Ty Photo
Austin Employment Lawyer Ty'Queese Keyes

If you’ve started a new job in the last several years, there’s a good chance you signed an arbitration agreement without realizing it. It might have been buried in your onboarding paperwork, tucked into an employee handbook acknowledgment, or presented as a routine condition of employment. Many employees don’t think twice about it, until something goes wrong at work and they discover just how much that signature changed.

Arbitration agreements typically appear at a few key moments. Most often, they show up during onboarding, mixed in with tax forms, direct deposit paperwork, and benefits enrollment. They can also be embedded in employee handbooks, where simply signing an acknowledgment of receipt can count as agreeing to arbitrate. Sometimes they’re presented later in the employment relationship, as a condition of a raise, promotion, or continued employment. And occasionally they appear in severance or settlement paperwork on the way out the door.

Because these agreements are often presented alongside routine administrative documents, employees frequently sign without fully reading them or without realizing that a single clause inside a longer document can waive significant legal rights.

What Rights You May Give Up by Signing?

An arbitration agreement generally means that if a dispute arises between you and your employer, you can’t take that dispute to court. Instead, it goes to a private arbitrator. Here’s what that typically costs you.

The first and most significant loss is **the right to a jury trial. Disputes are decided by a single arbitrator, often a former judge or attorney chosen through a process controlled largely by the arbitration provider, rather than by a jury of your peers.

Many agreements also eliminate **the right to participate in a class or collective action, including a class action waiver that limits you to bringing your claim individually. This matters a lot in wage-and-hour cases or widespread discrimination claims, where banding together with coworkers is often the only practical way to hold an employer accountable.

Arbitration also strips away broad public access and transparency. Court proceedings are public record, while arbitration is private, and the outcome — even if you win — usually isn’t.

It’s also far harder to challenge a bad outcome, since arbitration removes most traditional appeal rights. Arbitration decisions are very difficult to overturn, even if the arbitrator made a legal error, because courts give arbitrators wide latitude, and successful appeals are rare.

Finally, you may lose some procedural protections during the case itself. Discovery, the process of obtaining documents and testimony from the other side, is often more limited in arbitration than in litigation, which can make it harder to build your case.

So, What Options Remain?

Signing an arbitration agreement doesn’t mean you have no recourse — but your options narrow. You can still bring your claim, just through arbitration instead of court; many employment statutes still apply in arbitration, since the forum changes but not necessarily the underlying law. Certain claims may also fall outside the agreement, as some arbitration agreements are narrowly written, and, depending on the state and the specific claim, courts have sometimes found such agreements unenforceable for particular types of disputes. The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, for example, allows employees to choose to go to court rather than arbitration for claims involving sexual assault or sexual harassment, regardless of what the agreement says. Administrative agencies may also still be available, since filing a charge with agencies like the EEOC or a state labor agency is generally a separate process from a private arbitration agreement, and that route often remains open. An attorney can review the specific language, since arbitration agreements vary widely and enforceability can depend on the wording, the state you work in, when and how it was signed, and the type of claim involved — a clause that looks airtight isn’t always enforceable in practice.

The Bottom Line

If you’re not sure whether you signed an arbitration agreement, it’s worth checking your onboarding documents or asking HR for a copy of what you signed. And if you’re facing a workplace dispute and an arbitration clause is in the mix, talking to an employment attorney before you act can help clarify what your real options are — arbitration agreements are common, but they aren’t always the end of the story. If you are unsure what rights are limited under your arbitration agreement, consult an employment attorney here. The cost of a conversation is far less than the cost of not knowing where you stand. 

Areyana Gilbert
Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Areyana Gilbert

One of the most common misconceptions employees have when they come to our office is this: “I wasn’t fired, so I probably don’t have a case.” That belief stops a lot of legitimate claims before they ever begin. The truth is, the law protects employees from a much broader range of employer conduct than most people realize — and a landmark Supreme Court decision has made that clearer than ever.

For years, courts in the Fifth Circuit applied what was known as the “ultimate employment decision” standard. Under that framework, an employee could only pursue a discrimination or retaliation claim if the employer took a significant, final action — a termination, a demotion, a failure to hire or promote, or a pay cut. Anything short of that was often dismissed, leaving employees with no legal recourse even when their employer’s conduct was plainly motivated by race, sex, national origin, or another protected characteristic.

That narrow approach left real harm unaddressed. Employees were being stripped of responsibilities, sidelined from important meetings, and placed on pretextual performance plans — all tactics designed to push them out the door or punish them for speaking up — and courts were declining to recognize those injuries as actionable.

