California

{"id":11517464972,"title":"Course #337- Supreme Court: Meacham vs Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory - MP3","handle":"course-337-supreme-court-meacham-vs-knolls-atomic-power-laboratory-mp3","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":"2017-08-14T11:22:21-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["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","mp3","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":43660277196,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #337- Supreme Court: Meacham vs Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory - MP3","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_d684a443-e04b-414d-85ea-7f598f25bed6.jpg?v=1502734964"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_d684a443-e04b-414d-85ea-7f598f25bed6.jpg?v=1502734964","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442204192847,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_d684a443-e04b-414d-85ea-7f598f25bed6.jpg?v=1502734964"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_d684a443-e04b-414d-85ea-7f598f25bed6.jpg?v=1502734964","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"}

{"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":11517409356,"title":"Course #338- Chamber Of Commerce V. Brown: Labor Law - MP3","handle":"course-338-chamber-of-commerce-v-brown-labor-law-mp3","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":"2017-08-14T11:12:58-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["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","mp3","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":43659973836,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 338","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #338- Chamber Of Commerce V. Brown: Labor Law - MP3","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_191716e0-09f0-4969-bf75-a8cce104a858.jpg?v=1502734381"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_191716e0-09f0-4969-bf75-a8cce104a858.jpg?v=1502734381","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442203177039,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_191716e0-09f0-4969-bf75-a8cce104a858.jpg?v=1502734381"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_191716e0-09f0-4969-bf75-a8cce104a858.jpg?v=1502734381","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":309733363,"title":"Course #339 - Supreme Court: FL Dept of Rev vs. Piccadilly: Bankruptcy \u0026 Tax Law - CD","handle":"course-339-fl-dept-of-rev-v-piccadilly-bankruptcy-tax-law-1-hour","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 339\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2003, Piccadilly Cafeterias filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition in federal court in Florida asking the bankruptcy court for permission to auction off its assets in order to fund a reorganization plan. Piccadilly sought a tax exemption under 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) which states that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax.\" Florida vehemently opposed this exemption and sought to collect $32,000 in taxes from Piccadilly.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe bankruptcy court, the district court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit all found in favor of Piccadilly, holding that 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) allowed courts to exempt from taxes pre-confirmation asset sales that were essential to the completion of a reorganization plan. In urging the Court to grant certiorari, Florida pointed to both Third and Fourth Circuit decisions holding that such pre-confirmation asset sales were subject to state taxation, while Piccadilly Cafeterias contended that these so-called \"circuit splits\" only involve a small handful of cases and require no resolution by the Court.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoes 11 U.S.C. Section 1146(c), a provision of the Bankruptcy Code stating that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax,\" prohibit states from imposing taxes on pre-confirmation asset sales that are essential to the completion of a reorganization plan?\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 above answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:12:38-07:00","created_at":"2014-06-17T14:12:38-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["bankruptcy-restructuring","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","single-course","supreme-court","tax-law"],"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":43660482700,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 339","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #339 - Supreme Court: FL Dept of Rev vs. Piccadilly: Bankruptcy \u0026 Tax Law - CD","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":0,"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_2a208bc2-825c-4b5b-aa81-b3453c49f931.jpg?v=1502735256"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_2a208bc2-825c-4b5b-aa81-b3453c49f931.jpg?v=1502735256","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":5412683855,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_2a208bc2-825c-4b5b-aa81-b3453c49f931.jpg?v=1502735256"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_2a208bc2-825c-4b5b-aa81-b3453c49f931.jpg?v=1502735256","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 339\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2003, Piccadilly Cafeterias filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition in federal court in Florida asking the bankruptcy court for permission to auction off its assets in order to fund a reorganization plan. Piccadilly sought a tax exemption under 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) which states that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax.\" Florida vehemently opposed this exemption and sought to collect $32,000 in taxes from Piccadilly.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe bankruptcy court, the district court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit all found in favor of Piccadilly, holding that 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) allowed courts to exempt from taxes pre-confirmation asset sales that were essential to the completion of a reorganization plan. In urging the Court to grant certiorari, Florida pointed to both Third and Fourth Circuit decisions holding that such pre-confirmation asset sales were subject to state taxation, while Piccadilly Cafeterias contended that these so-called \"circuit splits\" only involve a small handful of cases and require no resolution by the Court.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoes 11 U.S.C. Section 1146(c), a provision of the Bankruptcy Code stating that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax,\" prohibit states from imposing taxes on pre-confirmation asset sales that are essential to the completion of a reorganization plan?\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 above answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e"}

