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: NLRB "Punts" - Declines To Assert Jurisdiction Over Northwestern Football Players


August 17, 2015

In a ruling on August 17, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided that it should not exercise jurisdiction over the unionization attempts by Northwestern football players. The NLRB "punted" the issue and declined to decide whether the football players were employees permitted to unionize under the National Labor Relations Act.

So, why did the NLRB decline jurisdiction? Because, it says, asserting jurisdiction only over the Northwestern football players would not "promote stability in labor relations." Here's some of the reasons why:

  • The NLRB noted that it has jurisdiction only over private universities, which make up only 17 of the approximately 125 universities in Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS).
  • The NLRB found that the history of oversight in bargaining in analogous professional sports has never involved recognition of a unit comprised of only one sports team;
    • Rather administrative oversight of bargaining has included the entire sports league;
    • Here, however, the NLRB is being asked to assert jurisdiction over only one team and the players of other competing teams would not be represented or are entirely outside the NLRB’s jurisdiction.
  • Since the Northwestern football program faces regulation not simply from the school but also from the Big Ten and the NCAA, and since Northwestern is the only private university in the Big Ten and only one of 17 private universities in the FBS of the NCAA Division I, exercising jurisdiction would not promote the stability of labor relations.

So, what does this mean for employers?

  • Candidly, not much.
  • Employers may take some comfort that the NLRB in this instance likely got it right.
  • The ruling may give some fodder to private employers battling "micro-units" as the decision does have some helpful language in that regard.
  • Look for continued effort by the union to push at the conference and NCAA level for more oversight on behalf of the players and their desire to be paid a stipend or for the use of their images, and to discuss other health and welfare issues.

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.