1

Wednesday, March 261:00 – 6:00 p.m.

Registration Celebrity Ballroom Foyer

3:00 – 3:15 p.m.

Part 1: A Modern Justification for Title VII Celebrity Ballroom E-H

Hon. William H. Brown, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, Philadelphia, PA (Former EEOC Chair, 1969-1973)

3:15 – 4:15 p.m.

Part 2: Balancing Priorities: The Governmental Role in Title VII Enforcement Celebrity Ballroom E-H

When EEOC opened its doors in July 1965, everyone knew that the agency’s role was to eliminate employment barriers to people of color; everyone except for Aileen Hernandez and Richard Graham who spent a frustrating first year as EEOC commissioners trying to convince fellow commissioners that Title VII also protects women, and that EEOC’s

National Conference on Equal Employment Opportunity Law

Schedule of EventsPresented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee

2

responsibilities should be more equally divided. By 1966, both had left EEOC to play significant roles in the founding of the National Organization for Women. Later Commissions learned to better balance resources between Title VII’s largest protected groups. But, responsibilities grew. The 1972 amendments to Title VII required the EEOC to devote resources to bring lawsuits; the 1978 Reorganization Plan gave EEOC the ADEA and EPA; and the ADA was added in 1991. Confronted with vastly increased authority and jurisdiction, but little additional funding, difficult decisions on resource allocation have been made by EEOC leadership that had defined the EEOC’s role in ensuring the civil rights of Americans. Who better to discuss this topic than the decision-makers themselves? Celebrate the birth of Title VII with current and former EEOC commissioners who explain how resource allocation and shifting priorities have influenced the direction of the agency, how it deals with investigations today, and the decisions it makes on which cases to pursue in court.

Moderator: Bill Lann Lee, Lewis Feinberg Lee Renaker & Jackson, P.C., Oakland, CA

Speakers: Hon. Jacqueline A. Berrien, Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DCHon. William H. Brown, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, Philadelphia, PA (Former EEOC Chair, 1969-1973)Hon. Gilbert F. Casellas, OMNITRU, Arlington, VA (Former EEOC Chair, 1994-1998)Hon. Ida L. Castro, The Commonwealth Medical College, Scranton, PA (Former EEOC Chair 1998-2001)Hon. Cari Dominguez, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA (Former EEOC Chair, 2001-2006)

4:15 - 4:30 p.m.

Break

4:30 – 5:45 p.m.

Panel 3: Title VII at the Crossroads: The Effects of Expanding EEOC’s Authority, Grutter v. Bollinger, and Greater Reliance on Disparate Impact LawsuitsCelebrity Ballroom E-H

As originally enacted, Title VII did not provide for the appointment of an EEOC general counsel, consistent with the compromise leading to the statute’s enactment, under which the Commission was given no enforcement authority. However, the power to litigate came in 1972, with amendments that also authorized Presidential appointment of a general counsel. This panel of current and former EEOC general counsels will discuss the evolving role of the EEOC as a plaintiff in litigation; whether 25 years of affirmative action after Grutter v. Bollinger is too much, not enough, or just right when it comes to settlement remedies in EEOC cases; and whether the EEOC is and should place greater emphasis on disparate impact lawsuits, such as lawsuits challenging the use of criminal convictions or credit information.

Moderator: Hon. Leslie E. Silverman, Fortney & Scott LLC, Washington, DC (Former EEOC Commissioner and Vice Chair, 2001-2008)

Panel: Hon. P. David Lopez, General Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DCHon. Ronald S. Cooper, Steptoe and Johnson LLP, Washington, DC (Former EEOC General Counsel, 2006-2009)Hon. Donald R. Livingston, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, DC (Former EEOC General Counsel, 1991-1993)Hon. Charles A. Shanor, Emory University School of Law, Atlanta, GA (Former EEOC General Counsel, 1984-1987)

6:00 – 6:45 p.m.

“Newer” Attendee Reception, All Welcome! Sponsored in part by Practical Law

Celebrity Plaza WestHosts: Jennifer Liu, Outten & Golden LLP, New York, NY

Erin M. Connell, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, CAAnne-Marie Vercruysse Welch, Clark Hill PLC, Detroit, MI

6:45 – 8:00 p.m.

Committee Welcome Reception: Honoring former Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chairs and General Counsels Masters Plaza

3

Thursday, March 277:00 – 9:00 a.m.

Continental BreakfastCelebrity Ballroom B&C

7:00 – 9:00 a.m.

