Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What colorful method does Claire Miley use to keep up with the latest healthcare regulations as they relate to proposed transactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

CLARCOR
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

Securities Law Exchange BlogSecurities Law Exchange blog offers insight on the latest legal and regulatory developments affecting publicly traded companies. It focuses on a wide variety of topics including regulation and reporting updates, public company advisory topics, IPO readiness and exchange updates including IPO announcements, M&A trends and deal news.

Read More >

Labor Talk Blog: U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Court's Authority to Review EEOC's Conciliation Efforts

Publications

July 25, 2014

Can an employer challenge whether the EEOC has done its job in defense of a case brought by the EEOC? The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide that question. The issue is whether courts have authority to review whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) properly engaged in efforts to "conciliate" a case prior to bringing a lawsuit under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As savvy readers know, the EEOC has a statutory obligation, after finding "cause," to attempt to negotiate a resolution of the discrimination charge prior to filing suit.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, that the EEOC's conciliation efforts were not reviewable by the court. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that Title VII commits the conciliation process to the EEOC's broad discretion, and that the court lacked the authority to review the agency's efforts. The Seventh Circuit's decision broke precedent with every other Court of Appeals to have considered the issue. Specifically, in its petition for writ of certiorari, Mach Mining noted that the Seventh Circuit's departure from the precedent set forth by the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Circuits, created an "intractable conflict" that only the Supreme Court could resolve. The Supreme Court has agreed to review this ruling. The case is scheduled to be heard during Supreme Court's 2014-2015 term, which beings in October.

Why does this matter? If an employer is facing a lawsuit from the EEOC, the Commission's failure to conciliate in good faith could serve as an affirmative defense to a bias claim. The upcoming decision also should create a uniform rule regarding conciliation that will end the EEOC's practice of tailoring its settlement efforts to the legal jurisdiction where the matter arose.

For more Labor and Employment information, visit www.BassBerryLaborTalk.com.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

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.