Tracey Diamond, Emily Schifter, and Daniela Porat explore the classic movie 9 to 5 and its critique of workplace inequities.
In this episode of Hiring to Firing, hosts Tracey Diamond and Emily Schifter explore the classic movie 9 to 5 and its critique of workplace inequities. Joined by wage and hour reporter Daniela Porat from Law360, they share insights on the evolution of wage and hour laws, pay transparency, salary history bans, and the ongoing fight for gender equality in the workplace. Tune in for a thought-provoking discussion on workplace equality and practical tips to help employers comply and keep up with the ever-changing legal landscape in this area.
Hiring to Firing Podcast — The Evolution of Equal Pay: Lessons From 9 to 5
Hosts: Tracey Diamond and Emily Schifter
Guest: Daniela Porat
Recorded: April 7, 2025
Aired: April 29, 2025
Tracey Diamond:
So, Emily, my friend, today we're going to play a little name that tune.
Emily Schifter:
How fun.
Tracey Diamond:
Are you ready?
Emily Schifter:
I think so.
Tracey Diamond:
Okay. Let's take a listen. [AUDIO CLIP] So, what's the tune?
Emily Schifter:
I think I can do that one in my sleep. That is obviously 9 to 5 by the very well-known Dolly Parton. I think those intro notes alone gave it away.
Tracey Diamond:
It's now going to be in your head for the rest of the week.
Emily Schifter:
That's right.
Tracey Diamond:
Listeners, we're here today to talk about the movie 9 to 5 with our special guest, Daniela Porat from Law360. Take a listen to our talk about equal pay and 9 to 5.
[INTRO ]
Tracey Diamond:
Welcome to Hiring to Firing the Podcast. I'm Tracey Diamond, a labor and employment partner at Troutman Pepper Locke. I'm here with my co-host and partner, Emily Schifter. Together, we handle all employment issues from Hiring to Firing. Today, we are thrilled to welcome Daniela Porat, Senior Employment Law Reporter at Law360. Daniela, welcome to our show. Why don't you tell us a bit about your background and how you got started in journalism in this area?
Daniela Porat:
Sure. My background has mostly been in investigative reporting. I got my start covering the Buffalo Police Department. Later worked on consumer product safety reporting for ProPublica. I made my way to Law360 and employment law during the pandemic, which was a fascinating time to be an employment law reporter. So many things changing. I have since really developed expertise in the wage and hour law and equal pay law. What I really love about this particular beat is that it's so relatable in the sense. Everyone understands these issues in an inherent and even emotional way. It's your bottom line. It's just been really fascinating to really dig deep into employment law issues, again, particularly at a time when it feels like there's a lot of change happening.
Tracey Diamond:
I have to say, I'm a little jealous, because I took a couple of legal journalism classes and was always weighing journalism versus law school throughout the beginning part of my career and a little jealous of my colleagues who went the journalism route, because I just think what you do is so much fun and cutting edge. You're really at the top of everything that's happening that's interesting in our world.
Daniela Porat:
For sure. I think a lot of journalists have that same debate and the same longing when they look at attorneys and are thinking, “Oh, maybe I should have gone into law instead of journalism.”
Emily Schifter:
I was a journalism double major, so I was right there with you, Tracey. I will say, you're in the sweet spot because I do feel like employment law and employment law journalism, it really is what people deal with every day and it's changing all the time and it's in the headlines. I think all of us get to touch that in our own different ways.
Daniela Porat:
Oh, totally.
Tracey Diamond:
Absolutely.
Emily Schifter:
Our topic for today is equal pay, and we thought what better pop culture tie in than the 1980 classic movie 9 to 5, which of course stars Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin and Dolly Parton, who was in her movie debut, which is crazy to think about. In that movie, Jane Fonda's character, Judy Bernly, begins work at a company called Consolidated Companies after her husband leaves her for his secretary. She meets fellow secretaries, Violet Newstead, who's played by Lily Tomlin and Doralee Rhodes, which is Dolly Parton's character, while in that workplace. The movie is a comedy, but it's also a critique really on office culture. It's got a lot of examples of inequity in the workplace that the characters work through and really, the idea that women should be paid less than the men is taken as a given.
In our first clip, Violet learns that Vice President Frank Hart has passed her over for a promotion, which he explains is because the male colleague in question who he gave it to has a “family to support.” Clients would rather deal with men. Let's take a listen.
