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

Artificial‑intelligence tools like ChatGPT, Copilot, Claude, and Gemini are impressive. They can draft emails quickly, summarize long documents, and explain complicated terms in language that sounds confident and authoritative. If you are an employee or an independent contractor reviewing an employment agreement, a contract to provide services, a severance agreement, or even a proposed settlement, it is tempting to rely on one of these tools to tell you what the document means or to help negotiate the terms. That temptation is understandable, but it can also lead to serious and costly mistakes.

AI can be useful for organizing thoughts or getting a general sense of common contract concepts. Contracts themselves, however, are not a safe place to rely on AI alone. Employment agreements, independent‑contractor agreements, severance agreements, and settlement agreements are governed by a complex mix of federal, state, and local laws, as well as court decisions. Those laws may vary depending on where you live and work. Texas law does not look like California law, and federal law does not override every state law. Even courts within the same state can interpret identical language differently. AI does not analyze your specific jurisdiction or your individual circumstances. It generates language based on patterns drawn from many sources across the internet. That means a clause that appears routine or standard may actually be unenforceable, unlawful, or harmful to you in your state. If a dispute later arises, the fact that an AI tool helped draft or interpret the agreement may not offer protection.

This risk is especially high with severance agreements. Severance documents often include releases of claims, confidentiality provisions, non‑disparagement clauses, non‑competes, and restrictions on future employment. A severance agreement may require you to waive valuable legal rights, sometimes without fully realizing what you are giving up. AI cannot evaluate whether a release is overly broad, whether it complies with state or federal law, whether the severance pay is adequate consideration, or whether required waiting periods and revocation rights are properly included. Once a severance agreement is signed, those rights are often permanently gone.

The same concerns apply, and often with even greater force, to settlement agreements that arise after an employment dispute has already begun. By the time a settlement agreement is on the table, there is usually real legal exposure on both sides. Settlement agreements may resolve claims involving discrimination, retaliation, unpaid wages, wrongful termination, or breach of contract. They often include detailed releases, payment terms, tax provisions, confidentiality requirements, cooperation clauses, and enforcement mechanisms. AI cannot assess litigation risks, evaluate leverage, or determine whether the settlement amount fairly reflects the claims being released. It also cannot anticipate how a poorly drafted settlement provision might be enforced later if one side fails to comply. Relying on AI alone at this stage can result in an agreement that closes the case on paper but creates new disputes in practice.

Employment and service agreements are also practical documents, not just legal ones. They are supposed to reflect how you are actually paid, how commissions or bonuses are calculated, how equity or incentives vest, how expenses are reimbursed, and how termination decisions are made. AI does not know how your employer or client really operate. It cannot tell whether commissions are discretionary or formula‑based, whether bonuses are tied to revenue or collections, whether equity continues vesting during notice periods or medical leave, or whether your job duties qualify for overtime exemptions. When contract language does not match reality, the person most likely to suffer is the employee or contractor.

One of AI’s biggest strengths is also one of its biggest risks. AI writes smoothly and confidently. That confidence can hide serious problems. AI often adds extra explanations, vague language, or statements that sound reassuring but create unintended promises or ambiguity. In disputes, those extra words are rarely helpful. Instead, they become arguments about what the parties thought they agreed to. A sentence added to “clarify” something can later become the basis for a breach‑of‑contract claim, a wage dispute, or an enforcement fight over a settlement. Attorneys are trained to think about how every sentence may be interpreted later by a judge or jury. AI is not.

AI also struggles to identify conflicts between documents. Employment agreements, contractor agreements, severance agreements, and settlement agreements rarely exist on their own. They may interact with offer letters, handbooks, commission plans, equity plans, confidentiality agreements, and prior contracts. AI does not reliably flag when one document contradicts another or when a new agreement quietly takes away rights granted elsewhere. Those inconsistencies are often exploited once a dispute arises.

There are also real confidentiality concerns. When you enter draft agreements, compensation details, or settlement positions into an AI tool, you may be sharing sensitive personal or business information. Depending on the platform, that information may be stored or used in ways you cannot control. Employees and contractors often underestimate this risk. Licensed attorneys are bound by ethical and legal duties to protect your confidentiality. AI tools are not.

When a contract, severance agreement, or settlement agreement fails, someone pays the price. In most cases, it is the individual who relied on the document to protect their income, career, or future opportunities.

This does not mean AI has no role at all. It can be helpful for summarizing documents, identifying issues to think about, or preparing questions for a lawyer. What it should not do is serve as the final authority on what your agreement means or whether it is safe to sign.

