Podcasts about employment group

In this episode of On Record PR, Jennifer Simpson Carr goes on record with Dena Calo, EVP of Human Resources and Employment Counsel at The Durst Organization, to discuss the transformative impact of transparency, collaboration, and trust in leadership, highlighting Dena's journey from a law firm to an in-house role where these values drive cultural and organizational success. Learn More As Executive Vice President of Human Resources and Employment Counsel at The Durst Organization, Dena Calo spearheads innovative strategies in benefits, recruitment, workplace policies, and leadership training programs, enhancing the company's HR practices. Dena is an author and national speaker with more than 25 years of experience working with real estate executives on leadership development, HR strategy, employment law, and culture. As legal counsel, she fosters positive employee relations, ensures labor and employment compliance, and oversees fair housing. Before joining Durst in 2024, Dena served as Partner and Co-Chair of the Labor and Employment Group at Saul Ewing. Additionally, she spent 20 years as a professor at Holy Family University, teaching employment law to Master's students in Human Resources. Committed to cultivating talent, Dena was on the steering committee of Saul Ewing's Women's Development Initiative, co-chairing the group in her final year at the firm. In 2023, Dena won The Philadelphia Inquirer's award for Best Legal Mentor. Dena received her Juris Doctorate, cum laude, from Widener University School of Law and her Bachelor of Arts from Stockton University.