In 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, and the standard shifted significantly. The Court held that Title VII does not require an employee to show that the employer’s discriminatory action caused “significant” harm. An employee need only show that the action caused *some* harm with respect to the terms or conditions of their employment. The Supreme Court rejected the heightened harm requirement that courts — including those in the Fifth Circuit — had long applied, opening the door for a much wider range of employer conduct to be challenged. See Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346, 144 S. Ct. 967 (2024). [1]

This matters enormously for employees in Texas. Under the post-Muldrow landscape, adverse actions are no longer limited to firings and demotions. Depending on the circumstances, the following conduct can form the basis of a viable discrimination or retaliation claim:

-Performance Improvement Plans. A PIP is not just an HR formality. When issued disproportionately, without valid basis, or shortly after an employee complains about discrimination, a PIP can constitute an adverse action — especially if it serves as a stepping stone to termination.

-Exclusion from Meetings. Being cut out of key meetings, decision-making conversations, or professional development opportunities can harm an employee’s standing, growth, and effectiveness. When that exclusion is tied to a protected characteristic or follows a complaint, it is actionable.

-Changes in Job Duties or Descriptions. Stripping an employee of meaningful responsibilities, reassigning them to less desirable tasks, or quietly rewriting their role can constitute an adverse action when the change is tied to discriminatory intent or retaliation for protected activity.

The thread connecting all of these is context. The action itself matters, but so does the reason behind it. If an employer’s conduct — even something that looks routine on paper — is motivated by an employee’s race, sex, national origin, disability, age, or other protected characteristic, or is taken in response to a protected complaint, it may well support a legal claim. Employment discrimination claims have strict deadlines. In Texas, employees typically have 180 to 300 days from the date of an adverse action to file a charge with the EEOC or the Texas Workforce Commission — and missing that window can mean losing your rights entirely. Beyond the deadlines, early intervention matters. Evidence disappears, witnesses move on, and documentation is harder to obtain as time passes. 

If you believe your employer has treated you unfairly because of who you are or because you spoke up about discrimination or harassment, do not wait to see how things play out. Speaking with an employment law attorney early gives you the best opportunity to understand your rights, preserve critical evidence, and make informed decisions about your next steps. You may have more options than you think.

Cameron Hanson
Austin Employment Trial Lawyer Cameron Hansen

Working through a disability, a pregnancy, or a serious health condition is hard enough without feeling like your employer is making it harder. If you asked for a change at work so you could keep doing your job, and got silence, a flat “no,” or a runaround instead. You are not imagining things, and you are not asking for too much.

Here is what the law expects, and what your employer is supposed to do.

What counts as a reasonable accommodation

A reasonable accommodation is a change to how, when, or where you do your work that lets you keep performing your job despite a disability, a pregnancy or related condition, or a sincerely held religious belief. It is not special treatment. Common examples include a modified schedule, time off for treatment or recovery, ergonomic equipment or a stool, permission to work remotely, a transfer to an open position, or a break from heavy lifting. Many accommodations cost an employer little or nothing at all.

If you are not sure what might actually help in your situation, a free and genuinely useful place to start is AskJAN.org, the website of the Job Accommodation Network. You can look up practical accommodation ideas by medical condition or by type of job, and it is a resource used by workers and employers alike. Walking into the conversation with a specific request in mind often makes it go more smoothly.

The interactive process: it takes two

Once you let your employer know you need a change because of a medical condition, a pregnancy, or a religious practice, the law generally expects both sides to talk it through in good faith. This back-and-forth has a name‚ the “interactive process.” Your employer is supposed to engage with you, ask follow-up questions if it needs more information, and work with you toward a workable solution. Ignoring the request, dragging it out indefinitely, or rejecting it out of hand is not how the process is supposed to go.

You do not have to use any magic words or fill out a special form to get this started. Simply telling a supervisor or HR that you need something changed at work because of a health condition is usually enough to put your employer on notice that the clock has started.

It is illegal to punish you for asking

This is the part people most often miss: the law protects the request itself. Your employer cannot fire you, demote you, cut your hours, write you up, or otherwise come down on you because you asked for an accommodation or spoke up about your rights. If the way you were treated at work took a sharp turn for the worse right after you made your request, that timing alone can matter a great deal.

Retaliation is also often more straightforward to show than people expect. You do not necessarily have to prove that the denial itself broke the law ‚only that you were punished for raising the issue in the first place.

When to reach out

You do not need to have all the answers, or even be certain you have a case, before you talk to someone. These situations turn on specific facts and specific deadlines, and the sooner you understand your options, the more of them you tend to have. If any of this sounds like what you are going through, we would be glad to listen and help you figure out where you stand. Reach out to schedule a consultation by phone at 512-271-5527 or at https://www.wileylawyers.com/contact-us/. 

