Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What is Shannon Wiley looking forward to at this year's Asembia Specialty Pharmacy Summit? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Primary Care Providers Win Challenge of CMS Interpretation of Enhanced Payment Law

With the help and support of the Tennessee Medical Association, 21 Tennessee physicians of underserved communities joined together and retained Bass, Berry & Sims to file suit against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to stop improper collection efforts. Our team, led by David King, was successful in halting efforts to recoup TennCare payments that were used legitimately to expand services in communities that needed them. Read more

Tennessee Medical Association & Bass, Berry & Sims

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

Download the Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017, authored by Bass, Berry & Sims

The Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017 details all healthcare-related False Claims Act settlements from last year, organized by particular sectors of the healthcare industry. In addition to reviewing all healthcare fraud-related settlements, the Review includes updates on enforcement-related litigation involving the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute, and looks at the continued implications from the government's focus on enforcement efforts involving individual actors in connection with civil and criminal healthcare fraud investigations.

Click here to download the Review.

Labor Talk Blog: Delay in Supreme Court Review of D.R. Horton Continues to Cost Employers Enforcing Arbitration Agreements


March 12, 2014

Readers of our series of posts on D.R. Horton will recall our prediction that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) would continue its attacks on certain arbitration agreements. As predicted, the NLRB's administrative law judges (ALJ) continue to strike down any arbitration agreements that waive class or collective action claims and allow arbitration of only individual claims. The ALJs consistently find that such agreements violate employees' Section 7 rights to engage in protected concerted activity.

Most recently, in Network Capital Funding Corp. (March 5, 2014) , another ALJ found an arbitration agreement violated Section 7 not on the agreement's language, but rather based on the employer's attempted enforcement. There, the employer argued that due to the silence in the arbitration agreement on whether or not class or collective claims were allowed, the agreement allowed for only individual, not class arbitration. On that basis, the employer opposed the former employee's attempt to pursue class relief in arbitration. The ALJ ruled, based on D.R. Horton, that since the employer took that position in the arbitration proceedings, then the agreement violated Section 7.

The employer argued to the ALJ that numerous federal circuit courts had rejected the Board's substantive reasoning in D.R. Horton. The ALJ explained that he was bound by NLRB precedent (i.e., the D.R. Horton ruling) until the U.S. Supreme Court or the Board itself said otherwise.

So, while D.R. Horton continues to languish in the appeal process, employers continue to face the costs – and the headaches – of trying to enforce arbitration agreements that provide for only individual arbitrations, or that are enforced as such. These costs and headaches continue even though virtually every circuit court to consider the issue has rejected the Board's substantive reasoning in D.R. Horton.

So, one might ask, what incentive does this current NLRB have to rush an appeal to the current U.S. Supreme Court? Not much.

For more Labor and Employment information, visit

Related Post:

Supreme Court Says a Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Agreement is Enforceable

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.