As part of our new series on artificial intelligence, in the coming months, we explore the key challenges and opportunities in this rapidly evolving landscape. In this episode, our labor and employment lawyers, Mark Goldstein and Carl de Cicco, discuss what employers need to know about the use of AI in the workplace and the key differences between and implications for the UK and the United States. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello, and welcome to Tech Law Talks, a podcast brought to you by Reed Smith's Emerging Technologies group. In each episode of this podcast, we will discuss cutting edge issues on technology, data, and the law. We will provide practical observations on a wide variety of technology and data topics to give you quick and actionable tips to address the issues you are dealing with every day.  Mark: Hi, everyone. Welcome to Tech Law Talks podcast. We're starting a new series on artificial intelligence or AI, where the coming months we'll explore the key challenges and opportunities within the rapidly evolving AI landscape. Today, we will focus on AI in the U.S. and U.K. workplaces. My name is Mark Goldstein. I'm a partner in Reed Smith's Labor and Employment Group, resident in our New York office. And I'm here joined today by my colleague, Carl De Cicco from our London office. And we're going to talk today about some of the U.S. and U.K. Implications for AI as it relates to the workplace. So, Carl, let me kick it over to you. And if you can tell us, you know, from a high level, what do employers in the UK need to know when it comes to AI related issues in the workplace?  Carl: Thank you, Mark. So, yes, my name is Carl. I'm a partner here in the London Employment Group of Reed Smith. And essentially, I think the AI issues to be concerned about in the UK are twofold. The first is how it pertains to day to day activities. And the second is how it relates to kind of management side of things. So look on the type of day-to-day activities point that's hopefully the things that people are starting to see themselves in their own workplace starting to come in so use of particular generative AI programs or models to help generate content and that's obviously increasing the amount of output individuals can have and so on the one hand it's quite good on the other hand thinking about it there might be some issues to look at so for example are people being overly reliant on their AI are they simply putting the request in and whatever is churned out by the AI system is that being submitted as the work product and if so that could be quite concerning because, AI is obviously a very useful tool and is sure to continue improving as time goes on but where we stand right now AI is far from perfect and you can get what are known as hallucinations and this seems to be quite a nice term of art for effectively what are errors so things that are conclusions that are drawn on the basis of information that doesn't exist, or quotations of things that do not exist either. So really, the content that's produced by AI should be seen as something that's collaborative with the worker that's involved in the matter rather than something which AI should be totally responsible for. So see it as a first pass rather than the finished product. You should be checking the product that comes out, not just the things like making sure that sources stack up and the conclusions draw back to the data underneath, but to make sure also that you're not getting to a stage where there might be plagiarization. So AI takes what is available on the internet and that can lead to circumstances where actually somebody somebody's very good work is already out there is simply being reproduced if not word for word substantially that can obviously lead to issues not just for the person who's submitting the work but for the employer who might use that particular piece of generated work for something that they're doing. Other benefits could be things like work allocation so one of the issues that people look at in the DEI space is our opportunities for work being fairly and equally distributed, people getting enough of a looking at work, both in terms of amount and quality. And obviously, if you have a programme which is blind to who the work is going to, there's potential for that work to be more fairly distributed so that those who don't often get the opportunity to work on particular matters are actually finding themselves onto the kind of work they weren't previously dealing with and they would like to be able to get and experience of. Now, that's the positive side of it. The potential negative there is that there might be some bias in the AI that underpins that resourcing program. So, for example, it might not pick all the individuals who are less occupied than others in a way which a business might have in a view to what's coming up over the next week or two. It might not even pick up quite how the quality of work should be viewed through all particular lenses. It might have a particular skew on how quality of work is viewed. And that could lead perhaps to an individual being even more pigeonholed than before. So all of these things are potentially positive but need to be underpinned by essentially a second human checker so whilst there are many many positives it shouldn't be seen as a panacea. So well how's that holding up for what you're seeing in the states particularly new york?  Mark: I think that that's absolutely right Carl similar principles apply here in the US i think it's by way of background to go through kind of where I've seen AI kind of infiltrate the workplace, if you will. And I'll distinguish between AI, traditional AI, and then generative AI. So I've seen, you know, we've seen AI be used by employers in the U.S. and a whole host of fronts from headhunting, screening job applicants, running background checks, inducting job interviews coming up with a slate of questions. Also to things like performance management for employees and even selection criteria and deciding which employees to select for a reduction in force or mass layoff. I've also seen employers use AI in the context of simple administrative tasks like guiding employees to policy documents or benefits materials and then creating employee and workplace-related agreements and implementing document retention and creation policies and protocols. In terms of generative AI, which is more, as you noted, on the content creation front, I've certainly seen that by employees being used to translate messages or documents. And to perform certain other tasks, including creating responses from manager inquiries to more substantive documents. But as you rightly note, just as in the UK, there are a number of potential pitfalls in the US. The first is that there's a risk, as you noted, of AI plagiarizing or using a third party's intellectual property, especially if the generative AI is going to be used in a document that's going to be outward facing or external, you run substantial risk. So absolutely review and auditing any materials that are created by generative AI, among other things, to ensure that there's no plagiarism or copying, especially when, again, that material is going externally, is incredibly important. Simply reviewing the content as well, just beyond plagiarism, simply to ensure general accuracy. There was a story out of, you know, New York Federal Court last summer about an attorney who had ChatGPT help write a legal brief and asked ChatGPT to, you know, run some legal research and find some cases. And ultimately, the case sites that were provided were fictional, were not actual cases that had truly been decided. So a good reminder that, as Carl said, while generative AI can be useful, it is not, you know, an absolute panacea and needs to be reviewed and conducted, you know, reviewed thoroughly. And then, you know, similarly, you run a risk if employees are using certain generative AI platforms that the employee may be disclosing confidential company information or intellectual property on that third party platform. So we want to make sure that, you know, even when generative AI is used, that employees are doing so within the appropriate confines of company policy and their agreements, of course, things like confidential information and trade secrets and intellectual property. You know, so I think it's important that employers, you know, look to adopt some sort of AI and generative AI policy so that employees know what the expectations are in terms of, you know, what they can and equally, if not more importantly, what they cannot do in the workplace as it relates to AI and generative AI. And certainly we've been helping our clients put together those sorts of policies so employees can understand the expectations. Carl you know we talked we've talked so far kind of generally about you know implications for the workplace is there any specific legislation or regulations from the UK side of things that you all have been monitoring or that have come out?  Carl: The approach of the UK government to date has been to not legislate in this area in a in what I think is an attempt to achieve a balance between regulation and growth the plan I think so far has been to to at some point introduce a voluntary self-regulatory scheme, which bodies sign up to. But we're recording this in June 2024, less than one month away from a UK general election. So matters of AI regulation and legislation are currently on the back burner, not to be revived perhaps for at least another two to three months. But what we can, there is still, of course, a lot of interest in this area. And the UK TUC, which is a federation of trade unions in the UK, has published sort of a framework proposal for what the law might look like. This is far from being a legislation and obviously many hurdles to pass before this might even come before Parliament and whether or not if it is passed, put before Parliament, whether it's approved by all there. But this looks at things very similar to what the EU are looking at, that is to the risks-based approach to legislation in this area. And they draw a distinction between regular decision-making and what they call high-risk decision-making. And the high-risk decision-making is really shorthand for decisions which might affect the employment of an individual, whether that's recruitment. Whether it's a decision, disciplinary decisions, termination decision. Essentially all the major employment related decisions are to go through essentially a system of checking so you couldn't rely purely for example in the framework on a decision made purely by AI. It'd be required that an individual sits alongside that or at least only uses the AI tangentially to decision that they're making. Things like no emotion recognition software would be allowed so that's for example if you were to have a disciplinary hearing and that's to be recorded you could use software which is designed to pick up on things like inflection word pattern things that might infer a particular motive or meaning behind what's been said and what this framework proposal does is say that kind of material could have that kind of software or programming couldn't be used in that kind of setting. So what happens in the UK remains to be seen but i think you guys are a bit further ahead than us and actually have some law and statute. How are things working out for you?  Mark: We've seen a lot of government agencies, as well as state legislatures, put an emphasis on this issue in terms of potential regulatory guidance or proposed legislation. To date, there has not been a huge amount of legislation passed specifically relating to AI in the workplace. We're still at the phase where most jurisdictions are still considering legislation. That said, there was an extremely broad law passed by New York City a few years ago, which finally went into effect last July. And in a nutshell, we can have an entirely separate podcast just on the nuances of the New York City law. But essentially what the New York City law does is it stops employers or bars employers from using an automated employment decision tool or an AEDT to screen job candidates when making employment decisions unless three criteria have been satisfied. First, the tool has been subjected to an independent bias audit within the year prior to the use. A summary of the most recent bias audit results are posted on the employer's website, and the employer has provided prior written notice regarding use of the AEDT to any job applicants and employees who will be subject to screening by it. If any one or more of these three criteria aren't satisfied, then an employer's use of that AEDT with respect to any employment decisions would violate the New York City Human Rights Law, which is one of the most employee-friendly anti-discrimination statutes in America. And other jurisdictions have used the New York City law as somewhat of a model for potential of the legislation. We've also seen the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the EEOC weigh in and issue some guidance, though not binding necessarily strongly cautions employers with regards to the use of AI and the potential for disparate impact on certain protected classes of job applicants and employees, and generally cautioning and recommending that employers conduct periodic audits of their tools to ensure no bias occurs. Carl, do you have any final thoughts?  Carl: So whilst we're still a long way from legislation in the UK, there are things employers can be thinking about and doing now to prepare themselves for I think what will inevitably be coming down the road. So just a few suggestions on that front. Establish an AI committee. So take ownership of how AI is used in the business, whether that's in the performance of day-to-day tasks and content generation and such. As Mark said earlier on, setting up things like what can be done what checks should be carried out ensuring that there is a level of quality control and also in terms of decision making ensuring that there is a policy that employers can look to to make sure that they are not going to one fall foul of something in the act and also have something so that if any decisions are challenged in future not just can they look back on the measures they've taken but show that it's consistent with a policy that they've adopted and applied on an equal basis for all individuals going through any particular process may give rise to complaints. And they might also, for example, conduct a risk assessment and audit of their systems. I mean, one of the things that will be key is not just saying that I had AI and that was used in a particular process, but knowing how that AI actually worked and how it filtered or made decisions that it did. So, for example, if you want to be able to guard against an allegation of bias, it would be good to have a good understanding of how the AI system in question that gave rise to decision that's in dispute had made its determination as over one individual than the other that will help the employer to be able to demonstrate first of all that they are an equal opportunities employer in the event of real challenge the discrimination didn't occur, so look those kind of things are things employers can be thinking about and doing. Now what kind of things do you think people on your side of the pond might be thinking about?  Mark: Yeah so I think you know similar similar considerations for U.S. employers. I think among them, considering the pros and cons, if you're going to use an AI tool, building your own, which some employers have opted for versus purchasing from a third party. If purchasing from a third party, particularly given the EEOC and other agencies' stated interest in scrutinizing how tools potentially might create some sort of discriminatory impact, consider including an indemnification provision in any contracts that you're negotiating. And in jurisdictions like New York City, where you're required to conduct an annual audit, but even outside New York City, especially given that it's been recommended by the EEOC, consider periodic auditing of any employee and company AI use to ensure, for instance, that tools aren't skewing a paper of or against a particular protected class during the hiring process. And again, I strongly recommend developing and adopting some sort of workplace AI and generative AI policy. Thank you all for your time today. We greatly appreciate it. Thank you, Carl. And stay tuned for the next installment in this series.  Outro: Tech Law Talks is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. For more information about Reed Smith's Emerging Technologies practice, please email techlawtalks@reedsmith.com. You can find our podcasts on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, reedsmith.com, and our social media accounts.  Disclaimer: This podcast is provided for educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to suggest or establish standards of care applicable to particular lawyers in any given situation. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any views, opinions, or comments made by any external guest speaker are not to be attributed to Reed Smith LLP or its individual lawyers.  All rights reserved. Transcript is auto-generated.