Constituency BreakfastsEnjoy the opportunity to have open and private discussions with similarly situated practitioners concerning employment law subjects. Additionally, you will have the opportunity to network with colleagues nationwide who share your focus on EEO matters.

8:00 – 9:00 a.m. Employee/Plaintiff Counsel (Union Counsel Also Welcome)

Celebrity Ballroom AHost: Hillary Benham-Baker, Campins Benham-Baker, LLP,

San Francisco, CA

7:00 – 9:00 a.m. Management and Defense Lawyers

Celebrity Ballroom D

7:00 – 7:30 a.m. Both Internal and External Defense Counsel Welcome for a little business and some announcements

Celebrity Ballroom D

7:30 – 9:00 a.m. All Conference Attendees Welcome for annual update of significant EEO cases by Paul Grossman– not to be missed!

Celebrity Ballroom DHosts: Jennifer L. Sabourin, Miller, Canfield, Paddock

and Stone, P.L.C., Detroit, MI Andrew Rosenman, Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago, IL

Speaker: Paul Grossman, Paul Hastings LLP, Los Angeles, CA

9:00 – 10:30 a.m.

Spouse/Guest Breakfast (Ticketed)Hospitality 517

Tickets may be purchased for registered guests at the Section Registration Desk.

9:00 – 10:45 a.m.

Government Plenary Celebrity Ballroom E-H

Join top officials from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Department of Labor and Department of Justice as they answer questions from seasoned plaintiff and defense lawyers on topical issues about government litigation, recent court decisions involving their agencies, intervention in private actions, and strategic plans.

Facilitators: Eric D. Reicin, MorganFranklin Corporation, McLean, VA Julie Richard-Spencer, Robein, Urann, Spencer, Picard & Cangemi, APLC, Metairie, LA

Speakers: Hon. P. David Lopez, General Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC Hon. M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC Pamela Karlan, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

4

10:45 – 11:00 a.m.

Welcome and Announcements from the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee Co-Chairs: Celebrity Ballroom E-H

Eric D. Reicin, MorganFranklin Corporation, McLean, VA

Justin M. Swartz, Outten & Golden LLP, New York, NY Melissa S. Woods, Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., New York, NY

11:00 – 11:15 a.m.

Break

11:15 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

Track 1 – EEOC Systemic Program: The View from the Field Celebrity Ballroom E-H

The EEOC’s Systemic Initiative has brought a profound shift in EEOC charge investigation and litigation priorities. This panel of seasoned EEOC regional attorneys will discuss how cases are selected for pattern or practice investigations and litigation, the requirement that EEOC investigate and conciliate before it files suit, the differences between §707 pattern or practice cases and §706 EEOC cases, the applicability of statutes of limitation to EEOC lawsuits, and how EEOC trial lawyers respond to aspects of Walmart v. Dukes that limit private class actions. They will also explain what new strategies are being adopted in the field in systemic cases, and whether quotas for cases are placed on District Directors.

Moderator: Barry A. Hartstein, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Chicago, IL

Panelists: John Hendrickson, Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chicago, IL Anna Park, Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Los Angeles, CA

11:15 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

Track II – Retaliation and Whistleblowing: Surviving Settlement Between a Current Employee and Employer Celebrity Ballroom A-C

Mary complains to the EEOC that her boss has been sexually harassing her. Her boss is not happy about it: “Get HR on the phone! Mary filed an EEOC charge to destroy me. I never touched that @#!!$$!! I want her fired!” Now what? There is a very good chance that Mary’s sexual harassment charge against her boss will be settled. Then will come the difficult tasks for both parties. For the employer: how to ensure that Mary performs her work competently, and complies with company rules, without subjecting the company to further charges of retaliation. For Mary: how to ensure that she is treated fairly going forward and not retaliated against. This panel will provide some answers to these questions.

Moderator: Carlos Bermudez, International Union, UAW, Detroit, MI

Panelists: Lisa J. Banks, Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP, Washington, DCKaren M. Buesing, Akerman Senterfitt, Tampa, FL Ronetta Frances, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Bentonville, AR

12:30 – 1:45 p.m.

Committee Diversity Luncheon Sponsored in part by Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur LLP

Celebrity Ballroom DModerator: Grace E. Speights, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, DC

Speakers: Hon. Constance Barker, Commissioner, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC Hon. Jenny Yang, Commissioner, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC

5

2:00 – 3:15 p.m.

