Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L.L.P. RSS Feed

Management Update - Volume 15, Issue 9

01 Sep 2026 00:00:00 -0800

Student Athlete Agent Registration Update: "Name, Image, and Liability: Louisiana's New Playbook for NIL Agents"

26 Aug 2026 00:00:00 -0800

ACT No. 895 (Senate Bill No. 389—2026 Regular Session) requires anyone representing a Louisiana student athlete in connection with NIL opportunities or professional representation to register with the Attorney General’s Public Protection Division, undergo a background check, and complete mandatory training before engaging in that work. The law establishes a separate regulatory framework for NIL agents, gives athletes a private right of action against bad actors, expands the Attorney General’s civil and criminal enforcement authority, and eliminates compensation rights for agents who fail to comply. Effective August 1, 2026, these requirements allow athletes and their families to confirm whether an agent is properly registered, while placing greater compliance obligations on agents and attorneys working in this space.

A new accompanying law—ACT No. 810 (House Bill No. 513—2026 Regular Session)—brings high school NIL activity within the scope of Louisiana’s existing NIL framework (La. R.S. 17:3701, et seq.). Among other things, it identifies prohibited endorsement categories for high school athletes, requires written parental consent for athletes under 18, requires disclosure to the athlete’s high school before an agreement is signed, and establishes standards for when a high school may prohibit a proposed NIL deal.

Who is impacted?

For purposes of the new law, an “athlete” is any person who resides in Louisiana and is eligible to participate, will be eligible to participate, or participates in sports contests, including high school students.

The new law also expands the definition of “agent” to include anyone who “represents or advises an athlete in connection with an endorsement contract, or endorsement activities, including name, image, and likeness matters.”

The new law does not require certification by a player’s association for agents who solely handle endorsement or NIL work.

Agents registered as agents in other states may obtain registration status in Louisiana by submitting: (1) a copy of the application for registration filed in the other state; (2) a statement signed under penalty of perjury and identifying any material change in the information contained in the application or affirming that no material change has occurred; and (3) a copy of the certificate of registration issued by the other state.

Once an athlete, or a third person acting on behalf of the athlete, initiates communication with an unregistered agent, the agent has seven (7) days after the initial act to submit and complete the required registration.

Registration Application

The application includes twenty-one (21) requirements. Among the most important are disclosure of each social media account with which the applicant, the applicant’s business, or the applicant’s employer is affiliated; a description of the applicant’s formal training, practical experience, and educational background relating to activities as an athlete agent; disclosure of ownership or equity interests in the applicant’s operation of the athlete-agent business; a list of all athletes the agent worked with during the preceding five years; a list of civil proceedings in which the applicant was named as a defendant during the preceding fifteen years; and whether the applicant has been adjudicated bankrupt within the preceding ten years. Further, as a condition of registration, each applicant must consent to and submit to a background check at the applicant’s cost. Failure to do so will result in denial of the application.

Required Disclosure

Before representing an athlete, the agent must provide the athlete with documentation of the agent’s registration status, fee calculations, third-party compensation, expenses, scope of services, duration of representation, and date of execution. This documentation does not need to be submitted to the division, but it must be retained by both the athlete and the agent and produced upon request or subpoena. Failure to obtain the required disclosure documents may result in forfeiture of all rights to compensation for the endorsement activity.

Under the new law, the athlete is required to disclose the endorsement contract to the educational institution or school.

How Long Does Registration Status Last?

The registration or renewal of registration under the new law is valid for two (2) years.

Consequences

Any agent contract, or any designation of consideration to or for the athlete agent or any third person in an endorsement contract, that violates the law is void and unenforceable, and the agent must return any consideration received under the contract.

Athlete Protection

An athlete may bring a civil action against an agent for damages if the agent’s act or omission causes the athlete to lose eligibility, be suspended or disqualified from participation, or suffer financial or reputational harm.

The new law also bars high school athletes from using their NIL for commercial promotions involving adult entertainment, alcohol, cannabis, gambling, controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, performance-enhancing drugs, tobacco, or weapons.