Listen in as your host Just Nate talks with Peter Hancock, the President and Founder of Professional Employment Group (PEG) of Colorado. Professional Employment Group of Colorado is a regional recruiting company with a national presents from coast to coast. Its full recruiting and support staff site on sight in Denver and Colorado Springs. They specialize in providing talent to the private and public sector in the IT, engineering, stilled trades, sciences and professional service industries. They are a DBE (disadvantage business enterprise) and SBE (small business enterprise) certified company. They are honored to be part of this community and podcast. To find out more about the Peter and PEG, please check them out here: https://pegrecruiting.com/ To find out more about the Smalls or become a member, please check us out at ⁠www.thesmalls.org⁠ To contact Just Nate:  ⁠justnate@thesmalls.org⁠  — Send in a voice message: ⁠https://anchor.fm/thesmalls/message⁠ Support this podcast: ⁠https://anchor.fm/thesmalls/support⁠ ⁠www.patreon.com/thesmalls --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thesmalls/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thesmalls/support

In this episode of S&C's Critical Insights, Annie Ostrager, Co-Head of S&C's Labor & Employment Group, and Jeannette Bander, a partner in S&C's Executive Compensation Group, provide an update on the FTC's final rule containing a sweeping ban on non-compete agreements.

In this episode of S&C's Critical Insights, Annie Ostrager, Co-Head of S&C's Labor & Employment Group, and Jeannette Bander, a partner in S&C's Executive Compensation Group, discussed non-compete agreements and the evolving nature of their enforceability, including developments at the federal and state level.

In this episode of S&C's Critical Insights, Annie Ostrager, Co-Head of S&C's Labor & Employment Group, and Kamil Shields, a partner in S&C's Litigation Group, discussed recent developments in whistleblower enforcement investigations and new whistleblower programs. Annie and Kamil cover the increase in enforcement actions and investigations into employment and other agreements that the SEC and other regulators view as potentially impeding, preventing or discouraging whistleblower activity. They also discuss new programs aimed at further incentivizing whistleblower reporting to the government, such as the Whistleblower Pilot Program created by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.

If you thought 2023 was filled with constant change in federal and state laws and that new compliance and federal and state rules and regulations were fast and furious, then you better buckle up as 2024 has arrived.In this episode, host CMA's David Ciullo discusses with attorney James Reidy, Co-Chair of the Labor and Employment Group at Sheehan Phinney, 10 Things that Keep HR Professionals Awake at Night 2024.These include new OT exemptions, implementation of state paid leave policies, managing remote and out-of-state workers, retaliation claims, increased risk of Data Breaches, and much more!

