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: DOL Issues Final Rule Revising the Definition of "Spouse" Under the FMLA

Publications

February 25, 2015

As of March 27, "spouse" under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) will include same-sex spouses for any legally recognized marriages based on the laws of the state of celebration. On February 25, as expected, the Department of Labor (DOL) published its final rules on the definition of spouse under the FMLA in light of the Supreme Court's Windsor decision. Based on this final rule, the definition of spouse will be based upon the law of the jurisdiction where the marriage was entered into (place of celebration) rather than based on the law of the state of the employee's residence (or work) "to ensure that all legally married couples, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, will have consistent federal family leave rights regardless of where they live."

Employers will recall that the U.S. Supreme Court, in United States v. Windsor, ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA had provided that, for federal law purposes, marriage was only the legally recognized union between one man and one woman. As a result of the Windsor ruling, as of June 26, 2013, the FMLA regulatory definition of spouse included a legally married same-sex spouse based on the law of the state of the employee's residence. If the same-sex couple resided in a state that recognized same-sex marriage and were legally married there, the spousal benefits under the FMLA would extend to the individuals in that marriage.

The DOL recently proposed to change the regulatory definition of spouse to mean the other person with whom an individual employee is entered into marriage, regardless of gender. The DOL further proposed to look to the law of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was entered into (including for common law marriages), as opposed to the law of the State in which the employee resides, and to expressly reference the inclusion of same-sex marriages in addition to common law marriages. After the required announcement and comment period, the DOL has now made its proposal final, to be effective as of March 27, 2015 (30 days after announcement of the rule change).

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.