David Fleshman, Partner, and Joe Kehrli, J.D., Bar Admission Pending, are members of Breazeale Sachse’s Sports Law Group, advising clients on legal issues affecting athletes, athletic organizations, and the evolving landscape of name, image, and likeness (NIL) opportunities.

Negotiating Consent Orders with Professional Licensing Boards

26 Aug 2026 00:00:00 -0800

When a professional licensing board offers a practitioner a consent order, the first question is often whether to accept the discipline or contest the case. This is rarely the most useful inquiry. Counsel should instead determine whether the matter can be resolved on terms that protect the public, satisfy the board, and reduce the professional and collateral consequences for the practitioner.

Negotiating a consent order is often less about “winning” or “losing” and more about identifying the client’s true objectives, understanding what the licensing board needs to resolve the matter, and negotiating terms that are sufficiently protective of the public without unnecessarily restricting the practitioner’s ability to practice.

One important consideration is whether the licensing board’s consent order has unintended consequences. Restrictions on a license can affect clinical privileges, employment, credentialing, payer enrollment, NPDB reporting obligations, licensure in other jurisdictions, and eligibility to hold a compact license.

Start With the End in Mind

A consent order is not simply an alternative to a formal disciplinary hearing. It is a binding disposition of a professional licensing matter, and its language may follow the practitioner for years. Before initiating consent order negotiations, counsel should identify the provider’s objectives. Those may include: avoiding suspension or revocation, maintaining an unrestricted license, limiting the duration of probation or other restrictions, avoiding restrictions that interfere with the practitioner's specialty or practice setting, protecting employment or medical staff privileges, minimizing reporting consequences, avoiding unnecessary findings or admissions, limiting continuing education or remediation requirements, establishing a clear path to termination of probation, preserving the ability to obtain or maintain licensure in other jurisdictions, or to maintain eligibility for compact licensure. All consequences should be considered before the agreement is signed.

Don’t Negotiate the Penalty Before Understanding the Case

The strongest negotiating position begins with a careful assessment of the underlying allegations. Counsel should ask: Even if the allegations are accepted as true, has the practitioner actually violated the board’s statutes or rules? This analysis determines the negotiating posture. If the evidence does not establish a violation, counsel may have a basis to seek dismissal or decline a proposed consent order all together.

If the evidence establishes a violation but there are mitigating circumstances, the negotiation should focus on reducing the severity and duration of discipline.

On the other hand, if the underlying conduct is difficult to defend, the negotiation may instead focus on obtaining a predictable and manageable resolution.

Counsel should fully understand the facts, the rules and regulations allegedly violated, and the board’s evidence before negotiating what discipline is appropriate.

Understand the Board’s Role and Underlying Mission

Negotiating with a licensing board is different from negotiating a private dispute. The board’s statutory charge is to protect the public. Depending on the circumstances, public protection may be satisfied by evidence of remediation, continuing education, monitoring, submission to a professional evaluation and/or competency assessment, restrictions designed to address the underlying risk, or a period of demonstrated compliance.

Once counsel for the licensee fully understands the board’s concern, the negotiation becomes more productive. Instead of arguing only that the proposed discipline is too harsh, counsel can propose an alternative that addresses the board’s public protection concerns with fewer unnecessary or punitive consequences for the practitioner.

Keep in mind that nearly every part of a proposed consent order may be negotiable, including the findings of fact, NPDB reporting code and narrative, cited rule or statutory violations, fines, and sanctions. A proposed order may include factual findings that exceed what is necessary to resolve the complaint. Counsel should review each finding and determine whether it is needed to support the negotiated discipline. If not, counsel may be able to negotiate narrower, softer language that is more acceptable to the provider.

A common mistake in consent order negotiations is focusing only on the penalty. The factual findings and legal conclusions can be just as troubling, if not more so, for the provider. Counsel should carefully review every section of the consent order to negotiate a complete, accurate, and narrowly tailored agreement. Whenever possible, a well-negotiated consent order should include objective, achievable conditions with a clearly defined endpoint.

Practice Restrictions Require Special Attention

Licensing board restrictions can directly conflict with hospital credentialing and privileging requirements. Restrictions that appear narrow in a board order may have much broader practical effects. Counsel should consider whether the proposed language could affect the practitioner’s specialty, procedures, prescribing authority, supervision requirements, call responsibilities, telehealth services, practice locations, facility privileges, or ability to satisfy medical staff bylaws and credentialing criteria.