There have been substantial changes to immigration law in Ireland in recent months, with huge progress being made and with many employers being very actively interested in this area of employment law. But with critical skills, salary requirements, eligibility, naturalisation, rules and procedures, and much more, there is a lot for HR teams and organisations to get their heads around. But to help us do that today, we're delighted to be joined by Cian Moriarty, Partner in the Employment Group at Phillip Lee Solicitors.   About The HR Room Podcast The HR Room Podcast is a series from Insight HR where we talk to business leaders from around Ireland and share advice on how to create the HR systems and workplace culture that's right for your business. If you need any HR support in Ireland, get in touch with us at Insight HR. Whether it's conducting a complex workplace investigation, filling a gap by providing you with a virtual or an onsite HR resource, or providing advice via our HR support line, as an expert HR consultancy in Ireland, we'll help you resolve whatever Human Resources challenge your business is facing. Visit us at www.InsightHR.ie.

In this episode of S&C's Critical Insights, Julie Jordan, Tracy Richelle High and Annie Ostrager, Co-Heads of S&C's Labor and Employment Group, discuss the Supreme Court's decision in two consolidated cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The Court held that the schools' admissions programs—both of which used race as an explicit factor in admissions decisions—violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in education.   Julie, Tracy and Annie examine pending employment and contracting cases that may be affected by the Court's decision, cover related shareholder proposals and offer guidance for employers, including reviewing hiring and promotion processes and procedures to examine whether any decisions are expressly based on race, gender or other protected classes. 

In this episode of S&C's Critical Insights, Annie Ostrager and Tracy Richelle High, Co-Heads of S&C's Labor & Employment Group, discuss the Supreme Court's June 16 decision in United States ex. rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources and implications for qui tam whistleblowers.   The False Claims Act (FCA) authorizes qui tam actions by private parties, called “relators,” who sue on behalf of the United States. The government may intervene and take over litigating the case during the “seal period”—the window at the outset of the action during which the case is sealed. If the government chooses not to intervene, the relator litigates the action. But the government has a right to intervene later for “good cause.” In Polansky, the government chose not to intervene during the seal period, but years later, moved to dismiss the case. The relator argued that the government could not do so because it had not intervened during the seal period. The government responded that it could move to dismiss without intervening at all. The Supreme Court adopted neither position. Instead, it held that the government may move to dismiss over a relator's objection an FCA action so long as it moved to intervene at some point. Annie and Tracy note that the qui tam provision of the FCA remains a powerful tool for prosecutors to encourage whistleblowers to come forward.  But a relator's path to success may seem more uncertain after the Court's decision.

In this episode of S&C's Critical Insights, Annie Ostrager and Tracy Richelle High, Co-Heads of S&C's Labor & Employment Group, discuss recent developments in the Securities and Exchange Commission's whistleblowing program.  The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as modified by the Dodd-Frank Act, provides protections and incentives for whistleblowers who report potential violations of the securities laws. Dodd-Frank also incentivizes potential informants to come forward by authorizing the SEC to grant awards to whistleblowers. Annie and Tracy discuss two recent amendments by the SEC to its whistleblower program that appear to reflect the agency's readiness to grant more and larger awards. One authorizes the SEC to make awards for related, non-SEC actions, even if they may be more directly connected to other agencies. The second gives the SEC discretion to grant a larger award in appropriate circumstances. They also discuss two cases recently brought by whistleblowers against the SEC in the Third and Fifth Circuits involving the agency's denials of whistleblower awards. 

In this episode, we discuss the recent US Supreme Court ruling in the Students for Fair Admissions Inc.'s lawsuits against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, which challenged the constitutionality of their race conscious admission policies. We'll consider the potential implications across multiple settings, from university admissions policies, to workplace and other DEI programs. Bill Rhodes, a Partner in Ballard Spahr's Public Finance Group and Leader of the firm's Education Industry Team, hosts the discussion. Bill is joined by Brian Pedrow, a Partner in our Labor and Employment Group, and Co-Leader of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Counseling Team; Dee Spagnuolo, a Partner in our White Collar Defense and Internal Investigations Group, and Co-Leader of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Counseling Team; and Elizabeth Wingfield, an Associate in our Litigation Department.

Employers and employees – how much privacy is there in the workplace? Episode 130 explores this question in the United States. What's an employee's reasonable expectation of privacy while working? How do federal and state laws limit employer surveillance of employee activity? What limits are there to an employer's monitoring of employee use of company time and property? Employees use company-provided computers, phones, and other property for a variety of personal purposes, often injecting personal information through a company's IT system. What should employers and employees do about this? And what about departing and former employees – to what extent can or should an employer monitor a departing employee's data streams or keep a former employee's personal information? Annee Duprey, a partner in the Labor & Employment Group of Frost Brown Todd LLP in its Columbus office, and Seth Granda, a senior associate in the firm's Nashville, Tennessee office, tour this complicated and challenging terrain and offer top tips to both employers and employees. Time stamps: 01:20 — What is a reasonable expectation for employee privacy in the US workplace? 08:18 — Are there limits to what kind of monitoring employers can conduct on their employees? 14:35 — What limitations are there for employees on what they can do with company-provided devices? 20:15 — Top tips for employees and employers?

The Employment Law Counselor hosted by Jeff Stewart is launching the first episode of its new season in collaboration with Professional Liability Underwriting Society. In this episode, Partner Jeff Stewart is joined by Jim Anelli, Partner and Chair of the Labor and Employment Group at White and Williams, for a conversation diving into how companies can avoid liability in layoff situations.