Track I – Class Actions—Dead, Alive, or On Life Support? (Advanced)Celebrity Ballroom E-H

Dukes and Comcast require rigorous analysis of the Rule 23(a) and (b) prerequisites at the class certification stage. Dukes restricted backpay claims to 23(b)(3) certifications, and held in regard to the commonality issue under 23(a) that class members must be shown to “have suffered the same injury.” This would appear to require a common contention that will resolve each claim for all class members. In Comcast, the Court addressed the predominance issue under (b)(3) and required proof of an injury which plaintiffs were able to establish through evidence common to the class, including damages that are measurable on a “class-wide basis.” What does this leave? Are nationwide class actions against multi-facility employers still possible? Are there circumstances where classes can be certified if the decisions being challenged were made by multiple decision-makers? At what stage should Daubert challenges occur? When can class allegations be addressed at the pleading stage by a motion to dismiss?

Moderator: Barbara Brown, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC

Panelists: Christine E. Webber, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Eugene Scalia, Gibson Dunn LLP, Washington, DC

2:00 – 3:15 p.m.

Track II – Age Discrimination (Advanced): Title VII Interpretations May No Longer Apply Celebrity Ballroom A-C

The substantive provisions of the ADEA were derived from Title VII “in haec verba,” according to the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the interpretations of Title VII applied with equal force in the context of age discrimination. But, that was then, before the amendments to Title VII in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the passage of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act. This panel will discuss the fundamental differences between the ADEA and Title VII, including a different burden of proof, differences in the standard for disparate impact, differing damages, preemption when the EEOC sues, and the different standards for collective vs. class actions. The panel will also discuss some of the most significant unique complexities of the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act that frequently confound both employers and employees including “decisional units,” claw-backs, and release issues.

Moderator: Eve Cervantez, Altshuler, Berzon LLP, San Francisco, CA

Panelists: Sallie G. Smylie, Kirkland Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL Michael C. Subit, Frank Freed Subit & Thomas LLP, Seattle, WA Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC Claudia Williams, The Hershey Company, Hershey, PA

3:15 - 4:15 p.m.

Track I – Arbitration: A Universal Remedy?Celebrity Ballroom E-H

With Oxford Health Plans, LLC v. Sutter and American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant, the U.S. Supreme Court has once again confirmed that “arbitration is a matter of contract” and class action waivers contained within otherwise valid contracts are enforceable. More employers than ever have elected arbitration as the preferred venue for employment-related claims. Drafting the initial agreement is still a critical step in developing enforceable procedures. This panel of experienced practitioners will discuss whether there are any limitations on the arbitration of employment disputes, and explore best practices in pre-arbitration procedures, including compelling and resisting arbitration, and the viability of summary judgment motions in arbitration. Moderator: Jennifer L. Sabourin, Miller Canfield P.L.C., Detroit, MI

Panelists: Hon. Ricardo M. Urbina (Ret.), JAMS, Washington, DC Michael Z. Green, Texas A&M University, Fort Worth, TXHunter Hughes, Rogers and Hardin, Atlanta, GAJean Shin, California Teachers Association, Santa Fe Springs, CA

6

3:15 - 4:15 p.m.

Track II – Immigrant Workers and National Origin Discrimination Co-Sponsored with the American Bar Association Section of Labor and Employment Law Immigration Law Committee

Celebrity Ballroom A-C

In an increasingly diverse country, how does Title VII address mistreatment of immigrant workers, including discrimination based on foreign accents, stereotypes that lead to discriminatory hiring and job assignment decisions, and overlapping forms of discrimination based on religious expression and national origin? How should employers counsel their clients to avoid discrimination? Hear about the latest legal and policy developments.Speakers: Hon. P. David Lopez, General Counsel, Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC Marsha Chien, The Legal Aid Society – Employment Law Center, San Francisco, CATodd Photopulos, Butler, Snow, O’Mara, Stevens and Cannada PLLC, Memphis, TN

5:00– 6:00 p.m.

“Suds and Substance”—Ten Things My Opponent Does to Make Me Happy/Sad (Aside from Settling) Celebrity Ballroom A-C

All who practice law have their own list of things opponents do that either make you want to cry in your beer or hoist a toast. Join us for cocktails, beer, soda, and substance, and hear seasoned practitioners provide their own lists of the ten most annoying and/or surprisingly pleasant things that opponents do. Bring your own list! Be surprised (or amused) at how other practitioners perceive the things that you and others do on a regular basis – and why you ought to think about them. All attendees welcome.