Employment agreements, severance packages, and settlement agreements are designed for difficult moments like terminations, disputes, payment disagreements, audits, and lawsuits. AI tools are designed to sound right. These agreements need to be right. If you are an employee or independent contractor entering into an agreement or resolving an employment dispute, AI should be used cautiously. We have experienced employment attorney that can discuss your documents, explain the risks, and help ensure you understand exactly what you are agreeing to before you sign.

Madeline Garza
Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Madeline Garza

Employees who experience discrimination or retaliation at work are often overwhelmed, confused, and unsure of what steps to take next. Which is totally understanding, this is an extremely stressful time in your life, going through something isolating and unknown. Many employees try to handle this internally, hope it resolves on its own, or wait until they are absolutely certain what is happening is illegal. Unfortunately, employment discrimination law does not reward waiting. In fact, delay is one of the most common reasons otherwise valid claims are lost before they begin. 

Understanding the Time Limits for Filing a Charge of Discrimination

Federal employment discrimination laws provide important protections but also impose strict deadlines. Missing one of these deadlines can permanently bar an employee from pursuing a claim, regardless of how serious the misconduct may have been. This reality is especially important now, as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, is experiencing widespread delays in scheduling intake interviews. Understanding how the process works and why early action matters can help employees protect their rights.

Before an employee can file a lawsuit for most types of workplace discrimination or retaliation, the law requires that they first file a formal Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. This requirement applies to claims involving race, sex, disability, age, national origin, religion, pregnancy, genetic information, and retaliation for opposing discrimination or participating in an investigation.

In most cases, an employee has 180 calendar days from the date of the discriminatory or retaliatory act to file a charge. In states that have their own fair employment practices agency and laws prohibiting the same type of discrimination, that deadline is extended to 300 days. While this extended deadline applies in many states, including Texas, it is not automatic in every situation and should never be assumed without confirmation.

These deadlines are calculated from the date the action occurred, not from the date the employee realized it was discriminatory or spoke to a lawyer. Terminations, demotions, pay cuts, failures to promote, refusals to accommodate, and acts of retaliation each have their own filing deadline. If an employee waits too long, earlier events may be untimely even if later misconduct is still within the deadline.

Importantly, internal complaints to human resources, reports to management, union grievances, or attempts to resolve the issue informally do not pause or extend the EEOC filing deadline. Even well‑intentioned efforts to give an employer the opportunity to “do the right thing” can cost an employee their legal rights if too much time passes.

I Submitted an Inquiry with the EEOC, Are My Rights Preserved?

One of the most common and costly misunderstandings employees have involves the difference between an EEOC inquiry and a formal charge of discrimination. These two steps are not the same, and confusing them can have serious consequences.

An inquiry, sometimes referred to as a pre‑charge inquiry or intake questionnaire, is an initial step used by the EEOC to gather basic information and determine whether it may have jurisdiction over a potential claim. Submitting an inquiry does not start an investigation, does not notify the employer, and does not by itself preserve legal deadlines.

A charge of discrimination, by contrast, is a formal, signed legal document. Filing a charge is what triggers the EEOC process, requires the agency to notify the employer, and satisfies the legal prerequisite to filing a lawsuit in most cases. Courts routinely hold that an inquiry alone is not enough to meet the statutory filing requirement.

Because the EEOC’s Public Portal often requires employees to submit an inquiry before scheduling an intake interview, many employees mistakenly believe they have “filed with the EEOC” when they have only completed the inquiry step. Meanwhile, the filing deadline continues to run.

In recent years, employees across the country have encountered significant delays in obtaining EEOC intake interviews. High caseloads and limited agency resources have resulted in appointment calendars that may show no availability for weeks or even months. While these delays are frustrating, they do not stop the clock on statutory deadlines.

This creates a dangerous situation for employees who wait until late in the filing period to begin the process. If an intake interview cannot be scheduled before the deadline expires, the employee may lose the ability to file a timely charge altogether. The fact that the EEOC’s scheduling system is backlogged does not automatically extend or excuse a missed deadline.

Starting the process early provides critical flexibility. It allows time to gather documents, identify witnesses, clarify the timeline of events, and explore filing options if appointments are unavailable. Early action also reduces the risk of errors that can occur when employees are forced to rush through the process under deadline pressure.

What Should I Do?

Navigating EEOC deadlines and procedures is not intuitive, and the consequences of a mistake can be severe. Employment attorneys help employees understand which deadlines apply, whether an inquiry is sufficient, when a charge must be filed, and how to protect claims while the EEOC process unfolds.