With one Republican Commissioner dissenting, the FTC has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would ban non-compete agreements between employers and workers nationwide, both prospectively and retroactively. If finalized, the proposal would impact nearly all nonbanks in the consumer financial services industry. We first review the practices that the proposal would prohibit, the types of employers and categories of workers it covers, and the types of agreements it covers, including the proposal's narrow exceptions. We then discuss the current state law approach to non-compete agreements, existing protections for trade secrets and confidential information, likely policy and legal challenges to the FTC's proposed exercise of rulemaking authority, and alternative approaches proposed by the FTC. We conclude with a discussion of steps employers should consider taking to be prepared if the FTC finalizes the proposal. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the conversation, joined by David Fryman, a Partner in the firm's Labor and Employment Group, and Karli Lubin, an Associate in the Labor and Employment Group.

We first discuss the multiple benefits of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) for financial institutions, the challenges and opportunities institutions face in implementing a DEI strategy, and how DEI applies beyond an institution's workforce. We then consider the risk of discrimination claims arising from DEI programs and the role of legal counsel in the development and implementation of DEI strategies. We also discuss diversity self-assessments and the role of Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion and the potential impact on DEI programs of a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that the higher education affirmative action programs at issue in the cases pending before it are unlawful. We conclude by looking at the characteristics of a successful DEI program. Dee Spagnuolo, a partner in Ballard Spahr's White Collar Group moderates the discussion, joined by Brian Pedrow, a partner in the firm's Labor and Employment Group. Dee and Brian are co-leaders of the firm's DEI Counseling Team.

Jeff Stewart is joined by Jim Anelli, Partner and Chair of the firm's Labor and Employment Group. Jeff and Jim discuss the misclassification of employees and address questions employers may have about exempt and non-exempt employees.

This is the second episode of our series on “Commercial Businesses New to Government Contracting.” In this episode, Nichole Atallah and Sarah Nash, partners in PilieroMazza‘s Labor & Employment Group, cover labor and employment issues unique to government contractors. Disclaimer: This communication does not provide legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship with you or any other listener. If you require legal guidance in any specific situation, you should engage a qualified lawyer for that purpose. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney Advertising: It is possible that under the laws, rules, or regulations of certain jurisdictions, this may be construed as an advertisement or solicitation.

Meet Ryan Festerling, President of QPS Employment Group.Hear his lessons and leadership insights.  He went from being a VP in a very large organization (Kohls) to being the President of a (relatively smaller) one, QPS Employment Group:What were you most excited about, and what were you most anxious about?What was the biggest surprise you've encountered as a leader? What's something you can't go a day without doing? What is the most important personality trait required to be successful at your job?What have you learned about people and organizations in your new role (i.e., best practices or pitfalls to avoid)?        

The Labor and Employment Group at White and Williams is pleased to introduce our new podcast, The Employment Law Counselor. Listen to our trailer and subscribe to this podcast so you never miss an episode!

In this episode, JoDee and Susan discuss religious accommodations and religious exemptions for vaccine mandates with Kayla Ernst, an Associate in Ice Miller's Labor and Employment Group. Topics include employers' obligations when it comes to religious accommodations, examples of accommodations employees might seek, and how to address requests for religious exemptions from mandatory vaccine policies. Visit www.getjoypowered.com/show-notes-episode-131-workplace-religious-accommodations-in-the-age-of-covid-19-shrm-credit/ for full show notes and links. This episode offers 0.25 hour of SHRM recertification credit. To get SHRM credit for listening to this episode, fill out the evaluation here: www.getjoypowered.com/shrm Follow us on social media: Instagram | LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter Sign up for our email newsletter at www.getjoypowered.com/newsletter 

Owner and President of Professional Employment Group discusses job openings today, how Covid has changed the employment process, changes from employers, and much more. Visit: https://www.pegstaff.com/

Mark Roberts is CEO of TechServe Alliance, the national trade association serving IT and engineering staffing and solutions firms. Roberts is a noted authority and spokesperson on industry trends. Under his leadership since 2003, the organization has expanded significantly moving beyond traditional association offerings creating multiple innovative programs designed to drive member firm growth and profitability. From its unique member-owned insurance program, account executive and recruiter certification, Excellence Awards, to contract and compliance assistance hotline and sales and recruiter management programs, Roberts has led the organization through its transformation. Before joining TechServe Alliance, Mr. Roberts was a partner in the Labor and Employment Group of a major law firm and served four years on Capitol Hill. He earned his undergraduate degree from Haverford College and his law degree with distinction from Emory University. Mr. Roberts currently serves as a member of the Labor Relations Committee of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He has been repeatedly named to the Staffing Industry 100 List and is a member of the Hall of Fame. Topics: Mark's journey into the IT staffing industry and Techserve's leadership. What staffing firms can do to address the talent gap and mitigate risks associated with it. The importance of partnerships to grow and scale your staffing firm. The impact of remote work on talent diversity. Considerations when looking to implement an offshoring and nearshoring strategy.

With the perfect storm of return to work plans, holiday uncertainty, fatigue and self-isolating putting tremendous pressure on businesses, Emma O'Connor from Boyes Turner's Employment Group asks Geraldine Joaquim of Mind Your Business how businesses can support their workforces' mental health.

With the perfect storm of return to work plans, holiday uncertainty, fatigue and self-isolating putting tremendous pressure on businesses, Emma O'Connor from Boyes Turner's Employment Group asks Geraldine Joaquim of Mind Your Business how businesses can support their workforces' mental health.

