Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did Mike DeAgro's experience co-founding a nonprofit advocacy organization lead to a career in the legal field? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Envision to Sell to KKR for $9.9 Billion

We represented Envision Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: EVHC) in its definitive agreement to sell to KKR in an all-cash transaction for $9.9 billion, including debt. KKR will pay $46 per Envision share in cash to buy the company, marking a 32 percent premium to the company's volume-weighted average share price from November 1, when Envision announced it was considering its options. The transaction is expected to close the fourth quarter of 2018. Read more

Envision Healthcare

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Six Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice spotlight

Dermatology, ophthalmology, radiology, urology…the list goes on. Yet, in any physician practice management transaction, there are six key considerations that apply and, if not carefully managed, can derail a transaction. Download the 6 Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice to keep your physician practice management transactions on track.

Click here to download the guide.

Labor Talk Blog: DOMA and the FMLA - What Should Employers Do "In the Meantime?"


June 28, 2013

The Supreme Court's Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") ruling will impact the "spouse" definition in the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") (among other extensive impacts in the employment law and employment benefits industry). Employers can expect the Department of Labor to issue, relatively soon, some guidance on the definition of spouse in light of the DOMA ruling.

It is anticipated that the definition of spouse will look to the state of celebration – that is, the state where the same-sex union was performed, or what state issued the license, regardless of the state of residence of the couple. But, until the guidance is issued, what should an employer do "in the meantime?"

Below is some guidance:

  • Employers should proceed with some caution (a blast of the obvious).
  • If faced with an employee who requests leave for an ailing same-sex spouse, and the couple lives and works in a state that recognizes the same-sex union, the employer can (and should) grant the leave and count it as FMLA; not doing so likely will invite an interference claim;
  • If faced with an employee who requests leave for an ailing same-sex spouse, and the couple lives and works in a state that does not recognize the same-sex marriage BUT,
    • the couple has a license from a state that does recognize same-sex marriage, then the employer can (and likely should) grant the leave. Granting the leave will avoid an interference claim. However, there is some risk that the leave, if granted, will later be considered non-FMLA-qualifying and thus will not be considered to have exhausted the employee's available leave time. To address that risk, the employer should document
      • That the leave is being granted at the employee's request
      • That the request is being granted in the midst of legal uncertainty
      • That the employer is relying on the request and the information provided to grant the leave under FMLA.

      Documenting the employee's request in this way will help the employer show promissory estoppel. That is, the employer is changing its conduct (granting the leave) in reasonable reliance on the employee’s "promise" (the request to treat the leave as FMLA-qualifying).

    • the couple does not have a license from a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, then the employer should deny the leave as counting under the FMLA but can choose to grant the leave under some other employer policy (sick leave, vacation, personal leave). If the employer grants the leave and tries to count the leave as FMLA-qualifying, the employer would have a difficult time in showing "reasonable reliance" – a necessary element in promissory estoppel identified above. The promissory estoppel doctrine requires that the employer's reliance be "reasonable" and relying on a request in a state that does not recognize the marriage, for a couple that does not have a license from a state recognizing the marriage, would not likely be viewed as reasonable.

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.