Facilitators: Elaine Drodge Koch, Bryan Cave LLP, Kansas City, MO Anne B. Shaver, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, CA

6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Diversity Reception with a Special Presentation Entitled “Military Service Members as Practicing Lawyers: Experiences and Thoughts.” (All attendees are encouraged to attend) Celebrity Foyer and Plaza WestSpeaker: Captain John W. Hodges, United States Marine Corps

7:00 – 10:00 p.m.

Delicious, Delightful, and Delovely: An Evening with Friends and California CuisineCelebrity Ballroom A-DThree days after Title VII was enacted, a black minister integrated the dining room of Jackson, Mississippi’s Heidelberg Hotel, and gave his report: “the food was good, the service was good, and the attitude was good.” Continuing this fine dining tradition, the EEO Conference presents its annual Conference dinner with an emphasis on good attitude, fellowship and local cuisine. It is included with your registration: Don’t miss it!

Friday, March 28Constituency Breakfasts: 7:00 – 8:00 a.m.International Celebrity C

Host: Danny Kaufer, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Montreal, Quebec

All Attendees Welcome

7

7:00 – 8:00 a.m.Neutrals Celebrity B

Host: Hunter Hughes, Rogers and Hardin, Atlanta, GA

7:00 - 8:00 a.m.Union Celebrity Ballroom A

Host: Carlos F. Bermudez, International Union, UAW, Detroit, MI

7:00 – 9:00 a.m.In-House Counsel Polo

Host: Michael Canaras, The Home Depot, Atlanta, GA

8:30 – 9:30 a.m.

TITLE VII At Age-50: Still Room For Creativity?— Developing New Defenses and Testing New Claims (Advanced)Celebrity Ballroom E-H

Few if any of Title VII’s drafters would have contemplated the legal theories being litigated a half-century after the statute’s passage. Discrimination claims based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and same sex harassment are just a few examples of cases that didn’t exist 50 years ago. Affirmative action and reverse discrimination claims continue to present unique doctrinal challenges under the statute. The increasing diversity of American society has brought to the forefront previously unimagined issues regarding religious accommodation and even the nature of what constitutes a religion. Recent social science research has led to vigorous courtroom battles over the very meaning of “intentional discrimination.” The EEOC is seeking to stake out new ground on the statute of limitations and charge filing requirements when it pursues a “pattern or practice claim.” Join leading practitioners from the employer, employee and union bars for a discussion of some of the most creative uses of Title VII over the past 50 years and what new claims and defenses may lie ahead over the next 50.

Moderator: Michael Reiss, Davis Wright Tremain LLP, Seattle, WA

Panelists: Mark S. Dichter, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA John Hendrickson, Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chicago, IL Jocelyn Larkin, The Impact Fund, Berkeley, CAYona Rozen, Gillespie, Rozen & Watsky, P.C., Dallas, TX

9:30 – 10:45 a.m.

A Side Bar With the Judges on Rule 30(b)(6): Use, Abuse, and Process.Celebrity Ballroom E-H

For over 40 years, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) has required a company or other entity to produce a witness or witnesses to testify on its behalf regarding the subjects set forth in a deposition notice directed to the entity. Increasingly, parties are using this procedure as a tool to seek very broad discovery. What is the best use of a “corporate representative” deposition? What types of issues are suitable? What are the limits of this process and do the courts prevent abuse of the procedure? What steps can a party receiving a burdensome 30(b)(6) notice take to protect itself and how does it do so? Frequently, issues also arise during the deposition regarding whether a specific question is within the scope of the notice or whether the witness has taken the steps necessary to testify properly regarding the “information known or reasonably available to the organization.” The resolution of these issues may affect the use of the 30(b)(6) deposition at trial. Join our panel of experienced judges who will address the use and abuse of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices, as well as the processes for this important discovery device.

Facilitators: J. Randall Coffey, Fisher and Philips LLP, Kansas City, MOJustin M. Swartz, Outten & Golden LLP, New York, NY

Panelists: Hon. Ronald L. Ellis, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, New York, NYHon. Donna M. Ryu, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco, CA

8

10:45 – 11:00 a.m.

Break

11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Supreme Court Review Celebrity Ballroom E-H

A Conference favorite returns this year! Don’t miss this chance to hear top U.S. Supreme Court practitioners provide a true insider’s perspective and a lively review of the Court’s employment-related decisions from the 2012-2013 term, including Vance v. Ball State on the definitional scope of “supervisor”, the impact of University of Texas Southwestern v. Nassar’s holding on the standard of proof in retaliation cases, and more. We will also hear predictions on how these Supreme Court litigators think the Court may handle the employment law cases pending on the docket at the time of the conference.