In this episode, JoDee and Susan discuss employment litigation with Kayla Ernst, an attorney in Ice Miller's Labor and Employment Group. Topics include an overview of the litigation process, what makes litigation burdensome on employers, and steps employers can take to avoid litigation. Visit www.getjoypowered.com/show-notes-episode-119-employment-litigation-lessons-learned-shrm-credit/ for full show notes and links. This episode offers 0.25 hour of SHRM recertification credit. To get SHRM credit for listening to this episode, fill out the evaluation here: www.getjoypowered.com/shrm This episode's sponsors: The JoyPowered® Shop www.getjoypowered.com/shop The JoyPowered® Leadership Program www.purpleinkllc.com/joypoweredleadership Follow us on social media: Instagram | LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter Sign up for our email newsletter at www.getjoypowered.com/newsletter  

Tune in to hear about who qualifies for unemployment during a disaster, the unemployment application process, and how to appeal if your client is denied rightfully owed benefits. Guest Speakers: Dave Mausch and Katy Youker from the Labor and Employment Group at Texas RioGrande Legal Aid. Visit our website at https://texasdisasterlegalhelp.org/Music Credit: Track: Travel With Us — Vendredi [Audio Library Release] Music provided by Audio Library PlusWatch: https://youtu.be/o-rpKzt4KSY Free Download / Stream: https://alplus.io/travel-us

Jeremy Hart, an attorney in BakerHostetler's Labor and Employment Group, discusses what employers need to know about the National Labor Relations Board's expanded view of protected concerted activity. How does the NLRB's current leadership view protected concerted activity as compared to their predecessors under the Trump administration? He will break down what this all may lead to for employers.   Questions and Comments: jhart@bakerlaw.com

In this episode, JoDee and Susan discuss the challenges employers are facing today with Domenique Camacho Moran, Head of the Labor and Employment Group at Farrell Fritz, P.C. Topics include the biggest challenges companies need to consider for 2021, the most important lessons learned in 2020, and resetting your performance appraisal process. Visit www.getjoypowered.com/show-notes-episode-113-navigating-the-post-covid-workplace/ for full show notes and links.

Jeremy Hart an attorney in BakerHostetler's Labor and Employment Group, discuss the top five NLRB decisions on the chopping block that are expected with the Biden Administration and potential consequences of the National Labor Relations Board's change in direction. He will break down what this all may lead to for employers. Questions and Comments: jhart@bakerlaw.com

Peter Fischer and Christian White, two attorneys in BakerHostetler's Labor and Employment Group, discuss the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, commonly referred to as the “PRO Act,” and discuss how the most transformative labor law reform legislation in decades would reshape the American workplace.   Questions and Comments: crwhite@bakerlaw.com and pfischer@bakerlaw.com

Now that the COVID-19 vaccination rollout is underway, employers are beginning to plan for their employees to return to the workplace. In the inaugural episode of Choate's Litigation Updates podcast series, Joan Lukey, chair of Choate's Complex Trial and Appellate Group, and Alison Reif, chair of Choate's Labor and Employment Group, discuss the interplay between vaccinations and the decision to either require or allow employees to return as well as potential litigation risks associated with the return to the workplace.

Coronavirus and Beyond - Health and Safety Issues Part II Listen to Emma O'Connor as she talks to Ian Clements from Quadriga Health and Safety and asks: health and safety obligations in coronavirus times - what are employer's obligations?

Listen to Emma O'Connor as she talks to Ian Clements from Quadriga Health and Safety and asks: health and safety obligations in coronavirus times - what are employer's obligations?

In this episode of S&C's Critical Insights, Litigation partners Judd Littleton and Julia Malkina are joined by Julie Jordan and Annie Ostrager, co-heads of the Firm's Labor and Employment Group, in a continuation of S&C's Supreme Court Business Review podcast series.   Julie and Annie discuss two recent employment law developments at the Supreme Court. First, they review the much-awaited decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a case holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Next, they explore Comcast v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, a decision determining the causation standard for race discrimination claims under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Julie and Annie share their insights on the implications of these decisions for businesses and employment law practitioners. 

Just how much impact is the global pandemic having on foreign national workers and business immigration? Matt Hoyt addresses this question and gives us a breakdown of which foreign national workers are most at risk and how companies can prepare for possible slowdowns in application processing. Matt is a partner in BakerHostetler's Labor and Employment Group and leads our Immigration practice. Questions & Comments: mhoyt@bakerlaw.com

As current lockdown measures ease and employers seek to return employees to the workplace, what health and safety and insurance issues should be considered? Emma O'Connor, Head of Training in the Employment Group, discusses health and safety obligations with Ian Clements Managing Director of Quadriga H&S.

As current lockdown measures ease and employers seek to return employees to the workplace, what health and safety and insurance issues should be considered? Emma O'Connor, Head of Training in the Employment Group, discusses health and safety obligations with Ian Clements Managing Director of Quadriga H&S.

In the first of our series of podcasts, Emma O'Connor from the Employment Group at Boyes Turner LLP, looks at how can employers support its business and staff during these “unprecedented” times? Emma, looks at advice not just from government departments but also from ACAS as well as focusing on issues and advice the Group are giving to their own clients. The key themes of the discussion are around being vigilant, prepared as well as flexible (as we can be), in these ever changing times. The podcast is recorded based on advice as at 17 March 2020 (at 3.00pm). Whilst every business is different and each situation will require its own advice or steps to be taken, there are some practical steps each employer can take to support both their people and business.