[CLIP 1]
Violet Newstead:
What?
Frank Hart:
Now, let me finish, okay? Don't go flying off the handle.
Violet Newstead:
You gave that promotion to Bob Enright instead of me? I've got five years seniority over him.
Frank Hart:
I know that.
Violet Newstead:
For Christ's sake, I trained him.
Frank Hart:
I know that. But see, the company feels –
Violet Newstead:
Oh, the company, bullshit. It's your decision. You promoted him. You tell me why.
Frank Hart:
Well, in the first place, see, Bob does have a college degree.
Violet Newstead:
Oh, brilliant. Brilliant. While he's away at college getting his precious useless degree, I'm working my butt off at this company.
Frank Hart:
And in the second place, he does have a family to support.
Violet Newstead:
And I don't? What has that got to do with anything?
Frank Hart:
Wait. Violet, look, my hands are tied here. The company needs a man in this position. Clients would rather deal with men when it comes to figures.
Violet Newstead:
Oh, now we're getting at it. I lose a promotion, because of some idiot prejudice. The boys in the club are threatened and you're so intimidated by any woman that won't sit at the back of a bus.
Frank Hart:
Spare me the women's lip crap, okay? Now, I know how you feel and I understand it.
Violet Newstead:
You understand zilch.
[END OF CLIP]
Tracey Diamond:
We'll take a listen to another clip. This next one, Frank allowed a false rumor to spread that he had been having an affair with Doralee, something that she quickly lets him know, and what I think is one of the movie's more famous lines. She has no patience for. We'll take another listen.
[CLIP 2]
Doralee Rhodes:
You didn't tell everybody I'm sleeping with you, huh?
Frank Hart:
No.
Doralee Rhodes:
Well, that explains it. That's why these people treat me like some dime store bluesy.
Frank Hart:
No, no. It’s not –
Doralee Rhodes:
They think I'm screwing the boss.
Frank Hart:
That's not it at all.
Doralee Rhodes:
Oh, and you just love it, don't you? It gives you some sort of cheap thrill, like knocking over pencils and picking up papers.
Frank Hart:
Doralee, now, let's don't get excited.
Doralee Rhodes:
Get your scummy hands off of me. Look, I've been straight with you from the first day I got here, and I put up with all your pinching and staring and chasing me around the desk, because I need this job, but this is the last straw.
Frank Hart:
All right. Now wait. Let's just sit down and –
Doralee Rhodes:
Look, I got a gun out there in my purse. And up to now, I've been forgiving and forgetting because of the way I was brought up. But I'll tell you one thing, if you ever say another word about me, or make another indecent proposal, I'm going to get that gun of mine and I'm going to change you from a rooster to a hen with one shot. Don't think I can’t do it.
[END OF CLIP]
Tracey Diamond:
Clearly an iconic movie here, and one that has endured with not only its hit theme song, but as even fun fact, turned into both a TV show and a Broadway musical. Hopefully, hopefully, hopefully, now that nearly 45 years have passed, we don't encounter behavior quite as overt as what the characters played by Dolly, Jane, and Lily experienced in terms of sexist, or discriminatory conduct towards women in the workplace. Although, I think, sadly, we all know of examples that reach that same level. Certainly, in light of the MeToo movement, those examples have been front and center over the years.
Here, we're not talking about discrimination and harassment per se. We're really here to talk about equal pay and equal treatment for women in the workplace. That certainly is an issue that hasn't lost its relevance. Let's start with the basics. First of all, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1961 and similar state laws prohibit discrimination based on sex and other protected characteristics. Paying an employee a lower amount because the employee is female may violate the statute. Daniela, what other laws govern employers in this area?
Daniela Porat:
Big one is the Equal Pay Act of 1963. That amended the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and requires employers to pay men and women equal pay for equal work. Employers can't pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions. This covers all forms of pay. Essentially, it allows a worker to bring a pay disparity claim. A worker wanting to bring such a claim would have to show that a colleague of the opposite sex was paid more, even though they did substantially similar work. If that worker is able to prove that, the burden shifts and the employer has to show that there is a justification for that pay disparity, be it because of seniority, merit, production, output, or what's commonly known as this catch-all factor, the factor other than sex.
