Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did an interest in healthcare policy lead Robert Platt to a career in the law? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

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

Six Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice spotlight

Dermatology, ophthalmology, radiology, urology…the list goes on. Yet, in any physician practice management transaction, there are six key considerations that apply and, if not carefully managed, can derail a transaction. Download the 6 Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice to keep your physician practice management transactions on track.

Click here to download the guide.

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.