{"id":11517500300,"title":"Course #339- Supreme Court: FL Dept of Rev vs. Piccadilly: Bankruptcy \u0026 Tax Law - MP3","handle":"course-339-supreme-court-fl-dept-of-rev-vs-piccadilly-bankruptcy-tax-law-mp3","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 339\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2003, Piccadilly Cafeterias filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition in federal court in Florida asking the bankruptcy court for permission to auction off its assets in order to fund a reorganization plan. Piccadilly sought a tax exemption under 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) which states that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax.\" Florida vehemently opposed this exemption and sought to collect $32,000 in taxes from Piccadilly.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe bankruptcy court, the district court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit all found in favor of Piccadilly, holding that 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) allowed courts to exempt from taxes pre-confirmation asset sales that were essential to the completion of a reorganization plan. In urging the Court to grant certiorari, Florida pointed to both Third and Fourth Circuit decisions holding that such pre-confirmation asset sales were subject to state taxation, while Piccadilly Cafeterias contended that these so-called \"circuit splits\" only involve a small handful of cases and require no resolution by the Court.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoes 11 U.S.C. Section 1146(c), a provision of the Bankruptcy Code stating that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax,\" prohibit states from imposing taxes on pre-confirmation asset sales that are essential to the completion of a reorganization plan?\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 above answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:12:38-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T11:28:45-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["bankruptcy-restructuring","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","mp3","single-course","supreme-court","tax-law"],"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":43660539916,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 339","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #339- Supreme Court: FL Dept of Rev vs. Piccadilly: Bankruptcy \u0026 Tax Law - MP3","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_df4f8600-728a-4aaa-98dd-a4ca6e89ce58.jpg?v=1502735328"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_df4f8600-728a-4aaa-98dd-a4ca6e89ce58.jpg?v=1502735328","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442205864015,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_df4f8600-728a-4aaa-98dd-a4ca6e89ce58.jpg?v=1502735328"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_df4f8600-728a-4aaa-98dd-a4ca6e89ce58.jpg?v=1502735328","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 339\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2003, Piccadilly Cafeterias filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition in federal court in Florida asking the bankruptcy court for permission to auction off its assets in order to fund a reorganization plan. Piccadilly sought a tax exemption under 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) which states that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax.\" Florida vehemently opposed this exemption and sought to collect $32,000 in taxes from Piccadilly.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe bankruptcy court, the district court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit all found in favor of Piccadilly, holding that 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) allowed courts to exempt from taxes pre-confirmation asset sales that were essential to the completion of a reorganization plan. In urging the Court to grant certiorari, Florida pointed to both Third and Fourth Circuit decisions holding that such pre-confirmation asset sales were subject to state taxation, while Piccadilly Cafeterias contended that these so-called \"circuit splits\" only involve a small handful of cases and require no resolution by the Court.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoes 11 U.S.C. Section 1146(c), a provision of the Bankruptcy Code stating that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax,\" prohibit states from imposing taxes on pre-confirmation asset sales that are essential to the completion of a reorganization plan?\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 above answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e"}

{"id":413620855,"title":"Course #506- Supreme Court Cases: Labor and Employment Law in Review - webinar","handle":"copy-of-copy-of-course-506-webinar-labor-and-employment-law-in-review-view-at-www-aaroncle-com","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Jayson Javitz, Esq\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 506\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 Supreme Court Cases\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Update of Key Legislation\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. 5 cases of Legislative Promulgation\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\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":"2014-11-26T16:47:00-08:00","created_at":"2014-11-26T16:47:27-08:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"Webinar","tags":["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","webinar"],"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":1000075379,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 506","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #506- Supreme Court Cases: Labor and Employment Law in Review - webinar","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_ab0620ca-10a9-4eba-8d18-f9de08c0acc9.jpg?v=1502320458"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/javitz_ab0620ca-10a9-4eba-8d18-f9de08c0acc9.jpg?v=1502320458","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":10894475343,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.842,"height":600,"width":505,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/javitz_ab0620ca-10a9-4eba-8d18-f9de08c0acc9.jpg?v=1502320458"},"aspect_ratio":0.842,"height":600,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/javitz_ab0620ca-10a9-4eba-8d18-f9de08c0acc9.jpg?v=1502320458","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 506\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 Supreme Court Cases\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Update of Key Legislation\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. 