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 >

Chris Lazarini Examines Prima Facie Claims in ADA and ADEA Case

Securities Litigation Commentator


October 3, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini examined the case in which the court determined that the plaintiff, a former employee of JP Morgan and J.P. Morgan Securities who had been deemed medically unfit to work, was therefore not a "qualified" employee and could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

Chris provided the analysis for Securities Litigation Commentator (SLC). The full text of the analysis is below and used with permission from the publication. If you would like to receive additional content from the SLC, please visit the SLC website to sign up for the newsletter.

Gamble vs. JP Morgan Chase & Co. & J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, No. 3:15-cv-0496 (M.D. Tenn., 8/31/16)

A plaintiff who is not medically released to return to work in any capacity and who cannot perform essential job functions is not a "qualified" person and cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Plaintiff, a 68-year-old former employee of JP Morgan (the "Bank") and associated person of J.P. Morgan Securities ("JPMS"), brought this action to assert claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). In August 2011, Plaintiff suffered his third heart attack and was instructed by his doctor to take indefinite disability leave. The Bank approved Plaintiff's short term disability through February 2012, after which Plaintiff remained on leave, testifying more than once that he considered himself permanently disabled on the date of his heart attack.

In November 2012, JPMS filed a Form U5 terminating Plaintiff as an associated person for failing to meet his continuing education requirements. Plaintiff received a copy of the U5 filing and did not contest his termination or seek reinstatement of his securities licenses during the permissible two year window. Plaintiff alleged that the U5 effectively terminated his employment with the Bank. The Bank disputed this allegation, claiming that Plaintiff was terminated in September 2013, only after Plaintiff failed to respond to the Bank’s inquiries regarding whether he intended to return to work. 

ADA claims are subject to a burden-shifting analysis, where the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination to shift the burden to defendant to articulate a non-discriminatory explanation for the adverse employment action. If the defendant does so, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove the defendant’s explanation is pretextual. The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to meet his initial burden under the ADA. A requisite element of Plaintiff's prima facie case is a showing he was "qualified" to perform the essential functions of his employment position. Citing Plaintiff's own testimony that he became permanently disabled on the date of his heart attack, the Court finds Plaintiff not qualified and grants summary judgment on the ADA claims.

ADEA claims have the same burden-shifting analysis and have a similar prima facie element regarding the plaintiff's qualifications to perform his duties. Under the ADEA, the qualifications analysis focuses on objective standards – education, experience, etc. – but medical capacity to perform one's job may also be considered. Citing Plaintiff's own testimony again, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie case under the ADEA because he could not perform his duties and grants summary judgment on those claims.

Besides his termination, Plaintiff alleged a host of other discriminatory acts between 2009 and 2011 in support of his claims. The Court finds those allegations time-barred, because Plaintiff's EEOC claim was filed over 300 days after those alleged events occurred. The EEOC claim was filed within 300 days of the date Plaintiff claimed to have been terminated, making that part of Plaintiff's claim timely, but the Court declines to apply the continuing violation doctrine to the other claims, finding the termination a discrete act unrelated to the other allegations.

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.