Madeline Garza
Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Madeline Garza

Racial gaslighting rarely announces itself. It shows up as a nickname you never agreed to, a story about an incident that keeps shifting, work rules that seem to bend only when you’re the one following them, or a derogatory comment dropped once and then explained away as “just a joke.” Individually, any one of these moments can be talked down to nothing. Put them together, and courts have said something different: a workplace where that behavior repeats, unchecked, can become an illegal hostile work environment.

The Law Behind the Claim

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee with respect to the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” because of race.

In Texas, state-law claims brought under the Texas Labor Code (the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act) are analyzed using this same federal standard, so state and federal law point in the same direction on the merits. Where the statutes do differ is procedure and remedy, which we’ll get to below, because it matters a lot for deadlines.

The Five Things You Have to Prove

To win a hostile work environment claim based on race, the Fifth Circuit requires a plaintiff to establish:

1.     You belong to a protected group (race).

2.     You were subjected to unwelcome harassment.

3.     The harassment was based on your race.

4.     The harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of your employment.

5.     Your employer knew, or should have known, about the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action.

The Core Question: Was It “Severe or Pervasive”?

This is the phrase that decides most of these cases. Courts don’t ask whether racist conduct happened; they ask whether it was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of your employment and create an abusive environment. That’s an objective test (would a reasonable person in your position find it hostile?) and a subjective one (did you actually perceive it that way?). You need both.

To answer that, the Fifth Circuit looks at the totality of the circumstances, weighing:

•       How often the conduct happened

•       How severe it was

•       Whether it was physically threatening or humiliating, versus a one-off offensive comment

•       Whether it interfered with your ability to do your job

No single factor controls, and severity and frequency trade off against each other: the more extreme a single incident is, the less you need a pattern to back it up, and the milder each individual incident is, the more of a sustained pattern you need. 

Where “Gaslighting” Fits Into the Legal Picture

This is the part that trips people up, because racial gaslighting often doesn’t look like a slur. It looks like a nickname, a tone, a double standard. Courts have specifically grappled with this.

Coded or ambiguous terms. In Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U.S. 454 (2006), the Supreme Court addressed the word “boy” directed at Black employees by a white supervisor. The Court held that the word doesn’t need a racial modifier attached to it to be evidence of bias. Whether it’s discriminatory depends on context: who said it, in what tone, with what inflection, in what relationship.

Nicknames read in context. The Fifth Circuit applied that same logic in Johnson v. Pride Industries, Inc., 7 F.4th 392 (5th Cir. 2021). A supervisor repeatedly called the only Black employee in his shop “mijo” (“son”) and “manos” (“hands”) instead of his given name, in violation of company policy, while also using the Spanish-language slur directly at him and, according to a coworker’s sworn statement, routinely referring to Black employees using slurs behind their backs. Standing alone, “mijo” is a term of endearment in Hispanic culture. The Fifth Circuit held that a jury could still find it was being used as a racial put-down, because the relationship between the two men was already “colored” by explicit racial hostility. In other words: seemingly neutral language doesn’t get evaluated in a vacuum. Courts look at what else was happening around it.

How Much Is Enough? One Incident vs. a Pattern

A single incident can be enough, if it’s extreme. The Supreme Court has said that isolated incidents generally won’t meet the bar unless they’re “extremely serious,” and the Fifth Circuit reinforced this in Woods v. Cantrell, 29 F.4th 284 (5th Cir. 2022), reversing a district court that had thrown out a claim purely because it involved a single racial slur. The appellate court made clear that a single-incident claim still has to be evaluated under the full totality-of-the-circumstances test. It can’t be dismissed automatically just because there was only one event.

But most single, low-severity incidents won’t cut it. Fifth Circuit cases have rejected claims based on a small handful of slurs spread out over long periods. A few incidents spanning months or years, without more, tend to read as isolated rather than pervasive. The standard exists to filter out what courts call ordinary “workplace tribulations”: sporadic rude comments, occasional teasing, isolated friction. Employment discrimination law isn’t a general civility code.

A sustained pattern usually works. Where there’s no single knockout incident, plaintiffs win by showing a regular, repeated pattern over time. In EEOC v. WC&M Enterprises, Inc., 496 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2007), a Muslim employee of Indian descent was called derogatory names, had his religious practices mocked, was told after September 11th to “go back where he came from,” and received a write-up accusing him of acting like an “extremist,” all over roughly a year. 

