Close X

Attorney Spotlight

How does Eli Richardson's past work with the federal government inform his client interactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

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 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.