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


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

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.