What Your Employer Is Legally Required to Do Once You Report It

Even a genuinely hostile environment doesn’t automatically make your employer liable. The final element of the claim is about the employer’s response: once it knew or should have known about the harassment, did it take prompt remedial action reasonably calculated to end it? A slow, half-hearted, or purely procedural investigation doesn’t satisfy this.

What “good enough” looks like, according to the Fifth Circuit:

•       In Williams-Boldware v. Denton County, 741 F.3d 635 (5th Cir. 2014), the employer met with the complaining employee within 24 hours, let her explain what happened, asked what outcome she wanted, then verbally reprimanded the offender, mandated diversity training, and restructured supervision so she wouldn’t have to work under the offender’s spouse. That was enough to defeat liability as a matter of law.

•       In Hudson v. Lincare, Inc., 58 F.4th 222 (5th Cir. 2023), HR was notified the same day slurs were used in a meeting, completed its investigation within five days, and issued final written warnings threatening termination for any repeat conduct, and the harassment actually stopped. That, too, was legally sufficient.

What doesn’t work: in Johnson v. Pride Industries, part of what sank the employer’s case was that its investigation simply concluded “no harassment occurred” despite a coworker’s sworn corroboration. That’s the kind of cursory review courts won’t credit as genuine remedial action.

Here’s the part that surprises a lot of people: even genuinely awful conduct doesn’t guarantee you win, if your employer’s response actually worked. In Wantou v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.L.C., 23 F.4th 422 (5th Cir. 2022), coworkers continuously called a Black pharmacist “chimp” and “monkey,” mocked his accent, and made degrading comments about Africa. The Fifth Circuit called the conduct “unquestionably reprehensible” and still upheld summary judgment for the employer, because once management investigated and ordered staff to stop, the harassment ceased. The lesson: the severity of what happened to you and the adequacy of your employer’s response are two separate legal questions, and losing on the second one can sink an otherwise strong claim.

If You’re Experiencing This: What to Do Right Now

Talk to an employment attorney about what’s happening at work. It’s important to talk to someone about experiences to understand your rights as an employee. If you feel like you’re experiencing hostility or harassment that violates Title VII, schedule a consultation with me or one of the other attorneys at our Austin, Dallas, or Houston office.

Ty Photo
Austin Employment Lawyer Ty'Queese Keyes

If you work in Texas, chances are you’ve heard the term “at-will employment” — but what does it actually mean for you? Understanding your rights under this doctrine is one of the most important things you can do to protect yourself in the workplace.

What Is At-Will Employment?

Texas is an at-will employment state, which means that either you or your employer can end the employment relationship at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all — without advance notice. In practical terms, your employer can let you go without explanation, and you can quit without giving two weeks’ notice. While this may sound unsettling, it’s important to know that at-will employment comes with significant legal protections that limit what employers can actually do.

What Your Employer Cannot Do

However, at-will does not mean anything goes. There are clear and enforceable exceptions to the at-will doctrine that protect employees from unlawful treatment.

Firstly, discrimination is illegal. Federal and Texas state law prohibit employers from firing, demoting, or otherwise treating you adversely because of your race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age (if you’re 40 or older), or disability. If your termination was motivated by any of these protected characteristics, it is unlawful regardless of your at-will status.

Secondly, retaliation is prohibited. Your employer cannot fire you for exercising a legally protected right. This includes reporting workplace safety violations to OSHA, filing a workers’ compensation claim, reporting illegal activity (whistleblowing), or participating in a discrimination investigation or lawsuit. If you were let go after doing any of these things, you may have a claim for retaliation.

Lastly, contractual agreements override at-will. If you signed an employment contract or offer letter or are covered by a collective bargaining agreement that specifies the terms of termination, those terms take precedence. Your employer must honor whatever was agreed to in writing.

What You Should Know Going Forward

At-will employment is a two-way street, and knowing where the boundaries lie gives you real power. If you believe you were terminated for an illegal reason, you have options. You can file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) Civil Rights Division, and you may be entitled to back pay, reinstatement, or other remedies.

It is also a good idea to keep records. Document performance reviews, communications with managers, and any incidents you feel are relevant. If a situation ever becomes a legal matter, your own records can be invaluable.

At-will employment is the law of the land in Texas — but it is not a blank check for employers to act unlawfully. Know the rules, know your rights, and don’t be afraid to use them. If you are unsure whether your rights have been violated, consult an employment attorney here. The cost of a conversation is far less than the cost of not knowing where you stand. 