Before accepting a restriction, counsel should consider: What, exactly, will the practitioner be unable to do on Monday morning after the order takes effect? If the answer is unclear, the language should be negotiated further. Counsel should also discuss any restrictions, supervision obligations, or employer-reporting requirements with the practitioner’s employer to confirm that all conditions in the consent order can be satisfied.

A consent order can provide an effective resolution, but it can also carry costly unintended consequences. Counsel’s goal is not merely to reduce the discipline imposed; it is to negotiate the right resolution.

The Complaint Isn't Always the Problem: How Employers Can Avoid Creating Liability after an Employee Complains

26 Aug 2026 00:00:00 -0800

An employee complains that her supervisor is treating her unfairly. Maybe the complaint has merit; maybe it does not. Either way, the employer’s response matters. Mishandling the complaint can create a separate, and sometimes stronger, claim than the one the employee originally raised.

Here are a few practical dos and don’ts for employers to follow after an employee complains:

DO:

Recognize a complaint when you hear one. A complaint will not always arrive as a formal email to Human Resources or use words like “discrimination,” “harassment,” or “retaliation.” Employees often raise concerns informally, including in conversations with supervisors. Do not ignore a concern simply because the employee did not use legal terminology or formal channels to report it. It is important to train supervisors to recognize when complaints are made and to immediately report such complaints to Human Resources.
Take all complaints seriously and promptly investigate. A complaint may ultimately lack merit, but employers should still act quickly, gather facts, review documents, and assess the employee’s concerns to determine what, if anything, happened and decide upon any remedial measures. Failure to investigate can turn a simple complaint into a claim, charge, or lawsuit.
Choose the right investigation team. Use impartial investigators who can maintain confidentiality and consider using legal counsel to handle an investigation when the circumstances warrant it.
Close the loop. Do not let the complaint disappear into an HR black hole. After the investigation, employers should follow up with the complainant and the accused to confirm that the complaint was investigated and, where appropriate, communicate relevant findings or next steps.

DON’T:

Make a knee-jerk response. Prematurely reaching conclusions and making employment decisions without first investigating all the facts can create liability for an employer and undermine the investigation. Employers should avoid immediately assuming wrongdoing by the accused, dismissing the complaint as unfounded, or promising a particular outcome before gathering the relevant facts.
Neglect documentation. Employers should document the complaint, key investigation steps, witness interviews, documents reviewed, findings, follow-up, and any corrective action taken.
Mishandle confidentiality. Do not broadcast the complaint or investigation details beyond those who need to know. At the same time, avoid promising absolute confidentiality because the employer may need to disclose some information during or after the investigation to witnesses or key decision makers.
Invite a retaliation claim. Even if the original complaint lacks merit, the employee may still claim retaliation. A sudden negative evaluation, discipline, schedule change, exclusion from meetings, or termination after a complaint can be characterized as retaliatory. Review the proposed action with Human Resources and legal counsel to ensure it is for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons.

Bottom line, employee complaints are inevitable; employer-created liability is not. While the right response to a complaint will depend on the specific facts, it is still important to recognize complaints, guard against retaliation, and understand what a proper response entails.

Employers should consult with their labor and employment counsel when tough employee complaints arise.

Hospitals With Off-Campus Hospital Outpatient Departments Beware: New NPIs and Provider-Based Attestations Required Before Jan. 1, 2028

26 Aug 2026 00:00:00 -0800

Within the latest round of federal budget legislation there is a provision that will change the landscape of off-campus hospital outpatient departments (“Off-campus HOPDs”) and billing procedures. Section 6225 of the Consolidation Appropriations Act (“CAA”) amends Section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act to impose a new, mandatory identification and attestation regime on hospital Off-campus HOPDs. If found to be out of compliance with the new regulations, there are hefty payment consequences. The enforcement of the new regulation will begin January 1, 2028, and non-compliance can risk losing Medicare reimbursement entirely for services furnished at these Off-campus HOPDs. Hospitals and other healthcare providers should begin the preparation now to avoid the consequences coming.