We've seen a lot of activity at the state level, state equal pay laws, that go beyond the Federal Equal Pay Act. We have Massachusetts, which actually eliminated the factor other than sex defense, and it requires employers to justify a pay disparity from a closed list of factors. Other states, like New York, for example, requires that the factor other than sex has job-related reasons. This is significant, because it could actually have a material impact in litigation.
If, for example, a worker brings, let's say, a Federal Equal Pay Act claim and a state Equal Pay Act claim, that state Equal Pay Act claim might have a better chance of proceeding, because they can point to the more limited factors that an employer has to justify a pay disparity. In the clip that you showed, an employer justifying a pay disparity, because the man is the head of household and is the one bringing home the bacon, that's not really an affirmative defense that would likely fly in court.
Tracey Diamond:
Because it’s a pretext for when typically being the head of the household. Is that the thinking there?
Daniela Porat:
Yes, I think so. That would have a disparate impact on women who may not be perceived as the head of the household, even though they may be. Regardless of whether they are, in fact, the head of the household, that is not really a factor that an employer would be able to point to justify a pay disparity.
Emily Schifter:
Right. In that case, it was a particular man versus a particular woman. And so, you’d have a disparate treatment. Then, as you point out, it could be a disparate impact, too, if it was just a general policy.
Tracey Diamond:
Mm-hmm. Right.
Emily Schifter:
Lots of gray areas for employers, for sure. It's so interesting to me. We have these laws coming out in the 1960s, and then we have Dolly and Crew in the 1980s still commenting on here, here's what we're seeing every day in the workplace. It's interesting that it can take some time, I think, for these types of laws to come into effect, and we're even now seeing more activity on the state level.
Daniela Porat:
For sure.
Tracey Diamond:
I think that it is hard, taking the employer's point of view for a second, the prongs all sound really simple and clear on paper, but the proof is in the pudding in terms of applying them in real life. I think where I see a lot of employers get caught up is, what is the definition of substantially similar work, and how narrow is that language? I believe in some states it's not substantially similar. It might just be similar work. Also, in some states it may not just be gender, but it could be any protected category that is looked at.
Then, to your point before, Daniela, about what are the factors that might be the legitimate business reasons justifying why there may be a paid disparity. Even those employers that really truly want to be fair across the board, I don't think there's too many employers out there, I like to think anyway, that are like Vice President Frank, who are just truly intentionally wanting to discriminate against women. But the disparate impact piece of this, that unintentional applying to real life, are these jobs really substantially similar? Are there legitimate reasons why someone has been there longer, let's say, or doing certain kinds of work? Are they comparing to the others? At the end of the day, are we really still violating the Equal Pay Act and other laws? Which brings me to the next question, which is, are there other laws besides the Equal Pay Act?
Daniela Porat:
Yes. One that stands out is the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. That amended Title VII to ensure that the 180-day statute of limitations under federal law for filing an Equal Pay claim resets with each new paycheck affected by discriminatory pay. Prior to that, the statute of limitations clock started when the initial discriminatory wage decision happened. That blocked a lot of claims from proceeding, because a worker might not be aware that they are being paid unequally for a long time. That was quite significant.
Another important law, a recent law from 2022, is the PUMP Act. It's not Equal Pay per se, but I think it is Equal Pay adjacent. The PUMP Act requires employers to provide the time and space for workers to express milk to feed their newborns. Notably, the space cannot be a bathroom, but employers can be quite creative in how they comply with the PUMP Act. They should note that other jurisdictions have stricter space requirements. New York City is an example of that that has slightly stricter space requirements to comply with nursing breaks.
Tracey Diamond:
Yeah. I know California also has just many more in the policy for lactation accommodation. It's much more detailed than the general policy that we see for lactation accommodation.
Daniela Porat:
For sure. Some require that there be a flat surface where a worker could potentially put a breast pump. It might have to be a certain distance from a refrigerator. Important for employers to double check their state and local laws as well.
Emily Schifter:
Yeah. Even Georgia has its own, which is highly unique. Georgia has very few employment laws that bind employers, but it requires paid breaks and even would go longer than a year in some cases. You're right. It is something where even where we have the federal overlay, there is always that state minefield that multi-state employers have to look at.