Madeline Garza
Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Madeline Garza

Many workers who face serious mistreatment at work are surprised to learn that the law may not protect them. Employment discrimination law in the United States and in Texas is built on a framework of employee thresholds, meaning that certain protections only apply once an employer reaches a minimum number of employees. If your employer falls below those thresholds, you may have limited or no legal recourse, no matter how serious the discrimination or retaliation you experienced. Understanding how these thresholds work is essential to knowing when your rights are actually protected.

What Is Employment Discrimination?

Employment discrimination occurs when an employer takes a negative action against an employee or job applicant because of a characteristic the law protects. The core principle behind all employment discrimination laws is to make it illegal for employers to treat people adversely on the basis of something about themselves that they cannot change, or should not be expected to change. These characteristics, called immutable characteristics, include race, color, sex, national origin, age, religion, and disability status, among others.

Discrimination does not require a termination. Many types of negative employment actions can form the basis of a claim, including demotions, pay cuts, refusals to hire, and being passed over for promotions. Harassment in the workplace based on a protected category can also be unlawful. If you report discrimination and your employer retaliates against you, that retaliation is itself a separate legal violation. The laws that prohibit employment discrimination also prohibit retaliation against employees who assert their legal rights.

The Employee Threshold Problem

Most federal and Texas employment discrimination laws only apply once an employer has a certain number of employees. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protections against discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin, and religion apply to employers with at least 15 employees. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2009 also cover employers with at least 15 employees. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which protects workers 40 and older, sets the threshold higher, applying only to employers with at least 20 employees. Texas Labor Code Chapter 21 mirrors many of these federal protections and similarly applies to employers with at least 15 employees.

There are some exceptions. The Equal Pay Act applies to any employer with at least one employee. The Immigration Reform and Control Act, covering national origin and citizenship-based discrimination, applies to employers with at least 4 employees. 

What this means in practice is that if your employer has fewer than 15 employees, you may have no recourse under Title VII, the ADA, or Texas Labor Code Chapter 21 when you experience discrimination or retaliation. If fewer than 20 employees, federal age discrimination law may not apply. The law, as it stands, simply does not reach small employers in most situations.

Why This Gap Matters

Small businesses employ a significant portion of the American workforce, and employees at these companies face real discrimination every day. They are passed over for promotions because of their age. They are fired after complaining about harassment. They are denied accommodations for disabilities. And when they consult an attorney, they are often told that the law does not cover them because of the size of their employer. This gap in protection is not a technicality. It is a structural feature of employment law that leaves many workers without any legal remedy, regardless of how serious the harm they suffered.

These Laws Are Not Permanent

The thresholds described in this article are not fixed. They are products of legislative decisions, and those decisions can be changed. Congress and the Texas Legislature have the authority to lower employee thresholds to extend protections to workers at smaller employers. Advocates have long argued that the 15-employee threshold under Title VII and the 20-employee threshold under the ADEA should be reduced or eliminated so that workers at any size employer can seek protection from discrimination and retaliation.

Whether those changes happen depends on who holds office. Elected representatives write and amend these laws. With elections approaching in November 2026, it matters which candidates you support and elect at the state and federal level. A representative who prioritizes worker protections may introduce or support legislation that lowers these thresholds. One who does not may block such efforts. Staying informed about where candidates stand on employment law and worker protections is one of the most meaningful ways you can advocate for change. Your vote has a direct connection to whether the law will eventually protect the workers it currently does not reach.

Consult an Attorney

If you believe you have experienced workplace discrimination or retaliation, we always recommend consulting with an employment attorney as a first step. Employment law is fact-specific, and even where one law’s threshold is not met, another legal theory may still be available. You can book a consultation with me or another attorney at Wiley Wheeler, P.C. or Rob Wiley, P.C. at our Houston, Austin, or Dallas locations. We represent employees in discrimination, retaliation, and wage claims, and we are here to help you understand your rights.

Senior Trial Attorney Kalandra Wheeler
Kalandra Wheeler is a Board Certified Austin employment lawyer.

When Congress passed the Taxpayer First Act in 2019, most people focused on how it changed the IRS. But there is another part of the law that matters a lot for everyday workers. It creates real protection for employees who speak up about possible tax fraud or unpaid taxes. For the first time, federal law clearly says your employer cannot punish you for raising those concerns. If you noticed something that did not seem right with your company’s taxes and were treated unfairly because you spoke up, the Taxpayer First Act could help you.

There are so many gaps in federal and state laws that leave employees unprotected when they report wrongdoing by their employers. Before the Taxpayer First Act, employees who reported tax problems were often left exposed. If an employer fired or demoted them, there was not always a legal remedy. The Taxpayer First Act changed that. It made it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees who report suspected violations of tax laws.