An attorney can also help evaluate whether the EEOC is the appropriate forum, whether state law provides additional protections, and how to document discrimination or retaliation in a way that strengthens a future claim. Early legal advice often prevents irreversible errors and gives employees clarity at a time when they may feel overwhelmed and uncertain.

Speaking with an experienced employment attorney as soon as possible can help you understand your rights, preserve critical deadlines, and make informed decisions about how to move forward. If you have questions about workplace discrimination or retaliation, schedule a consultation with me or any of the attorneys at our office to discuss your situation and ensure your rights are protected before it is too late.

Areyana Gilbert
Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Areyana Gilbert

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers with 15 or more employees must not discriminate against qualified employees on the basis of disability. A central component of this obligation is the duty to provide reasonable accommodations—adjustments to the job or work environment that enable an employee with a disability to perform essential job functions or enjoy equal employment opportunities, so long as doing so does not impose an undue hardship on the employer. Those adjustments range from simple schedule changes to modified equipment, reassignment, or changes in workplace policies. See additional examples of accommodations from the EEOC.

What “Failure to Accommodate” Means

A failure to accommodate claim arises when an employer either refuses to make reasonable accommodations for a known disability, does not engage meaningfully with the employee about possible accommodations, or imposes conditions on the employee that effectively negate the benefits of accommodation.

Under the ADA, an accommodation is broadly defined—it can include:

  • Job restructuring, such as redistributing marginal duties an employee cannot perform;
  • Modified or part-time schedules to address limitations;
  • Modified workplace policies (e.g., allowing extra breaks or adjusting attendance policies);
  • Reassignment to a vacant position if no other reasonable accommodation will allow the employee to perform the job;
  • Accessible equipment or changes to the physical work environment;
  • Providing qualified interpreters or readers for employees with sensory disabilities.(EEOC)

These examples show that reasonable accommodation is not limited to high-tech solutions—sometimes common-sense changes can make a workplace accessible.

The Employer’s Duty: The Interactive Process

When an employee requests an accommodation (even informally, in plain language), the employer must promptly engage with the employee in what is known as the interactive process. This dialogue involves identifying the employee’s precise limitations, discussing potential accommodations, and determining whether those accommodations are effective and feasible without undue hardship. The process must be good faith and prompt—not a perfunctory exercise to delay or stall. Unnecessary or unexplained delays, excessive requests for documentation, or failure to consider alternatives can themselves violate the ADA. 

The EEOC’s enforcement guidance specifically warns that employers should respond expeditiously to accommodation requests. It also notes that unnecessary delays in making accommodations can be unlawful under the ADA, even if the accommodation is eventually granted. 

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals made a pivotal decision on May 16, 2025 in Strife v. Aldine Independent School District. In Strife, the court addressed a critical nuance: a delay in accommodating may itself be a failure to accommodate.

In that case, a veteran employee with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and physical impairments requested that her employer allow her certified service dog to accompany her at work. Despite providing multiple medical letters confirming her disability and need for the dog, the school district took roughly six months to approve the request, repeatedly asking for additional documentation and an independent medical examination. 

The district court initially dismissed the failure-to-accommodate claim, reasoning that because the employee was not adversely affected in employment terms and because the accommodation was eventually granted, there was no ADA violation. On appeal, however, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded that portion of the case, holding that the delay — coupled with how the district handled the interactive process — could plausibly constitute a failure to accommodate under the ADA. In doing so, the court underscored that:

  • Employers must engage in the interactive process in good faith and without undue delay;
  • An extended delay in providing an accommodation may itself signal bad faith and, under certain circumstances, may amount to a failure to accommodate; and
  • A claim can proceed even if the employee does not allege a separate adverse employment action while the request was pending.

This decision aligns with EEOC guidance that labels unnecessary delay in accommodations as potentially violative of the ADA. It reinforces that timeliness and sincerity matter just as much as the eventual outcome. Here are a few takeaways to keep in mind if your employer has dropped the ball. 

Your employer must:

  1. Recognize accommodation requests promptly and begin the interactive process immediately.
  2. Keep channels of communication open with the employee throughout evaluation.
  3. Consider reasonable interim accommodations while a request is being evaluated.
  4. Document all steps in the interactive process to show good faith efforts.

For Texas employees, the decision in Strife emphasizes that waiting months for an accommodation—even one ultimately granted—may constitute an ADA violation if the employer’s conduct is unreasonable or dilatory.

