Third Thursday--C&M's August Labor & Employment Update-Are Your Settlement Agreements Still Enforceable?
Event | 08.21.14, 12:00 AM UTC - 12:00 AM UTC
Please join us for the next edition of Third Thursday – Crowell & Moring’s Labor and Employment Update, a webinar series dedicated to helping our clients stay on top of developing law and emerging compliance issues.
The EEOC has brought several lawsuits, including a widely-publicized case filed in Chicago against the CVS pharmacy chain, challenging several provisions commonly used by employers in settlement and release agreements. EEOC claims that such provisions inappropriately chill the right of the Commission to enforce Title VII and, by implication, other EEO statutes. These cases raise tricky questions about standard language use in many settlement agreements, including non-disparagement clauses and provisions requiring ongoing cooperation by former employees. Other cases, including private party litigation challenging the terms of release agreements intended to comply with the complex provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, reveal several open issues about how best to frame release agreements, particularly in workforce restructuring situations. These developments make it a good time for employers to take another look at their waiver and release agreements.
A panel of Crowell & Moring lawyers will review these issues in a roundtable discussion. We will focus on practical solutions for employers seeking enforceable settlement agreements.
This webinar is scheduled for Thursday, August 21 at 12:00 pm EDT. We hope that you can join us for this timely and lively discussion.
Please click here to listen to a recording of the webinar. Please click here for a copy of the presentation.
For more information, please visit these areas: Litigation and Trial, Labor and Employment
Insights
Event | 02.20.25
Has the Buss Stopped? Recoupment Today
Has the Buss Stopped? Recoupment Today: In 1997, the California Supreme Court decided Buss v. Superior Court. In Buss, the court concluded that a liability insurer that defended a mixed action could seek reimbursement from the insured for the defense costs associated with the claims that were not even potentially covered. Since then, numerous courts have held that insurers are entitled to recoup their defense costs associated with uncovered claims or causes of action. On the other hand, a significant number of courts have rejected insurers’ right to recoupment, at least in the absence of a policy provision granting the insurer that right. Some commentators have even suggested that the current judicial trend might be away from permitting insurers to recoup their defense costs. Is that correct? Has the Buss stopped? This panel of coverage experts will analyze insurers’ claimed right to recoupment today, and offer their perspectives on what the law on recoupment should perhaps be and might be in the future.
Event | 12.05.24
Event | 12.03.24