Many hospital systems have expanded their footprint in recent years by acquiring or establishing outpatient clinics, specialty offices, and other care sites located away from the main hospital campus. Under existing CMS regulations (42 C.F.R. §413.65), a hospital can bill services furnished at these off-campus locations as if the off-campus locations were part of the hospital itself if that location qualified for “provider-based status.” Provider-based billing carries a significant financial advantage: these locations become eligible for higher, hospital-level reimbursement under the Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS), rather than the lower rates paid for services furnished in a freestanding physician office.

Prior to the CAA, a hospital had the option of submitting a provider-based attestation to CMS showing that the hospital’s Off-campus HOPD met the licensure, financial integration and other provider-based status requirements. The provider-based attestation was voluntary and a separate identification number for each Off-campus HOPD was not required. These arrangements, however, have come under scrutiny. Section 6225 now requires hospitals to obtain unique National Provider Identifiers (NPI) for each Off-campus HOPD and affirmatively attest, and periodically re-attest, that their Off-campus HOPDs still meet the substantive integration requirements that justify provider-based billing.

New Requirement: Unique NPI and Ongoing Attestation

For items and services furnished on or after January 1, 2028, no Medicare payment will be made for services furnished at an Off-campus HOPD unless the following three conditions are satisfied:

1. A separate National Provider Identifier (NPI). The Off-campus HOPD must obtain its own NPI, which is distinct from the main provider’s NPI, and all items and services furnished there must be billed under that separate number. This is a structural change, as CMS will now be able to isolate off-campus billing activity rather than having it comingled with the main hospital’s claims.

2. An Initial Attestation. During the two-year period preceding the date services are furnished, the provider must submit an initial attestation confirming that the department complies with the provider-based status requirements of 42 C.F.R. §413.65. This means each Off-campus HOPD must submit an initial attestation on or after January 1, 2026 and before January 1, 2028.

3. Subsequent, Ongoing Attestations. Compliance, under the new regulations, is not a one-time event. Rather after making the initial attestation, the provider must continue submitting subsequent attestations on a schedule to be established by CMS.

Which locations count as an “Off-Campus Outpatient Department”?

Under the statute, an off-campus outpatient department is defined by referencing to 42 C.F.R. §413.65. A department is considered off-campus, and therefore subject to the new attestation rules, unless it is located:

- On the campus of the provider; generally, the area immediately adjacent to the provider’s main buildings, plus other areas within 250 yards, plus any additional area CMS’s regional office determines to be part of the campus on a case-by-case basis. OR

- Within the applicable distance of a remote location of a hospital.

Notably, the statute excludes Rural Health Clinics and Federally Qualified Health Centers from the definition of “department of a provider,” with limited exceptions, respectively. Therefore, it is likely that these locations are not subject to the new regulations.

The Provider-Based Status Test

The new law requires an attestation that is directly tied to compliance with 42 C.F.R. §413.65, which requires satisfying a multi-factor, fact-sensitive integration test:

- Licensure: The off-campus location generally must operate under the same license as the main provider.

- Clinical Integration

o Professional staff at the off-campus site holding clinical privileges at the main provider;

o The same monitoring and oversight the main provider applies to its other departments;

o A reporting relationship between the site’s medical director and the main provider’s chief medical officer that mirrors the accountability structure of an on-campus department;

o Shared medical staff committees responsible for quality assurance and utilization review;

o Integrated medical records systems; and

o Seamless referral pathways between the site and the main provider’s inpatient and outpatient services.

- Financial Integration: The site’s financial operations must be fully folded into the main provider’s financial system. This would be achieved through shared income and expenses, cost reporting through the provider’s cost centers, and incorporation into the main provider’s trial balance.

- Public Awareness: Patients must be able to tell when they walk in the door, that they are entering a part of the main hospital, and expect to be billed accordingly.

- Ownership and Control: The site must be 100% owned by the main provider, share the same governing body and organizational documents, and the main provider must retain final authority over contracts, personnel actions, and medical staff appointments.