Understanding your obligations under the ADA and the EEOC’s guidance will help ensure that all employees—regardless of disability—have fair and meaningful access to employment opportunities. If you think your employer failed to accommodate you, please consult with an employment law attorney with our law office here. 

Ty Photo
Austin Employment Lawyer Ty'Queese Keyes

Losing your job is never easy. Whether you saw it coming or it hit you out of nowhere, the days that follow can feel overwhelming. One of the first things many Texans think about is unemployment benefits — and thankfully, the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) has a system in place to help you stay afloat while you look for your next opportunity. The process can feel confusing at first, but once you understand the steps, it becomes much more manageable.

Let’s walk through it together.

1. Figuring Out If You’re Eligible

Before you dive into the application, it helps to know whether you’re likely to qualify. In Texas, you may be eligible for unemployment benefits if you earned enough wages during your base period and lost your job through no fault of your own. That includes layoffs, reductions in force, or job eliminations. If you were fired, don’t assume you’re automatically disqualified. TWC looks closely at the circumstances, so apply regardless. If the termination wasn’t due to serious misconduct, you may still be eligible. And even if your employer claims misconduct, TWC doesn’t just take their word for it — they investigate both sides during a hearing process. Visit https://www.twc.texas.gov/services/apply-benefits  to apply for benefits.

2. Filed Your Claim, Now What? 

Once you’re out of work, timing matters. The sooner you file your unemployment claim, the sooner your benefits can begin. You can apply online through the TWC portal or by phone. You’ll need basic information like your work history, your last employer’s details, and the reason you were let go. It’s important to be accurate and honest — mistakes can slow down your claim or trigger unnecessary delays. After you submit your claim, TWC may reach out for more information. This could be anything from clarifying your job duties to explaining the circumstances of your termination. Your former employer will also be asked to provide their version of events. Responding quickly is key. The faster you provide what they need, the faster your claim moves forward. It is important to check your TWC portal daily for updates, changes, or requests. 

3. Completing Your Work Search Requirements

Texas requires most unemployment claimants to actively look for work. That means registering on WorkInTexas.com, updating your résumé, and applying for a certain number of jobs each week. It’s a good idea to keep a simple log of your job search activities — dates, employers, positions, and how you applied. TWC can ask for this information at any time and having it ready makes life much easier.

In addition to maintaining a job search log, make sure you’re meeting the minimum number of job applications required by TWC each week, which can vary based on your location and industry. If you’re unsure about the requirements, check your TWC portal or contact a local workforce office for guidance. Not only does this show you’re serious about returning to work, but it also keeps your benefits secure. Staying organized and proactive not only helps keep your benefits uninterrupted but also improves your chances of landing a new job sooner. If you ever have questions about what counts as a valid work search activity or how to document your efforts, reach out to TWC for clarification—they’re there to help. 

4. Be Sure to Request Your Payments

Filing your claim is only the first step. To actually receive benefits, you must request payment every two weeks. During each request, you’ll confirm that you’re still unemployed or working reduced hours, that you’re able and available to work, and that you’re actively job searching. If you forget to request payment, your benefits can be delayed or paused — so set a reminder.

5. Understanding the Decision — and Your Right to Appeal

If there’s any question about why you were terminated, TWC may schedule a phone interview. This is your chance to explain your side of the story. Keep it simple and factual. Avoid emotional explanations and stick to what happened. If you have documents that support your version of events, gather them ahead of time so you’re prepared.

Once TWC reviews everything, they’ll send you a determination. If you’re approved, great — you’ll start receiving payments. If you’re denied, don’t panic. You have the right to appeal, and many people win their appeals, especially when the employer’s claims don’t hold up under scrutiny. The appeal process includes a hearing with an independent officer where you can present evidence and even bring witnesses. Please note, you don’t have to do this alone; you can hire an attorney to represent you in your TWC appeal hearings. 

6. Staying Compliant Until You’re Back to Work

Even after you’re approved, you still have responsibilities. You must continue requesting payments, searching for work, reporting any income, and keeping your WorkInTexas profile updated. Staying on top of these requirements helps ensure your benefits continue without interruption. Missing any of these steps can cause issues with your benefits, such as delays or even disqualification. It’s smart to set reminders for your payment requests and job search activities. If your situation changes—for example, if you start working part-time or receive other income—report it promptly to the TWC. Transparency is key, and keeping accurate records will protect you if questions come up later. Remember, the goal is to stay compliant and keep your benefits flowing until you’re back on your feet. 