Many tax violations are discovered by employees inside the company. It might be a bookkeeper, an accountant, or a manager who notices something is off. Employees that fear retaliation and the possibility of losing their jobs without recourse may very well stay quiet. The Taxpayer First Act was written to remove that fear and make it safer to report when employers are violating tax laws.

The protection is broad. It does not just apply to the employer itself, but also to individuals connected to the company, like managers, contractors, and agents. They are not allowed to fire you, demote you, suspend you, threaten you, harass you, or treat you unfairly because you raised concerns about tax issues.

You are protected whether you report the problem inside the company or to the government. You do not have to go straight to the IRS. Telling your supervisor or raising the issue internally can be enough. You also do not have to prove that a violation actually happened. What matters is that you had a reasonable, good-faith belief that something was wrong. If you spoke up honestly based on what you saw, the law is designed to protect you.

If your employer retaliates against you, there is a process to follow. You file a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which investigates these cases. One of the most important things to know is the deadline. In most cases, you have 180 days from when the retaliation happened to file your claim. Waiting too long can mean losing your rights, so timing is very important.

The law is also designed to give employees a fair chance to prove their case. You do not have to show that your report was the only reason for what happened to you. You only need to show that it played some role in the decision, it was a contributing factor. Once you do that, the employer would have to prove it would have taken the same adverse employment action even if you had never reported the issue. 

If you believe your employer has taken action against you because you raised concerns about possible tax violations, you do not have to navigate it alone. Our office represents employees in retaliation matters and can help you understand your rights under the law, evaluate your situation, and advise you of your legal options. Because these claims are time-sensitive, it is important to act quickly. We encourage you to contact our office to discuss what happened and learn how we may be able to help.

JB Headshot (1)
Trial Attorney Jermaine Brown

A woman applies for a position that suits her precisely. She holds the academic credentials the role demands and carries the years of experience behind them. She has done the work before, done it well, and has the record to prove it. The kind of résumé that speaks before she enters the room. On paper, she is eminently qualified.

Then the employer learns that she communicates in signed language. The ideal candidate, the one whose credentials they had just finished admiring, never gets the interview at all. Her application is tossed in the trash.

The moment the employer learned, the conversation was over. Her ability was never tested. No one sat across from her and found her wanting. The credentials that made her ideal an hour earlier had not changed. The experience had not changed. The record had not changed. A single fact, not about whether she could do the job but about how she communicates while doing it, moved her from yes to no before anyone let the work become the question. That swift movement from ideal to unhireable, on the strength of nothing but how a person communicates, has a name. Audism.

The Word

Audism is the unexamined assumption that hearing and speaking are the baseline condition of a full human life, and that everything else is measured as distance from it. The term was coined half a century ago by Tom Humphries, who studied language and culture. It belongs to the same family as words already in use without flinching. Racism takes one category of person as the default and reads everyone else against it. Sexism does the same. Audism does it with hearing.

The word is unfamiliar, and that is not an accident. A bias earns a name when enough people notice it doing harm. Audism has stayed nameless because the assumption underneath it is so widely shared that pointing at it feels strange, like pointing at the air. Almost everyone agrees, without ever deciding to, that hearing is simply how a person takes in the world. An assumption that universal stops looking like an assumption. It looks like reality. A bias that looks like reality is the most durable kind there is, because no one thinks to argue with it.

Where It Comes From

To see why the assumption runs so deep, consider how a hearing person actually learns the world. Not the things someone sat them down and taught, but the rest of it. How conflict gets handled. What a word really means from the tone wrapped around it. Who matters in a room, and what is happening underneath what is being said. Most of that is never taught. It seeps in. The conversation at the next table, the radio in the background, the argument through a wall, the remark that was not meant for anyone. A lifetime of it, absorbed without effort and without notice.

That is osmosis. Knowledge that arrives on its own, through a door no one remembers opening. For a hearing person the door is sound, and it has stood open since before memory. They did not study their world so much as soak it up. This is what it means to call the world audiocentric. The whole of it is built on the silent assumption that sound is the normal way to acquire and exchange information. Of course you overhear. Of course you pick it up. Of course the information is in the air and you are standing in it. When that assumption is everywhere, it disappears, and the person who has lived inside it his whole life can no more see it than see the air he breathes.

That reveals what the people who closed the door could not see. When they learned the candidate signs, what moved through their minds was not a thought they would ever say aloud. It was closer to a discomfort, a sense that she sat outside the way things are supposed to work, outside the overhearing and the absorbing by ear that they have done their whole lives and assume everyone does. They did not decide she was less capable. They felt she was less familiar, and they trusted the feeling enough to act on it. That is audist bias. It runs beneath speech, a discount applied before anyone forms a sentence about her. No one announced a verdict. No one had to.