In the first of our series of podcasts, Emma O'Connor from the Employment Group at Boyes Turner LLP, looks at how can employers support its business and staff during these “unprecedented” times? Emma, looks at advice not just from government departments but also from ACAS as well as focusing on issues and advice the Group are giving to their own clients. The key themes of the discussion are around being vigilant, prepared as well as flexible (as we can be), in these ever changing times. The podcast is recorded based on advice as at 17 March 2020 (at 3.00pm). Whilst every business is different and each situation will require its own advice or steps to be taken, there are some practical steps each employer can take to support both their people and business.

Cambridge Women in Law (CWIL) is an exciting new social network of alumnae at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, which features a diverse range of women from all sectors. CWIL was officially launched on 27 September with an event to mark the centenary of the passing of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919, when women were finally allowed to practise. The aim of the event, which coincided with the Cambridge Alumni Festival, was to celebrate the contribution of Law alumnae into legal practice and to the wider world. The Faculty also hosted an exhibition of the much heralded First 100 Years Project (https://first100years.org.uk/). The event was divided into three parts: The first was a panel focusing on issues facing women in practice. Second there was a panel which was oriented around women who have had an impact on the world outside practice, such as in the field of public policy. Finally, there was a discussion with UK Supreme Court Justices Lady Hale and Lady Arden. Equality and diversity were key discussion themes throughout. This video is the first Panel, introduced by Professor Brian Cheffins (Chair of the Faculty) and Dana Denis-Smith (creator of First 100 Years Project) and moderated by Pippa Rogerson (Master of Gonville & Caius College): Panel 1: Women in Practice: - Caoilfhionn Gallagher Q.C. – Barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, specialising in human rights and civil liberties. - Shauna Gillan – Part time Immigration Judge and barrister at 1 Pump Court, specialising in refugee/immigration, human rights and public law. - Jessica Gladstone – Partner at Clifford Chance, and also Co-founding director and trustee of Advocates for International Development (A4ID); and Chair of the Board of Rule of Law Expertise UK (ROLE UK). - Priya Lele – Legal Process Design Lead, UK, US & EMEA at Herbert Smith Freehills, and co-founder of ‘She Breaks The Law’. - Sara Luder – Partner and Head of Tax at Slaughter and May. - Elaine Penrose – Partner at Hogan Lovells in Litigation, Arbitration, and Employment Group. - Amanda Pinto Q.C. – Vice-Chair of the Bar; specialist in corporate crime, money laundering, corruption, art crime and business wrong-doing at the Chambers of Andrew Mitchell QC, 33 Chancery Lane. For more information and to sign up to the CWIL mailing list to receive information about future news and events, see https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/cwil, or get in touch with the Faculty Development Officer Clare Gordon (cwil@law.cam.ac.uk). This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Cambridge Women in Law (CWIL) is an exciting new social network of alumnae at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, which features a diverse range of women from all sectors. CWIL was officially launched on 27 September with an event to mark the centenary of the passing of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919, when women were finally allowed to practise. The aim of the event, which coincided with the Cambridge Alumni Festival, was to celebrate the contribution of Law alumnae into legal practice and to the wider world. The Faculty also hosted an exhibition of the much heralded First 100 Years Project (https://first100years.org.uk/). The event was divided into three parts: The first was a panel focusing on issues facing women in practice. Second there was a panel which was oriented around women who have had an impact on the world outside practice, such as in the field of public policy. Finally, there was a discussion with UK Supreme Court Justices Lady Hale and Lady Arden. Equality and diversity were key discussion themes throughout. This video is the first Panel, introduced by Professor Brian Cheffins (Chair of the Faculty) and Dana Denis-Smith (creator of First 100 Years Project) and moderated by Pippa Rogerson (Master of Gonville & Caius College): Panel 1: Women in Practice: - Caoilfhionn Gallagher Q.C. – Barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, specialising in human rights and civil liberties. - Shauna Gillan – Part time Immigration Judge and barrister at 1 Pump Court, specialising in refugee/immigration, human rights and public law. - Jessica Gladstone – Partner at Clifford Chance, and also Co-founding director and trustee of Advocates for International Development (A4ID); and Chair of the Board of Rule of Law Expertise UK (ROLE UK). - Priya Lele – Legal Process Design Lead, UK, US & EMEA at Herbert Smith Freehills, and co-founder of ‘She Breaks The Law’. - Sara Luder – Partner and Head of Tax at Slaughter and May. - Elaine Penrose – Partner at Hogan Lovells in Litigation, Arbitration, and Employment Group. - Amanda Pinto Q.C. – Vice-Chair of the Bar; specialist in corporate crime, money laundering, corruption, art crime and business wrong-doing at the Chambers of Andrew Mitchell QC, 33 Chancery Lane. For more information and to sign up to the CWIL mailing list to receive information about future news and events, see https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/cwil, or get in touch with the Faculty Development Officer Clare Gordon (cwil@law.cam.ac.uk). This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Cambridge Women in Law (CWIL) is an exciting new social network of alumnae at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, which features a diverse range of women from all sectors. CWIL was officially launched on 27 September with an event to mark the centenary of the passing of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919, when women were finally allowed to practise. The aim of the event, which coincided with the Cambridge Alumni Festival, was to celebrate the contribution of Law alumnae into legal practice and to the wider world. The Faculty also hosted an exhibition of the much heralded First 100 Years Project (https://first100years.org.uk/). The event was divided into three parts: The first was a panel focusing on issues facing women in practice. Second there was a panel which was oriented around women who have had an impact on the world outside practice, such as in the field of public policy. Finally, there was a discussion with UK Supreme Court Justices Lady Hale and Lady Arden. Equality and diversity were key discussion themes throughout. This video is the first Panel, introduced by Professor Brian Cheffins (Chair of the Faculty) and Dana Denis-Smith (creator of First 100 Years Project) and moderated by Pippa Rogerson (Master of Gonville & Caius College): Panel 1: Women in Practice: - Caoilfhionn Gallagher Q.C. – Barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, specialising in human rights and civil liberties. - Shauna Gillan – Part time Immigration Judge and barrister at 1 Pump Court, specialising in refugee/immigration, human rights and public law. - Jessica Gladstone – Partner at Clifford Chance, and also Co-founding director and trustee of Advocates for International Development (A4ID); and Chair of the Board of Rule of Law Expertise UK (ROLE UK). - Priya Lele – Legal Process Design Lead, UK, US & EMEA at Herbert Smith Freehills, and co-founder of ‘She Breaks The Law’. - Sara Luder – Partner and Head of Tax at Slaughter and May. - Elaine Penrose – Partner at Hogan Lovells in Litigation, Arbitration, and Employment Group. - Amanda Pinto Q.C. – Vice-Chair of the Bar; specialist in corporate crime, money laundering, corruption, art crime and business wrong-doing at the Chambers of Andrew Mitchell QC, 33 Chancery Lane. For more information and to sign up to the CWIL mailing list to receive information about future news and events, see https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/cwil, or get in touch with the Faculty Development Officer Clare Gordon (cwil@law.cam.ac.uk).