Need Help Navigating the Process? We’re Here for You.

The TWC unemployment process can feel intimidating — especially when you’re dealing with the stress of losing a job. You don’t have to go through it alone. If you’re unsure about your eligibility, facing a denial, or preparing for an appeal, our law firm is ready to help you protect your rights and fight for the benefits you deserve.

Contact us today to get guidance, support, and a team that’s firmly in your corner.

Cameron Hanson
Austin Employment Trial Lawyer Cameron Hansen

As a workers’ rights employment attorney practicing in Texas, one of the most common frustrations I hear from employees with disabilities sounds like this: “My employer didn’t deny my accommodation—they just kept dragging it out.”

For years, many employers believed that as long as they eventually approved a reasonable accommodation, they were protected from liability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Fifth Circuit has now made clear that belief is mistaken. An unreasonable delay in providing a reasonable accommodation can itself be a violation of the ADA.

The Failure‑to‑Accommodate Claim

The ADA requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with known disabilities, unless doing so would cause undue hardship. A failure‑to‑accommodate claim generally has three elements:

  1. 1. The employee is a qualified individual with a disability
  2. 2. The employer knew about the disability and its limitations
  3. 3. The employer failed to make reasonable accommodations

The third element is where delay matters. Employers often argue that there can be no violation if the accommodation is ultimately granted. But the Fifth Circuit has rejected that narrow view.

The Fifth Circuit’s Holding: Delay Can Be the Violation

In Strife v. Aldine Independent School District, the Fifth Circuit considered whether a six‑month delay in approving a requested accommodation could support a failure‑to‑accommodate claim. The employee requested permission to use a service dog at work—an accommodation that did not require the employer to purchase equipment or restructure the workplace.

The employer eventually approved the request, but only after months of repeated documentation requests, shifting explanations, and pressure. The district court dismissed the failure‑to‑accommodate claim, reasoning that the employee had not been fired, demoted, or physically injured during the delay.

The Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision on the failure to accommodate claim. The court held that an unreasonable delay in providing a reasonable accommodation may violate the ADA even if the accommodation is eventually approved. The focus is not on whether the employee suffered a separate adverse employment action. The focus is on whether the employer acted reasonably and in good faith after the accommodation request was made.

Why This Matters for Texas Workers

This holding is especially important because delay is one of the most common ways employers undermine disability rights without issuing an outright denial. In practice, employers may:

  • • Prolong the interactive process indefinitely
  • • Demand duplicative or unnecessary medical documentation
  • • Insist on independent medical exams despite sufficient information
  • • Fail to propose or meaningfully consider alternative accommodations

The Fifth Circuit recognized that this kind of foot‑dragging can force employees to work for months without needed support, often while managing pain, risk, or worsening symptoms. The ADA does not allow employers to comply in theory while denying relief in practice.

No Adverse Employment Action Required

A key point reaffirmed by the court is that a failure‑to‑accommodate claim does not require an adverse employment action like termination, demotion, or a pay cut. That matters because the ADA is designed to prevent harm, not simply to provide remedies after damage is done.

Employees should not have to wait until their health declines or their job is at risk before the law offers protection. If an accommodation would reduce pain, risk, or difficulty at work, delaying that accommodation can itself be unlawful.

What Makes a Delay “Unreasonable”?

The court did not impose a rigid timeline, and for good reason. Whether a delay is unreasonable depends on the facts, including:

  • • How simple or complex the requested accommodation is
  • • How much medical information the employer already has
  • • Whether the employer caused or prolonged the delay
  • • Whether the employee was forced to work without needed support

In Strife, the employee alleged that the employer repeatedly moved the goalposts and only approved the accommodation after litigation began. At the early stage of the case, those allegations were enough to proceed.

A Final Word for Employees Experiencing Delay

If you requested a reasonable accommodation and your employer keeps telling you they are “still reviewing it,” that does not automatically mean they are complying with the law. Delay can be discrimination, especially when it is unexplained, unnecessary, or prolonged.

If you believe you are experiencing disability discrimination or an unreasonable delay in receiving an accommodation, it may be worth speaking with an employment attorney who represents workers. Our firm regularly consults with employees across Texas about ADA rights and accommodation issues, and an early conversation can help you understand your options before the situation escalates.

If you’d like to schedule a consultation with me, please reach out at https://www.wileylawyers.com/ or call us at 512-271-5527. 