How It Shows Up When No One Is Hiring or Firing

Audism does not need an interview to do its work. It lives in the ordinary week, in the things people say while meaning nothing but well. Every signing professional knows this one. A decision gets made in a hallway, or a meeting runs hot and fast with everyone talking over everyone, and a colleague turns and says, “I’ll tell you later.”

Sometimes that later never comes. The colleague gets busy, the moment passes, and the promise simply evaporates. Sometimes later does come, but half-filled. The decision without the reasoning, the what without the why, the headline with the story sanded off. Either way, the signing professional now operates on partial information she was assured she would be given in full. The well-meaning courtesy becomes a cost. When something goes wrong because of the gap, the gap becomes hers. She is the one who missed it, dropped it, did not follow through. She is held to account for a piece of the picture that someone else took, promised to hand back, and never did. The information was in the air the whole time. She was simply not standing where the air was.

That is the quiet engine under the loud cases. No malice, no slur, just a hundred small moments where the world assumes a person was standing in the stream and quietly marks her down when it turns out she was not.

When Audism Becomes Unlawful

Audism is not a legal term. No statute names it, and no court will hear a claim built on the word itself. But the law does not need the word to reach the conduct. When audism drives a real decision about a person’s job, it stops being an attitude and becomes an act, and the act is one the law already governs.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code, an employer may not take an adverse action against a qualified person because she signs. Federal employers, and employers who take federal funds, answer to the Rehabilitation Act on the same terms. The protection is not limited to hiring. It reaches termination, demotion, the promotion that goes to someone else, the pay that comes in lower, the discipline that lands on the wrong person, and the everyday terms and conditions of the job. Wherever audism turns into a decision that costs a worker something, the law has a name for it even though the bias does not.

The hurt of being passed over, written up, or pushed out is real on its own. When the reason traces to how a person communicates, the hurt is also, in many cases, a violation.

Why the Word Matters

A bias cannot be challenged before it can be seen, and it cannot be seen without a word for it. As long as audism stays nameless, every instance of it gets filed as something else. A poor fit. A communication issue. A vague sense that someone was not quite right for the role. The word turns a feeling into a thing that can be pointed at. Once it can be pointed at, the question that was never asked in that interview room can finally be asked. Was this about whether she could do the job, or only about how she would have done it? Naming the bias does not by itself end it. But nothing ends until it can first be named.

If a job, a promotion, or a fair shot slipped away the moment someone learned how you communicate, or if you have spent your career being measured by how easily people can take you in rather than by the work you actually deliver, you are not imagining it, and you are not alone. What happened to you may have a remedy under the law. 

I represent workers who have been pushed aside for who they are rather than what they can do, and I would like to listen to your story. For a confidential conversation, let’s schedule a consultation with me in Houston or a colleague in Dallas or Austin.

Areyana Gilbert
Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Areyana Gilbert

Starting a new job is an exciting milestone. Employees are often focused on learning their new role, meeting colleagues, and making a strong first impression. However, in the rush to begin a new opportunity, many employees overlook important legal documents and contractual obligations that can significantly impact their rights and future career opportunities. As an employment attorney, I frequently see individuals facing avoidable legal challenges because they failed to carefully review employment agreements before signing them. This blog further addresses those mistakes and corresponding circumstances. 

One of the most common mistakes employees make during onboarding is signing employment documents without thoroughly reading and understanding every provision. Employment agreements often contain complex legal language that may appear routine but can carry substantial consequences. Many employees assume these documents are standard forms and sign them quickly to avoid delaying their start date. Unfortunately, this approach can create problems months or even years later.

A particularly important area of concern involves non-compete and non-solicitation provisions. While the enforceability of these clauses varies by state and jurisdiction, they can still significantly affect an employee’s future employment options. A non-compete agreement may restrict an employee’s ability to work for a competitor or start a competing business after leaving the company. A non-solicitation provision may prohibit the employee from contacting former clients, customers, vendors, or even coworkers for business purposes after their employment ends.

Many employees do not realize they are agreeing to these restrictions until they receive a cease-and-desist letter from a former employer or become involved in litigation. By that point, the employee’s options may be limited. Reviewing these provisions before signing allows employees to understand the scope of the restrictions and, in some cases, negotiate more reasonable terms before accepting employment.

Another frequently overlooked provision is the arbitration agreement. Arbitration clauses are increasingly common in employment contracts and often require employees to resolve workplace disputes through private arbitration rather than through the court system. While arbitration may offer certain benefits, such as a potentially faster resolution process, it can also limit procedural rights that employees would otherwise have in court.