Moderator: Stephen Berzon, Altshuler, Berzon LLP, San Francisco, CA

Panelists: Pratik Shah, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, DC Deepak Gupta, Gupta Beck PLLC, Washington, DC

12:00 – 1:15 p.m.

Break

1:15 – 2:30 p.m.

Track I – Is Everyone An Expert? The Latest Word on HR and Stereotyping WitnessesCelebrity Ballroom E-H

Both plaintiffs and defendants increasingly are designating (or counter-designating) expert witnesses in employment discrimination litigation. This occurs not only on the merits of the case, but also frequently for class certification purposes as well. More and more often, practitioners are confronted with human resources experts who seek to opine about company policies, practices, or responses, and psychologists, sociologists, and those from other disciplines who seek to testify about “social frameworks,” “stereotyping” by companies or decision-makers on the basis of protected characteristics, or the like. Are these legitimate subjects for expert testimony? If so, when and with what scope? What are the best ways to counter such expert designations? Should a litigant obtain her or its own expert? Or is it better simply to make objections pursuant to Daubert and Rule 702? Join our “expert” panel for a fascinating discussion about the uses and limits of expert testimony in employment litigation, and the reaction of the courts to this trend.

Moderator: Andrew Rosenman, Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago, IL

Panelists: R. Lawrence Ashe, Jr., Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs LLP, Atlanta, GATara K. Ramchandani, Relman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC, Washington, DC

1:15 – 2:30 p.m.

Track II – The OFCCP and Pay Discrimination a Year After Directive 307 and Exploring the September 2013 Finalization of the Section 503 and VETS Regulations Celebrity Ballroom A-C

OFCCP continues to devote a significant amount of its resources to reviewing contractors’ pay policies and practices, with virtually all of the more than 4,000 contractor audits per year covering this area. In February 2013, two years after announcing its intention to rescind OFCCP’s 2006 Compensation Standards, the Agency now has done so, replacing the Standards with Directive 307. The Agency has said that the 2006 Standards were hostile to “aggregation,” making it too difficult for OFCCP to test large groups of employees across different job titles and work groups, and that the new Directive provides “flexibility.” Is the new flexibility a good thing or likely to lead to greater inconsistency and inappropriate aggregation of employees for analysis?

1:30 – 5:30 p.m.

Living Dessert Reserve

Participants will experience a private walking tour of this unique and exciting animal and plant sanctuary conducted by the Reserve’s highly trained docent. This educational and informative tour will include a Behind the Scenes tour of the Tennity Wildlife Hospital and conservation center which officially opened in January 2002. Watch the beautiful animals in a natural setting enjoy their afternoon playtime. At the living desert guests will discover nearly 450 fascinating desert animals representing over 152 species including coyotes, big horn sheep, oryx, giraffes, zebras, cheetahs and meerkats. Advance registration required, $80.00 per person.

OPTIONAL TOUR

9

Given OFCCP’s stated reliance on Title VII standards, does the Equal Pay Act framework still matter? Does Directive 307 harmonize OFCCP’s approach with the manner in which the EEOC conducts pay investigations, including the standards of proof? Or, is the Directive just an attempt to “bend the arc of the law” and legally evaluate “comparable” rather than substantially similar jobs? What use of the information collected in the audit process, if any, can be obtained by private litigants and what information is OFCCP sharing with other government agencies? Additionally, the OFCCP has published its final Section 503 and Veteran Regulations. How can contractors begin to prepare for new regulatory requirements? What are the new obligations and timelines to comply? Will the Veteran hiring benchmark and Section 503 utilization goal be used as a quota? How do contractors safely and legally implement the pre-offer self-identification requirements and minimize risks of private ADA claims from litigants? What will we see from OFCCP when it begins to enforce these new requirements and how can we prepare now to respond? Join our panel for a lively discussion of these and other interesting developments regarding recent regulations and pay bias issues.

Moderator: Roberta L. Steele, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho PC, Oakland, CA

Panelists: David S. Fortney, Fortney & Scott, LLC, Washington, DC Robert O’Hara, United Technologies, Hartford, CT Consuela Pinto, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC

2:30 – 3:30 p.m.