5 cases of Legislative Promulgation\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\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":11487409292,"title":"Course #539- Ethics: Supreme Court Case: ADA, Disabilities and the FEHA, Young vs UPS - CD","handle":"course-539-ethics-supreme-court-case-ada-disabilities-and-the-feha-young-vs-ups-cd","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Jonathan Ellison, JD\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 539\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\u003eHow can law firms and private employers protect themselves against ADA violation lawsuits and the terrible financial consequences that follow? We will show you how to make your ethical consideration practical considerations while avoiding costly left field lawsuits.    \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Ethics and the Americans with Disabilities Act\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Ethics and Reasonable Accommodation Requirements\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Supreme Court Case of Young vs. UPS 12-1226\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnderstand how the Americans with Disabilities and Pregnancy Discrimination Acts are interpreted in Young vs. UPS\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify several ethical dilemmas the Supreme Court Justices must have faced when considering the verdict for this case.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eJonathan Ellison is an attorney in private practice in the Sacramento area with expertise in disabled peoples' rights, elder law, social security, and housing law.\u003c\/em\u003e","published_at":"2015-01-31T13:53:00-08:00","created_at":"2017-08-07T11:16:24-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["advanced","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","ethics","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":43481408268,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"538 CD","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #539- Ethics: Supreme Court Case: ADA, Disabilities and the FEHA, Young vs UPS - 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_5c5ff0cb-94a5-4f4e-a04e-c439202c1575.jpg?v=1502129784"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_5c5ff0cb-94a5-4f4e-a04e-c439202c1575.jpg?v=1502129784","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":436869660751,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_5c5ff0cb-94a5-4f4e-a04e-c439202c1575.jpg?v=1502129784"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_5c5ff0cb-94a5-4f4e-a04e-c439202c1575.jpg?v=1502129784","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Jonathan Ellison, JD\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 539\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\u003eHow can law firms and private employers protect themselves against ADA violation lawsuits and the terrible financial consequences that follow? We will show you how to make your ethical consideration practical considerations while avoiding costly left field lawsuits.    \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Ethics and the Americans with Disabilities Act\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Ethics and Reasonable Accommodation Requirements\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Supreme Court Case of Young vs. UPS 12-1226\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnderstand how the Americans with Disabilities and Pregnancy Discrimination Acts are interpreted in Young vs. UPS\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify several ethical dilemmas the Supreme Court Justices must have faced when considering the verdict for this case.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eJonathan Ellison is an attorney in private practice in the Sacramento area with expertise in disabled peoples' rights, elder law, social security, and housing law.\u003c\/em\u003e"}

{"id":11495329484,"title":"Course #539- Ethics: Supreme Court Case: ADA, Disabilities and the FEHA, Young vs UPS - MP3","handle":"course-539-ethics-supreme-court-case-ada-disabilities-and-the-feha-young-vs-ups-mp3","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Jonathan Ellison, JD\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 539\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\u003eHow can law firms and private employers protect themselves against ADA violation lawsuits and the terrible financial consequences that follow? We will show you how to make your ethical consideration practical considerations while avoiding costly left field lawsuits.    \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Ethics and the Americans with Disabilities Act\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Ethics and Reasonable Accommodation Requirements\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Supreme Court Case of Young vs. UPS 12-1226\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnderstand how the Americans with Disabilities and Pregnancy Discrimination Acts are interpreted in Young vs. UPS\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify several ethical dilemmas the Supreme Court Justices must have faced when considering the verdict for this case.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eJonathan Ellison is an attorney in private practice in the Sacramento area with expertise in disabled peoples' rights, elder law, social security, and housing law.