Madeline Garza
Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Madeline Garza

Protests have shaped the United States since its creation, from the Boston Tea Party to the Civil Rights Marches and Boycotts of the 1960s, and now to the demonstrations advocating for racial justice, reproductive rights, immigration reform, and more. The ability of everyday people to gather, speak out, and demand accountability to our elected officials is a hallmark of a functioning republic. 

The U.S. Constitution and various state laws guarantee your right to assemble and express views through protest. However, that guarantee is not absolute. Local, state, and federal officials are able to restrict time, manner, and place of assembly, provided these restrictions are not intended to suppress the content of the speech. Importantly, just because the law stays you have these rights does not necessarily mean police and a court will respect or upload them. Therefore, it is crucial to understand how to protect your rights to fullest extent possible in case you find yourself in a situation that requires evidence or statements of proof. 

 Do I need a permit to organize a protest?

It depends. You don’t need a permit for a small gathering or demonstration that will not obstruct car or pedestrian traffic. Importantly, if you do not have a permit, a police offer can legally ask you to move to the side of a street or sidewalk to let people pass or for safety reasons.  However, certain types of rallies, large scale marches, or demonstrations over a certain size require permits. Local and state laws vary so it is important to consult with your local government to ensure you are following proper procedure. Your rights are the strongest in “traditional public forums” such as streets, sidewalks, and parks. Further, you generally have a right to speak out on other public property depending on accessibility or interference with the purpose of the property. 

Additionally, any permit system that is required must be constitutional. Meaning, it must be content neutral, serve a significant governmental interest, and leave ample alternative channels for speech. A permit cannot be denied for the sole reason that the event is controversial or will express unpopular views. 

Lastly, the assembly must be peaceful. Police may break up a gathering if there is a clear and present danger of a riot, disorder, interference with traffic, or other immediate threat to public safety. Protected acts that are considered peaceful include: marching, holding signs, chanting, singing, passing out flyers, and wearing symbolic clothing or armbands. The First Amendment does not protect against violence, property damage, or trespassing on private property. 

Can I record when attending a protest?

When you are lawfully present in any public space, you have the right to photograph anything in plain view, including federal buildings and the police. Importantly, if you are on private property, the owner has the right to restrict photography or video. Law enforcement officers are prohibited from confiscating your photographs or video recordings, compelling you to display their contents, or deleting any data from your device without first obtaining a valid warrant. You are under no legal obligation to disclose your device’s PIN, password, or other access credentials. Nonetheless, officers may lawfully instruct individuals to discontinue activities that materially and unlawfully interfere with legitimate police operations.

When recording, be mindful that audio capture may be subject to different legal standards than video, particularly under state wiretapping or eavesdropping statutes. You should familiarize yourself with any applicable audio‑recording restrictions within your jurisdiction.

Dealing with Police during a protest.

If you are detained by law enforcement, it is essential to remain calm and keep your hands visible at all times. You should not argue with, resist, or obstruct the officers, even if you believe your rights are being violated. Instead, calmly state that you are engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment and then inquire whether you are free to leave. If the officer confirms that you may leave, you should do so in a calm and orderly manner. Officers are permitted to conduct a limited pat‑down if they reasonably suspect that you are carrying a weapon.

If you are placed under arrest, you have the right to remain silent, and it is in your best interest to exercise that right until you have consulted with legal counsel. You may ask for the reason for your arrest and, if possible, obtain the name and badge number of the arresting officer. You also have the right to make a local phone call or to contact an attorney, and police may not listen to any call you make to your lawyer. Should you be injured while in custody, you are entitled to prompt medical attention.

If an officer asks to search your belongings, including your phone, you should clearly state that you do not consent to the search. Although the officer may proceed regardless, your refusal is important to preserve your rights. If officers instruct you to remove religious head coverings such as a hijab or kufi, you should inform them that the item is worn for religious reasons and ask for an explanation for the request. If they nonetheless compel removal, you should not resist but make clear that you do not consent. 

Protests are Powerful.

Attending, organizing, or participating in a protest is one of the most powerful civic tools available in the United States. But power is safest and most effective when coupled with knowledge. Understanding your rights—and the limits on government authority—helps ensure that demonstrations remain both lawful and impactful.

Whether you plan to speak out for workplace equity, racial justice, immigrant rights, or any cause that moves you, preparation is the key to protection. Review your rights beforehand, stay calm if confronted, document any violations, and seek legal counsel if you believe your freedoms were infringed.

JB Headshot (1)
Trial Attorney Jermaine Brown

Summary: Not every resignation is voluntary. When an employer makes working conditions so unbearable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to quit, the law may treat that resignation the same as a termination. This is called constructive discharge, and it could mean the difference between walking away with nothing and holding your employer accountable.

