Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo

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

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Labor Talk Blog: U.S. Supreme Court to Address Neutrality Agreement


June 27, 2013

On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider whether a neutrality agreement between Hollywood Greyhound Track Inc. d/b/a Mardi Gras Gaming ("Mardi Gras") and UNITE HERE Local 355 ("UNITE HERE") violated Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA").

A "neutrality agreement" is an agreement between an employer and a union by which the employer agrees not to campaign against a union's attempt to organize its workforce. In the neutrality agreement at issue in Mulhall v. UNITE HERE Local 355, Mardi Gras agreed to give UNITE HERE access to nonpublic work areas to organize employees during work hours, provide the union with the names and home addresses of employees, and remain neutral during UNITE HERE's attempts to organize. In exchange, UNITE HERE agreed to "lend financial support to a ballot initiative regarding casino gaming" and "refrain from picketing, boycotting, striking, or undertaking other economic activity against Mardi Gras," should the majority of Mardi Gras' employees recognize UNITE HERE as their exclusive bargaining representative.

Section 302 prohibits an employer from paying, lending, or delivering, or agreeing to pay, lend, or deliver, "any money or thing of value" to "any labor organization, or any officer or employee thereof, which represents, seeks to represent, or would admit to membership, any of the employees of such employer" subject to certain exceptions. Mardi Gras employee, Martin Muhall, filed an action in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida seeking to enjoin enforcement of the neutrality agreement on the basis that it violated Section 302 of the LMRA. Upon review of the district court's dismissal of the case for failure to state a claim, the Eleventh Circuit found that an employer’s organizing assistance could be a "thing of value" under Section 302.

Willful violations of Section 302 can result in a fine of up to $15,000 and/or imprisonment for up to five years, both.

We expect a decision in this case in mid-2014.

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.