Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


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: Can Employer Require Impaired Employee to Take Medication?


August 28, 2015

The EEOC says no. In a recent case, the EEOC filed suit against a paper company in Michigan over this issue. The employee had a seizure at work and was diagnosed with epilepsy. After a period of leave, the employee was released to return to work by his physician.

Wise employers now know the "tension":

  • The ADA says the employer must bring the employee back and provide reasonable accommodation, so long as the employee is not a risk to himself or to others.
  • The standard is whether the employee poses a significant risk of substantial harm.
  • The EEOC's regulations also say the employer must have an interactive discussion with the employee about possible accommodations.
  • In this case, the employer apparently was concerned about the employee working and having another seizure in a hazardous workplace, a typical concern in a manufacturing facility with large, sophisticated equipment.
  • So, employer decides to have a written agreement with the employee requiring, among other things:
    • The employee must take his anti-seizure medication; and
    • The employee must do so "under observation."

The EEOC has filed suit. It is not clear yet whether the EEOC is objecting to the "take your medicine" directive from the employer or only objecting to the "under observation" requirement. The EEOC interprets that requirement as meaning someone in the management team has to observe each work day the employee actually taking the medication.

This case is worth watching further. Here are some key points:

  • Has the doctor provided a release for the employee to return to work safely only if the employee continues to maintain his regimen of treatment?
    • Or, is the release not so conditional?
    • If the release is conditional, it would appear the employer has a duty to require that the employee take his medication as a condition to returning to work.
  • Yet, is that what the EEOC finds objectionable?
  • Or, does the EEOC find objectionable only the requirement that the medicine be taken "under observation"?
  • Interestingly, in its Complaint, the EEOC alleges that the employer has treated this employee differently than it treats its non-disabled employees.
    • However, depending upon its nature, that differing treatment may actually be required by the ADA.
    • The nature of the ADA's "reasonable accommodation" requirement is that disabled employees are treated differently – i.e., more favorably – than non-disabled employees, so long as that more favorable treatment is "reasonable."

With workplace safety concerns ever-present for employers, especially for manufacturers with workplaces containing inherent hazards, it will be interesting to see how this case unfolds.

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.