Cambridge Women in Law (CWIL) is an exciting new social network of alumnae at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, which features a diverse range of women from all sectors. CWIL was officially launched on 27 September with an event to mark the centenary of the passing of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919, when women were finally allowed to practise. The aim of the event, which coincided with the Cambridge Alumni Festival, was to celebrate the contribution of Law alumnae into legal practice and to the wider world. The Faculty also hosted an exhibition of the much heralded First 100 Years Project (https://first100years.org.uk/). The event was divided into three parts: The first was a panel focusing on issues facing women in practice. Second there was a panel which was oriented around women who have had an impact on the world outside practice, such as in the field of public policy. Finally, there was a discussion with UK Supreme Court Justices Lady Hale and Lady Arden. Equality and diversity were key discussion themes throughout. This video is the first Panel, introduced by Professor Brian Cheffins (Chair of the Faculty) and Dana Denis-Smith (creator of First 100 Years Project) and moderated by Pippa Rogerson (Master of Gonville & Caius College): Panel 1: Women in Practice: - Caoilfhionn Gallagher Q.C. – Barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, specialising in human rights and civil liberties. - Shauna Gillan – Part time Immigration Judge and barrister at 1 Pump Court, specialising in refugee/immigration, human rights and public law. - Jessica Gladstone – Partner at Clifford Chance, and also Co-founding director and trustee of Advocates for International Development (A4ID); and Chair of the Board of Rule of Law Expertise UK (ROLE UK). - Priya Lele – Legal Process Design Lead, UK, US & EMEA at Herbert Smith Freehills, and co-founder of ‘She Breaks The Law’. - Sara Luder – Partner and Head of Tax at Slaughter and May. - Elaine Penrose – Partner at Hogan Lovells in Litigation, Arbitration, and Employment Group. - Amanda Pinto Q.C. – Vice-Chair of the Bar; specialist in corporate crime, money laundering, corruption, art crime and business wrong-doing at the Chambers of Andrew Mitchell QC, 33 Chancery Lane. For more information and to sign up to the CWIL mailing list to receive information about future news and events, see https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/cwil, or get in touch with the Faculty Development Officer Clare Gordon (cwil@law.cam.ac.uk). This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

This podcast takes an in-depth look at key developments from this year's Supreme Court term affecting employers with Anthony Oncidi, head of the Labor and Employment Group for Proskauer's Los Angeles office, and XpertHR Legal Editor David Weisenfeld. Most notably, the Court held 5-4 in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela that employees may not compel their employer to face classwide arbitration when an arbitration agreement is ambiguous as to whether the parties agreed to submit disputes to class arbitration. It marks the latest in a series of close decisions permitting companies to bar class actions in court as well as in arbitration. In light of the ruling, Oncidi said employers that carve out arbitration exceptions for sexual harassment claims are making a mistake.

Steve Norton is the Founder of Project Management Skills, LLC and has over 30 years of experience in the nuclear industry building nuclear facilities, operating them, and also tearing them down. He's held senior management positions in several Fortune 500 companies and won awards for managing high visibility and high risk projects.He is co-author of the best-seller, The Success Secret, with Jack Canfield who is co-creator of the Chicken Soup for the Soul book series.  Dawn Valdivia is the Chairwoman of the Labor and Employment Group at Quarles & Brady's Phoenix office. She practices in the area of labor and employment law and has extensive experience advising clients about labor and employment issues.   Shannon Austin is an award winning fitness and exercise specialist, as well as a nutrition and lifestyle expert.  She became a best selling author in 2012 with her book Results Fitness, reaching #1 on Amazon.com in the fitness and exercise category.   Peter Shankman  PR Week Magazine has described him as “redefining the art of networking”, and Investor's Business Daily has called him “crazy, but effective.” Peter Shankman is a spectacular example of what happens when you merge the power of pure creativity with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder along with a dose of adventure, and make it work to your advantage.An author, entrepreneur, speaker, and worldwide connector, Peter is globally recognized for radically new ways of thinking about marketing, customer service, advertising, PR, and social media. Peter is currently the co-founder of Shankman | Honig, a global consultancy.