Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How does Jessie Zeigler anticipate the intersection of privacy and smart technology will impact the future of litigation? Find out more>


Close X


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

Healthcare Private Equity Compliance Checklist

The complex and ever-changing healthcare regulatory and enforcement environment, including increased focus on the role of private equity firms in their portfolio companies, make compliance a top priority for private equity firms investing in healthcare companies. The best way to limit your exposure as a private equity firm is to avoid a compliance misstep in the first place. Additionally, an effective and robust compliance program for your portfolio healthcare company makes it much more attractive to potential buyers and helps you avoid an unexpected and costly investigation or valuation hit down the road. Download the Healthcare Private Equity Compliance Checklist to assess whether your portfolio company's compliance program is up-to-date.

Click here to download the checklist.

Chris Lazarini Examines Case of Constructive Discharge in Employment Discrimination Case

Securities Litigation Commentator


November 16, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini examined a case where Plaintiff, a 61-year-old female bank employee, sufficiently pleaded constructive discharge in support of her employment discrimination claims where she was given a choice between accepting a demotion or facing "dire consequences" if she failed to meet an unrealistic sales goal. 

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.

Nielsen vs. Pioneer Bank, No. 1:15-cv-623 (N.D. N.Y., 9/13/16) 

Allegations that an employment discrimination plaintiff was given a choice between accepting demotion and facing "dire consequences" if she failed to meet an unrealistic goal sufficiently pleads constructive discharge. 

Plaintiff is a 61-year-old female who worked for Pioneer Bank (the "Bank") in various capacities for 28 years. In 1997, Plaintiff was asked to serve as president of the Bank's broker-dealer subsidiary. In that capacity, she led a team of two financial advisors and thirty sales representatives. In 2012, the Bank hired a new CEO ("Amell") who set out to change the Bank's work culture to appeal to younger customers. Amell installed a chief customer experience officer ("Tomczak") with supervisory authority over Plaintiff. In her January 2014 performance review, Tomczak gave Plaintiff a pay raise and told her he wanted the Bank's investment clients to experience "world class" service. Under Plaintiff's management, the broker-dealer met or exceeded its 2014 first quarter goals and realized an eleven percent increase in revenues over the first quarter of 2013. In her quarterly review, however, Tomczak told Plaintiff that she was doing a "terrible" job and would be demoted to financial advisor so that he could assume the presidency of the broker-dealer. A few weeks later, Amell and Tomczak asked Plaintiff when she intended to retire and, apparently not happy with her stated intent to work for another five or six years, gave her the choice of accepting the demotion or being charged with responsibility for quadrupling the broker-dealer's sales within six months. Failure to meet that target, according to Amell, would result in "dire consequences." The following day, Plaintiff resigned, taking early retirement. She timely filed charges of age and gender discrimination against the Bank, Amell and Tomczak with the EEOC and New York state, both of which denied her claims and issued a right to sue letter. Plaintiff filed this action, and Defendants moved to dismiss.

The Court applies the familiar burden-shifting framework to Plaintiff's claims, examining whether she pled a prima-facie case of discrimination sufficient to shift the burden to the Bank to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its adverse employment action. The Bank concedes that Plaintiff established that she was a member of a protected class and was qualified for her former position, but argued that her election to take early retirement did not amount to an adverse employment action and that Plaintiff had not shown an inference of discrimination.

Reading the complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court disagrees. First, her allegations of choosing between demotion and "dire consequences" for failing to meet an unrealistic goal sufficiently plead constructive discharge. Second, the inquiries about Plaintiff's retirement plans, coupled with the threats of demotion and being replaced by a younger, male employee, create an inference of age and gender discrimination sufficient to meet her prima facie burden. The Court denies the Bank's motion, deferring to the summary judgment stage or beyond the issue of whether the Bank can establish a non-discriminatory reason for its actions, at which point the burden will shift back to Plaintiff to show that the Bank’s reason was a pretext for unlawful discrimination. 

The Court grants Amell's and Tomczak's motions to dismiss, finding that neither Title VII nor the ADEA create liability in individual supervisors and co-workers who are not the plaintiff's actual employers.

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.