\u003c\/em\u003e","published_at":"2015-01-31T13:53:00-08:00","created_at":"2017-08-09T11:28:49-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["advanced","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","ethics","mp3","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":43533318604,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"539 CD","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #539- Ethics: Supreme Court Case: ADA, Disabilities and the FEHA, Young vs UPS - MP3","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_f2b51ae7-4e01-4499-85f9-78cfb728b24f.jpg?v=1502303329"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_f2b51ae7-4e01-4499-85f9-78cfb728b24f.jpg?v=1502303329","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":438340911183,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_f2b51ae7-4e01-4499-85f9-78cfb728b24f.jpg?v=1502303329"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_f2b51ae7-4e01-4499-85f9-78cfb728b24f.jpg?v=1502303329","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Jonathan Ellison, JD\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 539\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\u003eHow can law firms and private employers protect themselves against ADA violation lawsuits and the terrible financial consequences that follow? We will show you how to make your ethical consideration practical considerations while avoiding costly left field lawsuits.    \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Ethics and the Americans with Disabilities Act\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Ethics and Reasonable Accommodation Requirements\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Supreme Court Case of Young vs. UPS 12-1226\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnderstand how the Americans with Disabilities and Pregnancy Discrimination Acts are interpreted in Young vs. UPS\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify several ethical dilemmas the Supreme Court Justices must have faced when considering the verdict for this case.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eJonathan Ellison is an attorney in private practice in the Sacramento area with expertise in disabled peoples' rights, elder law, social security, and housing law.\u003c\/em\u003e"}

{"id":448560179,"title":"Course #539- Ethics: Supreme Court Case: ADA, Disabilities and the FEHA, Young vs UPS - webinar","handle":"course-539-ethics-supreme-court-case-ada-disabilities-and-the-feha-young-vs-ups","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Jonathan Ellison, JD\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 539\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\u003eHow can law firms and private employers protect themselves against ADA violation lawsuits and the terrible financial consequences that follow? We will show you how to make your ethical consideration practical considerations while avoiding costly left field lawsuits.    \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Ethics and the Americans with Disabilities Act\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Ethics and Reasonable Accommodation Requirements\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Supreme Court Case of Young vs. UPS 12-1226\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnderstand how the Americans with Disabilities and Pregnancy Discrimination Acts are interpreted in Young vs. UPS\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify several ethical dilemmas the Supreme Court Justices must have faced when considering the verdict for this case.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eJonathan Ellison is an attorney in private practice in the Sacramento area with expertise in disabled peoples' rights, elder law, social security, and housing law.\u003c\/em\u003e","published_at":"2015-01-31T13:53:00-08:00","created_at":"2015-01-31T13:53:57-08:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"Webinar","tags":["advanced","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","ethics","single-course","supreme-court","webinar"],"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":1147711863,"title":"aaron cle","option1":"aaron cle","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"538 Series Webinar","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #539- Ethics: Supreme Court Case: ADA, Disabilities and the FEHA, Young vs UPS - webinar - aaron cle","public_title":"aaron cle","options":["aaron cle"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":0,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_bd9343bc-3dbe-4487-aa32-42eff99c6c26.jpg?v=1502129612"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_bd9343bc-3dbe-4487-aa32-42eff99c6c26.jpg?v=1502129612","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":12999196751,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_bd9343bc-3dbe-4487-aa32-42eff99c6c26.jpg?v=1502129612"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_bd9343bc-3dbe-4487-aa32-42eff99c6c26.jpg?v=1502129612","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Jonathan Ellison, JD\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 539\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\u003eHow can law firms and private employers protect themselves against ADA violation lawsuits and the terrible financial consequences that follow? We will show you how to make your ethical consideration practical considerations while avoiding costly left field lawsuits.    \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Ethics and the Americans with Disabilities Act\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Ethics and Reasonable Accommodation Requirements\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Supreme Court Case of Young vs. UPS 12-1226\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnderstand how the Americans with Disabilities and Pregnancy Discrimination Acts are interpreted in Young vs. UPS\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify several ethical dilemmas the Supreme Court Justices must have faced when considering the verdict for this case.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eJonathan Ellison is an attorney in private practice in the Sacramento area with expertise in disabled peoples' rights, elder law, social security, and housing law.\u003c\/em\u003e"}

