1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Third Thursday--C&M's June Labor & Employment Update: Christopher v. SmithKlineBeecham, Off the Clock Work, and Litigation Best Practices

Third Thursday--C&M's June Labor & Employment Update: Christopher v. SmithKlineBeecham, Off the Clock Work, and Litigation Best Practices

Event | 06.21.12, 12:00 AM UTC - 12:00 AM UTC

Please join us for the next edition of Third Thursday – Crowell & Moring's Wage Hour Update, a monthly webinar dedicated to providing practical solutions to the wage and hour problems that continue to vex even the most sophisticated employers. Our Third Thursday webinars review important developments in wage and hour law and focus on discussions of employer best practices, as well as strategies and tactics for managing and winning complex wage and hour litigation.

Our next webinar will take place on Thursday, June 21 at 12:00 p.m. Eastern. Our topics will include: (1) an analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Christopher v. SmithKlineBeecham, in which the Court is expected to provide significant guidance on the FLSA's white collar exemptions and the appropriate level of deference to be given to informal guidance from the Department of Labor; (2) a round table conversation offering solutions to several tricky "off the clock work" and other payment issues for non-exempt employees; and (3) (if there's no decision yet in Christopher), the launch of our "Litigation Best Practices" segment, in which we'll share experiences and offer practical suggestions to many of the recurring issues companies face in wage and hour cases. Our first installment in this segment will focus on sticky issues often encountered during the first 30 days following service of the complaint. 

Please click here to view the presentation.

For more information, please visit these areas: Labor and Employment

Participants

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.

View All Insights