What Labor & Employment Lawyers Need to Know About the Impact of Lopez v. Pacific Maritime

ExecSense, April 2011, Minutes: 60

“What Labor & Employment Lawyers Need to Know About the Impact of Lopez v. Pacific Maritime” 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, iPad, Kindle 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 a "one strike rule" that permanently eliminates from employment any applicant who tested positive for drug or alcohol use during the pre-employment screening process does not violate disability discrimination law.

Upon ordering, ExecSense will email you a link to download the webinar files for viewing on your computer, mobile phone, iPod, iPad, Kindle 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). Take advantage of your next commute, flight, business trip, lunch, or free hour in your schedule to view this webinar.

The webinar is led by an expert on the ramifications of this case and the use of drug and alcohol tests in pre-employment screenings, Dan Forman (Partner, Carlton DiSante & Freudenberger LLP), and focuses on:
- Everything you need to know in 60 minutes about the impact of the Ninth Circuit’s decision on the legality of disqualifying potential employees based on prior failed drug tests
- Perspective on the impact of the Ninth Circuit’s decision on the use of drug tests during the pre-employment screening process to disqualify potential employees, under what set of circumstances could an applicant disqualified because of a prior failed drug test assert either a claim of intentional or "disparate impact" discrimination, what would constitute evidence of intentional discrimination, what would be considered illegitimate reasons for implementing such a “one strike rule”, what set of facts would provide evidence that a policy disproportionately affected recovered drug addicts, and more
- The 10 questions being asked the most by labor and employment lawyers and their clients with respect to how this decision will impact them and what proactive steps they should be taking right now
- Case studies of what other labor and 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
“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

Customers who bought this item also bought

• What IP Lawyers Need to Know About the Bratz Verdict
• Public Speaking & Presentation Skills for HR Executives
• 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
• Professional Webinar Library Subscription for Lawyers: Labor/Employment/Employee Benefits Law
• ERISA Updates & Best Practices for Lawyers
• What Labor & Employment Lawyers Need to Know About Ames v. Home Depot (7th Cir. Jan. 6, 2011)
• Employment Law Basics & Best Practices for Administrative Executives - Everything You Need to Know to Protect Yourself & Your Company from the 5 Most Common Employment Law Pitfalls
• 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 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
• Instant Impact: What Ricci v. DeStefano Means for Labor & Employment Lawyers, Their Clients and Workplace Discrimination Issues