{"id":11487424396,"title":"Course #540- Ethics: Supreme Court, 1st Amendment \u0026 Conflicts of Interest - CD","handle":"course-540-ethics-supreme-court-1st-amendment-conflicts-of-interest-cd","description":"\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCourse 540\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1 hour MCLE Ethics Credit\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThis course covers the Supreme Court case of Commission on Ethics vs. Carrigan, docket No 10-568. Question: Does the supreme court subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny? \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. The 1st Amendment does not subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. The Nevada Ethics in Government Law is not unconstitutionally overbroad\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Restrictions upon legislators' voting rights are restrictions upon their speech (Justice Alito)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvaluate the oral arguments for Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify several ethical dilemmas the Supreme Court Justices must have faced when considering the verdict for this case\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California, at the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaw Office of Curtis L. Howard JR.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2016-01-19T11:44:00-08:00","created_at":"2017-08-07T11:47:07-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["advanced","cds","constitutional-law","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","ethics","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":43473917388,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #540- Ethics: Supreme Court, 1st Amendment \u0026 Conflicts of Interest - 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\/curtis-howard_86cd71c2-41f7-477e-aa60-de502f2eba9c.png?v=1502131627"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_86cd71c2-41f7-477e-aa60-de502f2eba9c.png?v=1502131627","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":436891091023,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"width":180,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_86cd71c2-41f7-477e-aa60-de502f2eba9c.png?v=1502131627"},"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_86cd71c2-41f7-477e-aa60-de502f2eba9c.png?v=1502131627","width":180}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCourse 540\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1 hour MCLE Ethics Credit\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThis course covers the Supreme Court case of Commission on Ethics vs. Carrigan, docket No 10-568. Question: Does the supreme court subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny? \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. The 1st Amendment does not subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. The Nevada Ethics in Government Law is not unconstitutionally overbroad\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Restrictions upon legislators' voting rights are restrictions upon their speech (Justice Alito)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvaluate the oral arguments for Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify several ethical dilemmas the Supreme Court Justices must have faced when considering the verdict for this case\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California, at the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaw Office of Curtis L. Howard JR.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"id":4409083014,"title":"Course #540- Ethics: Supreme Court, 1st Amendment \u0026 Conflicts of Interest - webinar","handle":"ethics-supreme-court-1st-amendment-conflicts-of-interest","description":"\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCourse 540\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1 hour MCLE Ethics Credit\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThis course covers the Supreme Court case of Commission on Ethics vs. Carrigan, docket No 10-568. Question: Does the supreme court subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny? \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. The 1st Amendment does not subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. The Nevada Ethics in Government Law is not unconstitutionally overbroad\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Restrictions upon legislators' voting rights are restrictions upon their speech (Justice Alito)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvaluate the oral arguments for Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify several ethical dilemmas the Supreme Court Justices must have faced when considering the verdict for this case\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California, at the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaw Office of Curtis L. Howard JR.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2016-01-19T11:44:00-08:00","created_at":"2016-01-19T11:46:45-08:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"Webinar","tags":["advanced","constitutional-law","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","ethics","single-course","supreme-court","webinar"],"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":14354436934,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #540- Ethics: Supreme Court, 1st Amendment \u0026 Conflicts of Interest - webinar","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\/curtis-howard_0e965986-b2a4-46bb-93b6-cca75696dee5.png?v=1502131480"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_0e965986-b2a4-46bb-93b6-cca75696dee5.png?v=1502131480","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":64014680143,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"width":180,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_0e965986-b2a4-46bb-93b6-cca75696dee5.png?v=1502131480"},"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_0e965986-b2a4-46bb-93b6-cca75696dee5.png?v=1502131480","width":180}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCourse 540\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1 hour MCLE Ethics Credit\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThis course covers the Supreme Court case of Commission on Ethics vs. Carrigan, docket No 10-568. Question: Does the supreme court subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny? \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. The 1st Amendment does not subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. The Nevada Ethics in Government Law is not unconstitutionally overbroad\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Restrictions upon legislators' voting rights are restrictions upon their speech (Justice Alito)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvaluate the oral arguments for Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify several ethical dilemmas the Supreme Court Justices must have faced when considering the verdict for this case\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California, at the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaw Office of Curtis L. Howard JR.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"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"}