be taking
- Case studies of what other lawyers are doing for their clients, now and in the future, based on this ruling
Praise for ExecSense Webinars:
“Was first on the scene with an in depth overview of this game changing decision.” - Howard Grubbs, Practice Group Leader, Womble Carlyle
“If it's up to the minute information that you need, go with ExecSense.” - Christopher J. Dow, Hunsucker Goodstein & Nelson
“A good resource for busy lawyers.” - Brett Heinrich, Partner, Meckler Bulger Tilson Marick & Pearson LLP
Customers who bought this item also bought
The Instant Impact of Smith v. Xerox Corp. (5th Cir. Mar. 24, 2010) on Employment Lawyers and the Application of Mixed-Motive Liability to Title VII Retaliation Claims
The Instant Impact of Starr v. Sony BMG Entertainment (2nd Cir. Jan. 13, 2010) on Antitrust Lawyers and the Clarification of Post-Twombly Pleading Standards for Sherman Act Claims
The Instant Impact of Stagi v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (3rd Cir. Aug. 16, 2010) on Disparate Impact Discrimination Litigation and the Use of Statistical Evidence
The Instant Impact of Hatmaker v. Memorial Med. Ctr. on the Level of Protection Applicable to an Employee's "Participation" in a Pre-EEOC Internal Harassment Investigation for Purposes of Title VII's Anti-Retaliation Section
What Labor & Employment Lawyers Need to Know About Ames v. Home Depot (7th Cir. Jan. 6, 2011)
What Labor & Employment Lawyers Need to Know About the Impact of Lopez v. Pacific Maritime
The Instant Impact of Robinson-Smith v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co. (D.C. Cir. Jan. 5, 2010) on Employment Lawyers, Overtime Benefits, and FLSA Administrative Exemptions
The Instant Impact of Medmarc Cas. Ins. Co. v. Avent America, Inc. (7th Cir. July 15, 2010) on Insurance Lawyers and Insurers' Duty to Defend No-Injury Product Liability Lawsuits Under Standard CGL Policies
The Instant Impact of Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Botticella (3rd Cir. July 27, 2010) on the Standard for Granting Preliminary Injunctions Against Employment by a Competitor Due to Potential Disclosure of Trade Secrets
The Instant Impact of Southeast Missouri Hospital v. Bard, Inc. (8th Cir. Aug. 17, 2010) on Potential Antitrust Implications of Medical Supplier Contracts with Group Purchasing Organizations
|
|
|
|