You had made a good point about what is the affirmative defense look like for an employer. I think we know, Tracey, to your point, practically a lot of times employers do pay different positions differently for very legitimate reasons. Sometimes they've got certain ranges within a position and it might be based on seniority or prior experience. Sometimes, I think, too, with the Equal Pay Act in particular, you have positions that are maybe similar, but are they the same? Are they really doing the same level of work? It's one thing when you've got a bunch of admin level twos running around doing the same thing, but a lot of companies don't work that way, or have people doing different kinds of roles. Where do you see employers having success, or maybe not success, trying to differentiate that kind of a differential?
Daniela Porat:
Under the Federal Equal Pay Act, again, there is just a set list of factors that employers have to rely on. Seniority, merit, quality or quantity of production, and again, that catch all factor other than sex. What's interesting is that in a state like Mississippi, which passed its Equal Pay Law in 2022, they have really gone the opposite way in terms of the types of affirmative defenses available to employers. Unlike a state like Massachusetts, for example, or again, New York that where the factor other than sex defense must have a business reason, Mississippi allows employers to justify pay disparities by pointing to gaps in employment, or even prior salary and also, whether or not the individual negotiated for their salary.
That is just not the case when we see states and cities in today's world reforming their equal pay statutes. We have salary history bans becoming more popular that actually bar employers from asking about a worker's prior salary. The gap in employment is an interesting defense, because that would suggest that women who leave the workforce to rear their children would be justified in receiving a lower salary because of that gap in employment, at least in Mississippi. Employers, I think, in this day and age are just dealing with such a diversity in state laws and more often than not, states are making it easier for workers to file equal pay claims, either because of changes in the equal pay statutes on the affirmative defenses, or which I know we'll get into in a little bit, pay transparency and salary history ban statutes. Employers, I think, are just going to face a world where it is far easier for employers to know what their colleagues are being paid and they have more power from certain state statutes to file those claims and win.
Emily Schifter:
Know your state laws.
Daniela Porat:
Yes.
Emily Schifter:
Turning back to 9 to 5 the movie, and another famous scene, the characters are shown fantasizing about all the ways they'd love to get back at their male boss, so he can see what it feels like to be the target of his treatment, including subjecting him to degrading comments about his looks, making him get their coffee. Of course, it's Hollywood, so this fantasy becomes a reality when they inadvertently kidnap him in real life. While he's out of the office, they implement measures that improve the workplace on-site daycare, equal pay for all workers, flexible hours and job sharing. In the end, it's revealed that these measures have actually increased business productivity for the company, as the moral of the movie according to our characters.
As some of our listeners may know, here in the US, we actually just recently marked Equal Pay Day on March 25th of 2025. That's the date calculated to be the point where women's earnings catch up to what men earned in the previous year. We thought we would share a few statistics. Equal Pay Day actually moved back two weeks this year. Meaning, women had to work longer to catch up to men than in previous years. By some calculations, on average, women still earn 83 cents for every dollar earned by men. That number has not changed since 2023. It can add up over time, even up to a million dollars over the course of a 40-year career. Of course, the gap is bigger if you consider race, or other protected characteristics on top of gender. For example, black women's Equal Pay Day is July 10th. Latina women's Equal Pay Day is October 8th. Moms Equal Pay Day Is May 6th of this year.
Tracey Diamond:
That means, for example, that Latina women will typically not reach the same pay as white men until October 8th of any given calendar year. Is that the way that works?
Daniela Porat:
I think so, which is pretty crazy to think about.
Tracey Diamond:
Yeah, it's crazy.
Daniela Porat:
Incredible.
Tracey Diamond:
Yeah. Sadly, very sadly, we haven't seen all of the workplace changes that the women of 9 to 5 envisioned come to fruition yet. Frankly, with the rollback on a lot of corporate DEI programs, I think we're not going to see these changes go into effect for quite some time. But we are definitely seeing some changes, especially at the state level. Daniela, you mentioned before this concept of pay transparency laws and a separate concept of a salary history bans. What can you tell us about those?
Daniela Porat:
Pay transparency is the in vogue equal pay statute of our time. Generally, what they require is that employers disclose salary ranges, sometimes benefits information as well, in job postings for open rules. Some states also require that employers provide ranges to current employees who ask for that information. The idea behind these pay transparency laws generally is so that compensation information is out in the open. You think about a candidate preparing for an interview, and they might have a figure in their head of what they think a role should be paid, what they think they should be paid.