Employees often sign arbitration agreements without understanding what they are giving up. Depending on the agreement, they may waive their right to a jury trial, limit discovery opportunities, or agree to specific procedures governing employment disputes. These provisions can affect how discrimination claims, wage and hour disputes, retaliation claims, and other workplace matters are resolved. Understanding the practical implications of an arbitration clause before signing is critical.

Perhaps the biggest mistake employees make is failing to have an employment attorney review the agreement before they sign it. Many individuals assume that seeking legal advice is unnecessary or too expensive. In reality, a brief review by an experienced employment attorney can identify restrictive provisions, explain legal obligations, and help employees understand their rights before they become contractually bound.

The consequences of not obtaining legal review can be significant. Employees may unknowingly agree to restrictive covenants that limit future job opportunities, arbitration provisions that alter dispute resolution rights, confidentiality obligations that extend beyond employment, or repayment requirements tied to bonuses, training costs, or equity awards. Once an agreement is signed, modifying unfavorable terms becomes far more difficult.

Importantly, employees generally have the greatest leverage before they sign an employment agreement. Employers are often willing to clarify language, answer questions, or negotiate certain provisions during the hiring process. After onboarding is complete, that negotiating leverage frequently disappears.

Before signing any employment agreement, employees should take the time to read every document carefully, ask questions about unclear provisions, and consider obtaining legal advice. A small investment in legal review at the beginning of an employment relationship can help prevent costly disputes and unexpected restrictions in the future.

Starting a new job should be an exciting step forward in your career. Taking the time to understand the legal documents you sign can help ensure that opportunity remains a positive one. Schedule a consultation if you think you have a case or are seeking advice on your employment related documents. https://www.wiley-wheeler.com/ 

Cameron Hanson
Austin Employment Trial Lawyer Cameron Hansen

Imagine your boss tells you to do something you know is against the law‚ falsify a safety report, drive a truck that’s clearly unsafe, dump waste illegally, or cover up something that could hurt a customer. You do the right thing and refuse. A week later, you’re fired.

If that sounds familiar, here’s something every Texas worker deserves to know: the law is on your side. Thanks to a landmark Texas Supreme Court decision, your employer cannot legally fire you for refusing to commit a crime. This protection is called the Sabine Pilot rule, and it’s one of the strongest rights Texas workers have.

What the Sabine Pilot Rule Says

Back in 1985, the Texas Supreme Court decided a case called Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck. The court recognized a powerful principle: no Texan should have to choose between keeping their job and breaking the law. Out of that decision came a clear rule: an employer commits wrongful termination when it fires an employee for the sole reason that the employee refused to perform an illegal act.

In plain terms, your job cannot be the price you pay for being honest. If your employer asks you to do something that would make you a criminal, you have every right to say no, and the law protects you when you do.

Why This Matters So Much in Texas

You’ve probably heard that Texas is an “at-will” employment state. Many workers take that to mean their employer can fire them for absolutely anything. The Sabine Pilot rule is proof that this isn’t the whole story. Texas courts carved out this protection precisely because the public has a powerful interest in employees doing the right thing. When you refuse to break the law, you’re protecting your coworkers, your community, and yourself‚ and the courts reward that integrity, not punish it.

This protection applies across all kinds of workplaces and industries. It doesn’t matter whether you wear a hard hat, drive a route, work in an office, or care for patients. If you were asked to do something criminal and you stood your ground, your right to keep your job is backed by decades of Texas law.

Examples of Illegal Requests:

Workers are protected when standing up to all sorts of unlawful demands, including being told to:

– Falsify records, inspections, or safety reports

– Drive a vehicle they knew was illegal or unsafe to operate

– Violate environmental or dumping regulations

– Skip required licensing or certification steps

– Participate in fraud against customers or the government

In each of these situations, the worker who refuses is doing exactly what the law encourages. And if they’re fired for it, the law gives them a way to fight back‚ and to recover what they’ve lost.

What You Can Recover

When an employer breaks this rule, you may be entitled to compensation for the wages and benefits you lost, as well as damages for the harm the firing caused you. In cases involving especially serious misconduct by an employer, additional damages may be available too. The goal is simple: to make you whole and to hold employers accountable for putting you in that position in the first place.

You Did the Right Thing‚ Now Let Us Stand Up for You

Refusing to break the law took courage. You shouldn’t lose your livelihood for it, and you don’t have to face the aftermath alone.

If you were fired or punished for refusing to do something illegal at work, contact our firm today for a confidential consultation. We’ll listen to your story, explain your rights in plain language, and fight to get you the justice you deserve. Call us or reach out online to get started.