Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did a clerkship with Judge Merritt change the way Chris Climo approaches the practice of law? 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

Download the Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017, authored by Bass, Berry & Sims

The Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017 details all healthcare-related False Claims Act settlements from last year, organized by particular sectors of the healthcare industry. In addition to reviewing all healthcare fraud-related settlements, the Review includes updates on enforcement-related litigation involving the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute, and looks at the continued implications from the government's focus on enforcement efforts involving individual actors in connection with civil and criminal healthcare fraud investigations.

Click here to download the Review.

Chris Lazarini Provides Insight on Broker's Employment Retaliation Claims

Securities Litigation Commentator


November 16, 2017

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini provided insight on a case in which a former commodities broker claimed her former employers retaliated against her for filing a civil rights complaint by causing her new employer to terminate her. The Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss because the Plaintiff met the four criteria for stating a retaliation claim:

  1. she participated in a protected activity, 
  2. Defendants knew of the protected activity, 
  3. she was subjected to an adverse employment action and 
  4. a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.

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.

Shakerdge vs. Tradition Finance Services, Inc. & TFS Energy, LLC, No. 3:16-cv-01940 (D. Conn., 9/26/17) 

To state a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show (1) she participated in a protected activity, (2) defendant knew of the protected activity, (3) she was subjected to an adverse employment action and (4) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. 

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging that her former employers (1) discriminated against her based on her gender and (2) retaliated against her for filing a civil rights complaint by causing her new employer to terminate her. In December 2010, Plaintiff joined Defendants as an energy commodities broker. She alleged that she was the only woman on the trading floor, was regularly subjected to degrading, sexist and racist conduct by her male counterparts and was physically and verbally harassed by her immediate supervisor and others in firm management. She also alleged that the firm failed to support her in maintaining client relationships, pressured her to relinquish her larger accounts, reduced her pay and finally terminated her after she complained to management about the alleged discrimination. Six months later, she filed a complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ("CHRO"). Around the same time, she accepted what she believed to be a firm offer to work as an energy commodities broker for another firm. The new firm registered her, but after her first day on the job, told her the offer had been rescinded. She alleged that an employee at the new firm told her she was fired because she filed the CHRO complaint against Defendants.

Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's retaliation claims, arguing that they were conclusory and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Defendants also moved to dismiss Plaintiff's request for a jury trial, arguing that Plaintiff waived that right under the terms of her employment agreement. The Court denies the motions. With respect to the retaliation claims, the Court finds that Plaintiff participated in a protected activity when she filed her CHRO complaint and concludes that Defendant knew of the filing because it offered no contrary evidence. The Court rejects Defendants' argument that a true statement cannot give rise to retaliation claims; instead, a true statement, offered in retaliation, may qualify as a retaliatory action.

The Court also rejects Defendant's argument that the claims fail because Plaintiff did not specify dates, people or actions to support her claims. Accepting Plaintiff's allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, it is plausible that Defendant sought to blacklist Plaintiff and had some role in her dismissal from the new firm. On the jury trial issue, the Court dismisses the motion as premature, stating that it is without the factual information necessary to whether the waiver was given knowingly and voluntarily. 

Defendant did not move to dismiss Plaintiff's discrimination claims. Nor did Defendant seek dismissal of the retaliation claims by offering arguments that its actions were legitimate and non-retaliatory.

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.