________________________________________________________________________

In 44 B.C., a Roman soothsayer warned Julius Caesar to beware the Ides of March. Caesar ignored him. On March 15, the people Caesar trusted most—the senators he worked alongside, the men who sat in the same room and called him an ally—surrounded him and ended his life. The destruction did not come from an enemy at the gates. It came from the people he worked for. If that sounds familiar, what happened to you has a legal name.

They did not come for you all at once. It started with something small—a shift in tone, a meeting you were not invited to, a responsibility quietly reassigned. Maybe it was after you filed a complaint, came back from medical leave, or told them something they did not want to hear. Maybe you reported harassment and the company’s response was to move you while the person you complained about kept their position. Whatever the turning point was, the people you trusted—your supervisor, your HR department, the company you gave years of your life to—stopped protecting you and started engineering your exit.

At some point, staying was no longer an option. The environment had become so hostile, so degrading, and so impossible to survive that no reasonable person in your shoes would have stayed. So, you resigned.

And now someone—maybe a friend, family member, or even another attorney—has told you that because you resigned, you do not have a case. That’s because, since you were not technically fired, your employer is off the hook.

That is not necessarily true.

The law recognizes a difference between choosing to leave and being forced out. When an employer makes working conditions so unbearable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign, the law can treat that resignation the same as a termination. The legal term is constructive discharge. If it applies to your situation, your employer does not get to escape accountability simply because you were the one who turned in the resignation letter.

The Standard Is High—But It Is Not Impossible

The Supreme Court set the standard in Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders—did working conditions become so intolerable that a reasonable person would have felt they had no real choice but to resign? The Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, sets a high bar. Having a difficult boss, being passed over for a promotion, or dealing with workplace politics that feel unfair are generally not enough on their own. Courts look at the whole picture—demotions, pay cuts, humiliation, reassignment to degrading work, ultimatums—and ask whether the pattern adds up to conditions no reasonable person could endure.

Difficult does not mean impossible. Courts have recognized constructive discharge where employers ignored escalating sexual harassment, stripped employees of duties after medical leave, reassigned workers to humiliating roles after discrimination complaints, or gave employees the choice between resigning and being fired under retaliatory circumstances. The question is always whether everything that happened, taken together, left you with no reasonable choice but to leave.

This Is Not Just a Historical Problem

Constructive discharge is not limited to cases involving harassment or hostile supervisors. In 2026, major corporations and federal agencies are enforcing full-time return-to-office mandates, and employees who cannot comply—because they relocated based on promises of remote work, or because remote work is part of a disability accommodation—are being told to report or resign. Not every return-to-office policy gives rise to a constructive discharge claim. But when the mandate amounts to an ultimatum directed at workers whose protected characteristics make compliance impossible, the legal framework applies.

What You Should Know

Resigning does not automatically mean you have no legal options. But constructive discharge is not a standalone claim—it must be tied to a protected characteristic like your race, sex, age, disability, religion, or national origin, or to a protected activity such as reporting harassment or requesting an accommodation. Courts also look at whether you took reasonable steps to address the situation before resigning. That does not mean enduring abuse indefinitely. But it does mean the details matter, and whatever steps you take, document them — my colleague Areyana Gilbert wrote about why that matters more than you think. 

Every situation is different. Whether what you experienced rises to the level of constructive discharge depends on facts that only an employment attorney can properly evaluate.

Caesar’s betrayal came from the Senate floor. Yours may have come from the conference room, the HR office, or a policy memo. The setting is different. The pattern is the same.

Et tu, Brute?

Those were Caesar’s last words. Do not let them be yours. If the company you trusted betrayed you—do not let that betrayal be your end story. Contact us in Houston or one of my colleagues in Dallas or Austin today.

Kalandra Wheeler
Kalandra Wheeler is a Board Certified Houston/Austin employment lawyer.

In a world that feels increasingly divided, people often assume that different political views mean different values. Yet when you look beneath the noise, beneath the arguments and the headlines, something powerful becomes clear. Most people, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, still believe deeply in the necessity of protecting human rights and individual freedoms. These rights form the common ground we must stand on, the shared understanding that every person deserves dignity, autonomy, and protection from unchecked power. Even when we disagree about policies or priorities, we can still be united in our belief that some rights should never be touched.

