|
|
 |
|
Viewing report
|
|
|
|
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
ExecSense, June 2010, Minutes: 60
“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” 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 the Fifth Circuit has created a split in the circuits on the issue of whether mixed-motive liability can apply to claims brought under Title VII’s retaliation section after Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (U.S. 2009), given that section does not contain specific mixed-motive provisions.
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 ramifications of this case and employment litigation, Cheryl Johnson-Hartwell (Partner, Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP), and focuses on:
- Everything you need to know in 60 minutes about the impact of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Smith v. Xerox Corp. on the application of mixed-motive liability to Title VII retaliation claims
- Comprehensive discussion of the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Serwatka v. Rockwell Automation, Inc. (2010) and how their decision that all anti-discrimination statutes lacking specific mixed-motive provisions (such as Title VII’s retaliation section) require proof of “but for” liability contrasts to the one reached by the Fifth Circuit
- Perspective on how the Fifth Circuit’s decision may affect whether other circuits find that a jury can weigh trial evidence under a mixed-motive framework for a Title VII retaliation claim (as opposed to a straight Title VII discrimination claim), or if Title VII retaliation claims require proof of “but for” liability pursuant to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (2009)
- 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 employment lawyers are doing for their clients, now and in the future, based on this ruling
Praise for ExecSense Webinars:
'ExecSense Webinars are an enhanced and effective way to immediately understand new legal trends or decisions that impact your practice.' - Robert Orozco, Partner, Meyers Nave
'An expeditious way to obtain authoritative current information and ideas on a subject of interest.' - David Kera, Partner, Oblon Spivak
'Just in time information to improve knowledge of current topics and trends.” - Thomas M. Armstrong, Attorney, Reid and Riege
Customers who bought this item also bought
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)
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 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 Rederford v. U.S. Airways (1st Cir. Dec. 14, 2009) on Employment Lawyers and the Discharge of Employment Discrimination “Claims” in Bankruptcy
The Instant Impact of PSKS, Inc. v. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. (5th Cir. Aug. 17, 2010) on Analysis of Vertical Price Fixing Agreements Under the Rule of Reason Framework
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 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
|
|
|
|