- Administration and Supervision: Administrative functions, including billing, records, Human Resources, payroll, benefits, and purchasing, must be integrated with the main provider’s,

- Location: For most facilities, the site must be located within 35 miles of the main provider’s campus, subject to several narrow exceptions.

Practical Takeaways for Hospitals

With less than two years before this law starts being enforced, hospitals have a window of time to get ahead of this requirement to stay in compliance and avoid having their Medicare payments reduced. In addition, gathering the necessary documentation and completing the required filings can be a time-intensive process that may take up to a full year. The following are recommended action plans to undergo in the meantime:

- Inventory every off-campus location and account for compliance with section 413.65 criteria above.

- Start the process of obtaining separate NPIs well before January 2028 and confirm that the billing systems are configured to route claims under the correct, location-specific identifier.

- Begin preparing provider based attestation for each Off-campus HOPD now, understanding that provider-based attestations are time-intensive undertakings, with the final product being hundreds of pages.

- Keep an eye on CMS’s forthcoming rulemaking regarding the process and timelines for submitting subsequent attestations.

Compliance with these new requirements is paramount for hospitals. Failure to comply with the attestation and unique NPI requirements by January 1, 2028 will make the Off-campus HOPD ineligible for Medicare OPPS payments.

AI and the Future of Work: Rethinking Economic Security

20 Aug 2026 00:00:00 -0800

Artificial intelligence is increasingly expected to reshape the economy, raising concerns that it could eventually displace large numbers of workers while concentrating wealth among a relatively small number of technology companies and investors. Although AI has not yet led to significant increases in unemployment, policymakers, economists, and technology leaders are actively discussing how society should respond if major labor market disruptions occur. The central challenge is determining how to ensure that the economic benefits created by AI are shared broadly while also supporting workers whose jobs may be affected by automation.

One proposal receiving growing attention is the concept of AI dividends. Under this approach, citizens would receive a share of the wealth generated by AI technologies and companies. Supporters argue that AI systems derive value from large amounts of publicly created data and knowledge, meaning the public should benefit from the profits these systems generate. Funding for AI dividends could come from taxes on AI-related profits, government ownership stakes in AI firms, or public investment funds that hold interests in the AI sector. Advocates believe such measures could help reduce wealth inequality and ensure that technological progress benefits society as a whole rather than a small group of stakeholders.

Another frequently discussed proposal is Universal Basic Income (UBI), which would provide regular cash payments to all citizens regardless of employment status. Proponents argue that guaranteed income could ease poverty, provide financial stability during periods of economic transition, and give workers flexibility as they adapt to changing job markets. However, critics question whether large-scale UBI programs would be financially sustainable and express concerns that they could reduce incentives to seek employment.

Some technology leaders have suggested even more ambitious alternatives. Elon Musk has promoted the idea of Universal High Income, which assumes that AI-driven productivity growth could eventually generate enough wealth to provide everyone with a comfortable standard of living, rather than simply a basic financial safety net. Similarly, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has proposed Universal Basic Compute, a concept that would provide individuals with access to AI computing resources instead of direct cash payments. People could potentially use, transfer, or sell these resources, giving them a direct stake in AI-powered economic activity.

In contrast, many policymakers favor workforce retraining and transition programs. These initiatives focus on helping displaced workers gain new skills, pursue education, enter emerging industries, and secure new employment opportunities. Some proposals also include wage insurance to supplement the earnings of workers who move into lower-paying jobs. Ultimately, proposals for addressing AI-driven job displacement generally fall into two categories: redistributing AI-generated wealth and helping workers adapt. As AI continues to evolve, policymakers will face important decisions about balancing innovation, economic growth, and worker protection.

Breazeale Sachse Welcomes Alec B. Keane and David A. Peterson

20 Aug 2026 00:00:00 -0800

The firm is pleased to announce the addition of Alec B. Keane and David A. Peterson to its Baton Rouge office.

Alec B. Keane joins the firm as a commercial litigation associate, focusing his practice on complex commercial litigation. Alec is from The Woodlands, Texas and is a two-time graduate of LSU, where he was a member of the Golden Band from Tigerland. Prior to his career in law, Alec worked for the Kansas City Chiefs, Arizona Diamondbacks, and the XFL.

