Audio CDs- Singles

{"id":11487470028,"title":"Course #542- Labor and Employment Law Review: Supreme Court Cases - CD","handle":"course-542-labor-and-employment-law-review-supreme-court-cases-cd","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Jayson Javitz, Esq\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 542\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Update of Key California Supreme Court Cases\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Update of Key Legislation\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Five cases and 1 Legislative Promulgation\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCompare and contrast the different cases mentioned\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnderstand all the parts of the Paid Sick Leave Law and identify which cases involved this legislation\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJayson Javitz is Director and General Counsel of River City Petroleum.\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2015-01-31T13:53:00-08:00","created_at":"2017-08-07T12:01:09-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["cds","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","labor-employment-law","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43480191116,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"538 Series Webinar","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #542- Labor and Employment Law Review: Supreme Court Cases - CD","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/javitz_5836ff74-47eb-4f65-a6a4-c3b1449e624c.jpg?v=1502132470"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/javitz_5836ff74-47eb-4f65-a6a4-c3b1449e624c.jpg?v=1502132470","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":436904329295,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.842,"height":600,"width":505,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/javitz_5836ff74-47eb-4f65-a6a4-c3b1449e624c.jpg?v=1502132470"},"aspect_ratio":0.842,"height":600,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/javitz_5836ff74-47eb-4f65-a6a4-c3b1449e624c.jpg?v=1502132470","width":505}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Jayson Javitz, Esq\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 542\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Update of Key California Supreme Court Cases\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Update of Key Legislation\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Five cases and 1 Legislative Promulgation\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCompare and contrast the different cases mentioned\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnderstand all the parts of the Paid Sick Leave Law and identify which cases involved this legislation\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJayson Javitz is Director and General Counsel of River City Petroleum.\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"id":309732863,"title":"Course #338- Chamber Of Commerce V. Brown: Labor Law - CD","handle":"course-337-meacham-v-knolls-atomic-power-lab-labor-law-1-hour","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 338\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credits\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter the California legislature passed laws prohibiting the use of state funds to \"assist, promote, or deter union organizing,\" a group of California companies brought suit claiming the state laws were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 7. The Act provides that companies' anti-labor speech can only be considered evidence of unfair labor practice if it threatens or coerces workers. The California companies argued that the state laws infringe upon their \"safe harbor\" for anti-labor speech embodied in the Act.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, after entering two panel decisions holding the California law preempted, issued a split en banc opinion holding that it was not. The Second Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion on similar facts. The Court's decision in this case will affect roughly a dozen other states currently considering adopting legislation substantially similar to the California law.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoes the National Labor Relations Act, which states that companies' anti-labor speech can only be considered unfair labor practice if it threatens or coerces workers, preempt state laws prohibiting the use of state funds to \"assist, promote, or deter union organizing,\" even if the public funds are transparently segregated?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:09:48-07:00","created_at":"2014-06-17T14:09:48-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["cds","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","labor-employment-law","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43659852044,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 338","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #338- Chamber Of Commerce V. Brown: Labor Law - CD","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":null,"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_9036de87-ddfd-45d0-99f3-eea57717d6b7.jpg?v=1502734233"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_9036de87-ddfd-45d0-99f3-eea57717d6b7.jpg?v=1502734233","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":5412651087,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_9036de87-ddfd-45d0-99f3-eea57717d6b7.jpg?v=1502734233"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_9036de87-ddfd-45d0-99f3-eea57717d6b7.jpg?v=1502734233","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 338\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credits\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter the California legislature passed laws prohibiting the use of state funds to \"assist, promote, or deter union organizing,\" a group of California companies brought suit claiming the state laws were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 7. The Act provides that companies' anti-labor speech can only be considered evidence of unfair labor practice if it threatens or coerces workers. The California companies argued that the state laws infringe upon their \"safe harbor\" for anti-labor speech embodied in the Act.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, after entering two panel decisions holding the California law preempted, issued a split en banc opinion holding that it was not. The Second Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion on similar facts. The Court's decision in this case will affect roughly a dozen other states currently considering adopting legislation substantially similar to the California law.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoes the National Labor Relations Act, which states that companies' anti-labor speech can only be considered unfair labor practice if it threatens or coerces workers, preempt state laws prohibiting the use of state funds to \"assist, promote, or deter union organizing,\" even if the public funds are transparently segregated?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e"}

{"id":11517461964,"title":"Course #337- Supreme Court: Meacham vs Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory - CD","handle":"course-337-supreme-court-meacham-vs-knolls-atomic-power-laboratory-cd","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 337\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen the New York-based federal research laboratory Knolls Atomic Power Lab instituted a downsizing program, it asked supervisors to rank employees based on three factors: performance, flexibility, and the criticality of their skills, and then to add points for years of service in order to determine who would be dismissed. Of the thirty-one employees who were let go, all but one were over the age of forty. Twenty-six of these dismissed employees filed suit against Knolls for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). A jury found for the employees and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment, relying on its 2005 decision in\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003eto hold that \"an employer is not liable under the ADEA so long as the challenged employment action, in relying on specific non-age factors, constitutes a reasonable means to the employer's legitimate goals.\" On remand, the Second Circuit vacated its previous decision and held that the employees had failed to carry their burden of proving the evaluation system unreasonable. In seeking Supreme Court review, the employees argued that it should be Knolls, not them, who must prove the reasonableness of an action that would otherwise be prohibited.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnder the Supreme Court's decision in \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, must the employer or the employee prove the reasonableness of adverse employment decisions occurring as part of a claim for age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with this answer?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e","published_at":"2017-08-14T11:14:54-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T11:21:57-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["cds","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","labor-employment-law","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43660272460,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #337- Supreme Court: Meacham vs Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory - CD","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_cff337fd-fee5-4878-8b89-9ea2426dbb7b.jpg?v=1502734919"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_cff337fd-fee5-4878-8b89-9ea2426dbb7b.jpg?v=1502734919","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442203963471,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_cff337fd-fee5-4878-8b89-9ea2426dbb7b.jpg?v=1502734919"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_cff337fd-fee5-4878-8b89-9ea2426dbb7b.jpg?v=1502734919","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 337\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen the New York-based federal research laboratory Knolls Atomic Power Lab instituted a downsizing program, it asked supervisors to rank employees based on three factors: performance, flexibility, and the criticality of their skills, and then to add points for years of service in order to determine who would be dismissed. Of the thirty-one employees who were let go, all but one were over the age of forty. Twenty-six of these dismissed employees filed suit against Knolls for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). A jury found for the employees and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment, relying on its 2005 decision in\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003eto hold that \"an employer is not liable under the ADEA so long as the challenged employment action, in relying on specific non-age factors, constitutes a reasonable means to the employer's legitimate goals.\" On remand, the Second Circuit vacated its previous decision and held that the employees had failed to carry their burden of proving the evaluation system unreasonable. In seeking Supreme Court review, the employees argued that it should be Knolls, not them, who must prove the reasonableness of an action that would otherwise be prohibited.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnder the Supreme Court's decision in \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, must the employer or the employee prove the reasonableness of adverse employment decisions occurring as part of a claim for age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with this answer?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e"}