Employer Wellness ProgramsCelebrity Ballroom E-H

The potential legal implications of Employer Wellness Programs have received a great deal of attention in recent years. With the vast majority of employers with 200+ employees offering at least some version of a Wellness Program, government enforcement agencies and the private sector are tuned into these programs to ensure they do not have a disparate impact on employees. In May 2013, the Departments of Health & Human Services, Labor and Treasury, released final rules outlining the standards for non-discriminatory programs rewarding employees who meet stated health goals. At the same time, practitioners are seeking guidance from the EEOC on the relationship between wellness programs and various employment-related laws, such as Title VII, the ADA, GINA, HIPPA and the Affordable Care Act. While the Affordable Care Act permits the expansion of existing wellness programs, employers should proceed with caution. Can such programs have a Title VII disparate impact on certain categories of employees if it can be shown that those individuals statistically have greater health problems than others? What are the potential ADA implications of medical examinations administered under “voluntary” wellness programs? These questions, and more, will be explored during our panel presentation.

Moderator: Lauren I. Scholnick, Strindberg & Scholnick, LLC, Salt Lake City, UT

Panelists: Kevin Brodar, SMART, North Olmsted, OH Ann Haley Fromholz, Jackson Lewis LLP, Los Angeles, CA Joyce Walker-Jones, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC Jeffrey Winchester, Caesars Entertainment, Las Vegas, NV

5:30 – 6:30 p.m.

EEO Committee Business MeetingCelebrity Ballroom D

6:30 – 7:30 p.m.

Reception Honoring Conference Speakers, EDL Editors and Chapter Monitors, Followed By Dinner On Your Own Las Hadas Pool

Saturday, March 297:30 – 8:30 a.m.

Continental BreakfastCelebrity Ballroom D

10

8:30 – 9:45 a.m.

ADAAA: Dark Desert Highway or Shimmering Light? Celebrity Ballroom E-H

The ADAAA emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed broadly in favor of coverage, making it easier for an individual to demonstrate protection under the ADA. In the more than four years since the ADAAA, the Act has spawned a wave of private litigation and EEOC lawsuits, including many alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination. Difficult issues abound. What job functions must the employer not require the employee to perform? When is reassignment appropriate? When, and for how long, is leave an acceptable form of accommodation? May an employer have an enterprise-wide policy regarding accommodations or leaves? When may additional medical examinations be used? What constitutes a sufficient interactive process? This panel will explore these and other questions and explain the ramifications of the most recent court opinions.

Moderator: William B. Sailer, Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, CA

Panelists: Hon. Victoria Lipnic, Commissioner, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC Julia Campins, Campins Benham-Baker, LLP, San Francisco, CA Katherine Huibonhoa, Paul Hastings LLP, San Francisco, CA Rebecca Yee, SEIU Local 721, Los Angeles, CA

9:45 – 11:00 a.m.

Pay Equity: Practice Steps to Achieving and Maintaining Fair Pay Practices and Avoiding Pay Claims by Protected GroupsCelebrity Ballroom E-H

This panel will explore the question “does pay inequity exist” and offer practical advice on managing pay and performance evaluation practices to avoid pay “inequity.”

Moderator: Gary R. Siniscalco, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, CA

Panelists: Hon. Chai R. Feldblum, Commissioner, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC Mary Baker, ERS Group, Tallassee, FLBarry Goldstein, Of Counsel, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Oakland, CA

11:00 – 11:15 a.m.

Break

11:15 a.m. – 12:20 p.m.

Ethics and the Formation of the Attorney-Client Relationship: Government Lawyers and Their Clients Celebrity Ballroom E-H

The answer to the question, “Can I make direct contact or settle directly with the charging party or other EEOC class members?” may depend on the legal relationship between the EEOC and the individual, which turns on the stage in the EEOC process the direct contact will occur. This program will explore the thorny ethical questions involved in how and when the respondent can work around the EEOC and have direct discussions and possibly reach settlement with the charging party without the EEOC’s participation.

Moderator: Nora L. Macey, Macey, Swanson, and Allman, Indianapolis, IN

Presenter: Alan I. Baron, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Washington, DC John Hendrickson, Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chicago, ILDolores Y. Leal, Allred, Maroko & Goldberg , Los Angeles, CA

12:20 p.m.

Seminar Wrap-Up and Grand Prize DrawingCelebrity Ballroom E-H

The Committee’s Co-Chairs will draw a name from among those who have submitted a completed conference evaluation form. The winner will receive complimentary registration to the 2015 National Conference on Equal Employment Opportunity Law in Miami, Florida.