David A. Peterson joins the firm in the firm's Baton Rouge office. He brings more than 30 years of experience advising governmental entities, agencies, boards, and public bodies on complex administrative, environmental, natural resources, and regulatory matters. His practice focuses on representing clients in administrative proceedings before Louisiana licensing and regulatory boards, as well as advising on environmental, natural resources, and governmental regulatory issues.

The firm is pleased to welcome Alec and David and looks forward to the experience, knowledge, and perspectives they will bring to our Baton Rouge office.

Management Update Baton Rouge, November 12, 2026

12 Aug 2026 00:00:00 -0800

Management Update Northshore, November 19, 2026

12 Aug 2026 00:00:00 -0800

AI in Employment Decisions: What Managers Need to Know Now

03 Aug 2026 00:00:00 -0800

Artificial intelligence tools are now embedded in everyday employment decisions — resume screening, candidate ranking, scheduling, performance scoring, and even selection for layoffs. These tools can improve consistency and speed, but recent litigation, expanding state and local rules, and proposed federal legislation have made one point clear: when an AI tool helps make an employment decision, the employer remains legally responsible for the outcome. Managers should understand where the risk lies and take practical steps now.

Why This is a Priority

Courts are testing whether employers — and their AI vendors — can be held liable for biased outcomes.

In a closely watched federal case in California, a court allowed hiring-discrimination claims to proceed on the theory that the software vendor (The AI-utilizing Human Resources system Workday) acted as the agent of its employer-customers when its tool screened, ranked, and rejected applicants — a role that brings the vendor within the definition of “employer” under federal anti-discrimination law — and it certified a collective action. The practical lesson is serious: if the vendor is your agent, the vendor’s violations can become the employer’s violations because the employer’s name is on the rejection notice.

A neutral-looking tool can still create discrimination risk.

These claims rely on a disparate-impact theory, which recognizes that an employment practice is unlawful if it disproportionately harms a protected group and is not job-related and consistent with business necessity, regardless of whether anyone intended to discriminate. That theory remains available under Title VII even though the EEOC has reduced its enforcement under the disparate-impact theory. An AI tool trained on historical data can replicate past bias and produce exactly this kind of disproportionate result.

The regulatory landscape is expanding.

A growing number of state and local jurisdictions now regulate automated employment decision tools. Requirements vary but increasingly include independent bias audits, pre-use notices, risk assessments, and a documented human-review step before the tool drives a significant employment decision. Employers should treat these emerging standards as a baseline, even in locations that have not yet adopted them.

More federal regulation may be coming.

Proposed federal legislation would amend the WARN Act to require layoff notices to disclose when AI was a “substantial factor” in a qualifying mass layoff, including a description of the AI used and an estimate of the resulting job losses. The same bill would create broad whistleblower protections — which could not be waived by contract, policy, or arbitration agreement — for workers who report AI-related legal concerns.

Action Steps for Managers

With increased scrutiny in employers’ use of AI tools, employers should take this opportunity to:

Identify every AI or automated tool that touches an employment decision — hiring, screening, performance evaluation, scheduling, discipline, and layoff selection. You cannot defend a decision you cannot explain.
Understand how each tool works and how it generates its recommendations before relying on it.
Have their employment practices reviewed and document a meaningful human-review checkpoint, so a trained person — not the software alone — makes the final call and has the authority to override it.
Before adopting, renewing, or expanding any AI tool in the hiring process, consult legal counsel and request the vendor’s bias-audit data and methodology. A vendor’s refusal to share that information is itself a warning sign.
Have vendor contracts reviewed to ensure they include meaningful protections and indemnification.
Maintain clear, contemporaneous documentation of the criteria used and the reasons for each significant decision.
Flag any planned workforce reduction that has an AI dimension, and confirm that anti-retaliation and whistleblower policies are broad enough to cover AI-related concerns.

The Bottom Line

Using an AI tool does not reduce an employer’s obligations under Title VII or other anti-discrimination laws — responsibility for the decision stays with the company. The best protection is to know which tools you use, keep a human decision-maker meaningfully in the loop, vet your vendors, document your reasoning, and seek legal guidance before deploying or renewing tools that influence employment decisions.