What these transparency laws do is that they give a little bit of negotiating power back into the workers’ camp, because they can say, well, actually, I see that this role actually pays far more than I had thought it paid. I know going into an interview, I can ask for this level of salary as a starting point. Colorado led the way here in 2021, and it was drafted to apply to any job that could be performed from Colorado. Recall, this was at the height of the pandemic, so a lot of people were working remotely. It required pay information to be shared, not just publicly for open positions, but also for promotional opportunities.
Many, many states have since followed suit. I'll just plug, do a Law360 plug here, but my colleague has put together a pay transparency map that we update regularly with laws that are coming online. Feels like almost daily, but I mean, it really is a huge trend in the Equal Pay space. Now separately, we have pay history bans. In the same neighborhood, slightly different flavor of Equal Pay Law, states and local jurisdictions, Philadelphia, for example, bar employers from asking prospective employees about their salary history. The goal of these types of laws is really to prevent workers from getting locked into a vicious cycle of low salary.
What can happen is if your current salary was based on a potentially discriminatory reason and you provide that salary to a prospective employer, you're then getting stuck at that low salary over time. That's really what these salary history bans are trying to resolve.
I'll say one more thing about pay transparency laws in particular. This is where we're seeing a lot of innovation. I think we'll see a lot of states and cities refine these pay transparency laws moving forward. For example, there's been some pushback when companies list salary ranges that are just way too broad to be useful, like this role pays between $50,000 and $250,000. That's just not the same. That can't be one job.
The California legislature recently proposed a bill, SB 642, that could maybe address that. It says that any pay scale provided in a job posting shall be no more than 10% above, or 10% below the mean pay rate within the salary, or hourly wage range. A lot of interesting stuff happening.
Tracey Diamond:
I am going to get my numbers wrong here, but I know the saying goes that women feel that they have to be 120% right about something before they're going to ask, or believe that they have to have 120% of something in order to ask for 100%. Men believe they just need 80% and then they'll ask for 100%. In my mind, that's where the pay transparency laws come in to let women and other employees have protected characteristics, become aware of what they potentially are entitled to, so that they don't under negotiate themselves, instead of pushing too high.
Daniela Porat:
For sure. I think that's really empowering.
Tracey Diamond:
Right. Very empowering. I think it is a useful law, but I do think that from the employer's perspective, again, like we were talking about the Equal Pay Act and this concept of substantially similar work, I'm finding employers really struggling to put the pay transparency laws into action, because while it looks really good on paper, applying it to the reality of the workplace where jobs aren't always so easily categorized together, or grouped together can sometimes be quite tricky in figuring out what the low end and the high end of that range should be.
If an employee has been working in the same job category with the same job title, but they have 10-year seniority, that might not be applicable to an employee coming in without that level of experience, or seniority within the company. Then it creates unrealistic expectations. That's one thing that I've seen employers struggle with. Have you seen other struggles, Emily?
Emily Schifter:
Yeah. I think trying to comply with the pay transparency has been something that's been tough for a lot of my clients who are in multiple states, because the specific requirements of what exactly has to be disclosed, benefits, what kind of benefits and how wide can the range be? Do you have to put it in the LinkedIn posting, or can you have it linked to an external site? It can be really intricate and they're all a little bit different. These are employers who are trying to do the right thing and make sure their postings are compliant. But they're like, “Oh, my goodness. It's almost a 20-state survey now for us to figure out exactly what it is that we can do, and we're having to fine-tune our postings or limit them to certain offices.” I feel like I've seen that trend on LinkedIn. Employers try to get around it and say, this can only be done from these six states.
Then new laws coming out every day, like you mentioned, Daniela. I do feel we're seeing a bunch. That has been a tough practical challenge for employers, I think, who really are trying to do the right thing but are feeling a little bit caught in between the crosshairs of these different requirements. I wrote a story a while back and it was, I think, just a tip story on how to comply with pay transparency requirements, which, as you guys said, there are so many. They all have their own little nuances, so it's quite challenging.
To Tracey, your point about how you may have a role that has variation within that role based on seniority or whatnot. I remember one of the attorneys I interviewed suggested breaking those things out in the job posting. Instead of saying, this role might be paid $50,000 to $250,000, which, again, is not that helpful and goes against the spirit of the law, you might say, well, for the entry-level role in this position pays this much. The mid-level role for this position pays this much. Then at least, you are setting expectations and providing a range that is more realistic and in-line with what the laws require.
Tracey Diamond:
Sub ranges within the ranges, which, at the end of the day, is just giving more information to applicants, which is a good thing, because the more information they have, the more educated they can become as to what the job will be and what they're going to get paid for that job.
Daniela Porat:
And helpful to the employer, too, I think. That's the other thing that I think a lot of attorneys have told me is that these laws are just a good opportunity to audit your workforce and really get a sense of how and why people are being paid what they're being paid.
Emily Schifter:
I think that's exactly right. That's definitely one of those areas where you have to be ready to discover what it is that is there to be discovered. Tracey, I don't know if you've seen this, but I've definitely seen clients want to get a lawyer involved, have that privilege, protect whatever is uncovered, maybe even get someone who's an expert in statistics who can help them run the disparate impact analysis that they have a real sense of what the data shows and are able to take action on it, where needed, but not create a report that lists all the things that they're doing wrong.
Tracey Diamond:
That's discoverable on a litigation. Yes.
Daniela Porat:
Exactly.
Tracey Diamond:
All right. Have we made progress since 1980? Well, in 2022, the original cast of the movie and some of its offshoots participated in a documentary on this exact topic. Let's listen to a clip.
[CLIP 3]
Ellen Cassedy:
9 to 5 changed my life. It changed the office, bosses, women office workers, but not enough has changed.
Dolly Parton:
My Lord, it's 40 years now and it's still important.
Female 1:
Thousands of women are using two words on social media, #MeToo.
Female 2:
Me too.
Male 1:
Me too.
Female 3:
Me too. Me too.
Female 4:
Me too.
Male 2:
The environment towards women still hasn't changed in so many respects.
Kathy Fitzgerald:
Makes me sad that it's taken 40 years to get a little bit farther along and then scoot back again. That's why telling strong women stories is so important, because it's got to stop.
Mob:
Equal pay. Equal pay. Equal pay. Equal pay.
Lily Tomlin:
We're still having the same conversation about equal pay.
Kathy Fitzgerald:
Which means, keep telling the story.
Jane Fonda:
Keep talking about it and talking about it and talking about it.
[END OF CLIP]
Tracey Diamond:
Guys, where do we go from here? What do you see as the future in Equal Pay?
Daniela Porat:
Well, as I said, I think the pay transparency laws are going to be one of the main areas where we're going to see further evolution. While the early types of pay transparency laws really focused on things like just a straight up salary, or wage range, I think we're going to see more and more states say, “Wait a minute. We also need to include benefits information. We also need to include whether this rule can get stock options, or bonuses.” I think that's particularly important in industries where workers' compensation is actually not made up by base salary. The bulk of employees make their wealth and their money from things like stock options and bonuses, that I think particularly important in finance and tech. I think we'll see pay transparency laws evolve in that way.
Then the other area I think we'll see evolution is in those Equal Pay Act adjacent areas. Again, like the PUMP Act, but areas that are not explicitly about pay, but certainly have an impact on workers' pay. One law that comes to mind that is new and the first of its kind is New York's Prenatal Leave Law, which came online in earlier this year and requires employers to provide 20 hours of paid leave for individuals to seek prenatal care if they are pregnant, but notably can be used by workers who are wanting to become pregnant if they need time to go to an appointment to discuss infertility, or something like that. That to me is an Equal Pay adjacent law. In 9 to 5, we think about how the women established a daycare at the office. That's an Equal Pay adjacent initiative. I think we're going to see a lot of that in the years to come.
Tracey Diamond:
Well, this has been really quite an interesting topic of discussion and always fun listening to Dolly Parton.
Daniela Porat:
Yes.
Tracey Diamond:
Thank you so much to Daniela for joining us today. Thank you to our listeners of Hiring to Firing. Don't forget to check out our blogs at our labor and employment group here at Troutman Pepper Locke, and shoot us an email. Let us know ideas for future topics. Thanks so much, everybody.
Daniela Porat:
Thank you.
Copyright, Troutman Pepper Locke LLP. These recorded materials are designed for educational purposes only. This podcast is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are solely those of the individual participants. Troutman does not make any representations or warranties, express or implied, regarding the contents of this podcast. Information on previous case results does not guarantee a similar future result. Users of this podcast may save and use the podcast only for personal or other non-commercial, educational purposes. No other use, including, without limitation, reproduction, retransmission or editing of this podcast may be made without the prior written permission of Troutman Pepper Locke. If you have any questions, please contact us at troutman.com.