That belief has to be the foundation of our country. Constitutional rights were never meant to be temporary promises or conveniences handed out when politics allowed for them. They were meant to be permanent safeguards, placed deliberately out of the reach of shifting governments and changing opinions. When a society begins to tolerate the idea that these rights can be limited or removed, even in small or subtle ways, something profound is lost. A right that can be taken away at the government’s discretion is not truly a right at all. It becomes a privilege. And privileges can vanish the moment those in power decide they are no longer deserved.

Any erosion of our fundamental rights must be taken seriously, even when it appears to affect someone else. It is easy to believe that if the restriction does not touch your own life, it is harmless or justified. But history tells a different story. When governments realize that the public will allow them to chip away at freedoms, the chipping rarely stops. It starts small. It is defended with comforting words and reassuring tones, as though the change is insignificant and nothing to worry about. But once the precedent is set, once the line has moved, it becomes easier to move it again. And again. And again.

People often talk about the slippery slope as though it is a distant possibility, a dramatic exaggeration. Yet the truth is that rights are not usually lost in one sweeping move. They fade when people become numb to each small step, when they convince themselves that one more restriction will not matter. Over time, those steps accumulate until the society that once believed in liberty looks around and realizes that the protections it took for granted are no longer there. By then, the power that was taken is almost never willingly returned. Those who hold it rarely give it back because doing so means surrendering control, influence, and the ability to silence opposition.

This is the catastrophe that so many societies before us have faced. A population that did not recognize the danger early enough finds itself stripped of the very freedoms it needs to fight back. And the people wake up one day realizing that the rights they assumed were permanent have been reshaped into something conditional, fragile, and dependent on the whims of those in authority. It is a heartbreaking and terrifying moment, and it is preventable only if we remain alert and active before the damage is done.

Protecting constitutional rights should never depend on political affiliation. It should not matter if two people disagree about taxes, foreign policy, or the role of government programs. When it comes to individual freedoms, the only wise path is to stand together. If rights become at‑will, if they become something granted or denied based on who is in office or what ideology is favored, then no one is truly safe. A government that can strip rights from citizens it dislikes can eventually strip them from anyone, even you. And once a society accepts that loss, it steps into a world where the government owns the people, rather than the people owning their government.

The question we must confront is simple but urgent. Are we willing to allow rights meant to be permanent to become temporary? Are we willing to let freedoms designed to protect every individual slip into something that can be altered at the convenience of those in power? If we allow this to happen, then we are no longer living with constitutional rights. We are living with at‑will rights. Rights given or taken at the will of the people in charge. If that happens, the freedom we once celebrated will already be gone.

Cameron Hanson
Austin Employment Trial Lawyer Cameron Hansen

As a plaintiff’s employment lawyer here in Austin, I hear one phrase from clients more than almost anything else: “But they said…” And right away, I know we’re stepping into the territory of hearsay—one of the most misunderstood concepts in the legal world. In wrongful‑termination cases, hearsay can absolutely shape the strength of your claim, but not always in the way people expect.

Let’s clarify what hearsay is, the common exceptions, and how it plays a role in proving (or disproving) unlawful termination.

What Hearsay Actually Means

Hearsay isn’t just “something someone else said.” Under the Texas Rules of Evidence (which mirror the Federal Rules in most respects), hearsay is:

An out‑of‑court statement offered in court to prove the truth of whatever it asserts.

In everyday language: If you want a judge or jury to believe something is true because someone said it, and that person isn’t testifying in court, that’s hearsay.

For example:

“My coworker told me my boss said he was firing me because of my disability.”

If you offer this to prove the boss actually fired you because of your disability, that’s hearsay.

But here’s the important part: Hearsay is not automatically inadmissible in court. Many statements that sound like hearsay actually come in without a problem because they fall under well‑recognized exceptions or aren’t hearsay at all under the rules.

Common Hearsay Exceptions That Come Up in Employment Cases

Employment disputes—especially wrongful‑termination cases—are full of statements. Managers, coworkers, HR staff, and decision‑makers constantly talk, email, text, or message each other. Several types of statements regularly qualify as admissible even if they might look like hearsay at first glance.

1. Opposing Party Statements 

This is the big one.

If a supervisor, manager, HR representative, or company executive makes a statement related to your termination, and the company is the defendant, that statement is not hear­say. The law treats the company’s agents as speaking for the company.

Examples include:

“We need to get rid of her; she keeps complaining about safety issues.”

“He’s too old to keep up with the new systems.”

Because these come from the employer’s side, they’re admissible.

2. Business Records Exception

Many employment cases rely on internal documents—emails, performance reviews, complaint logs, or termination paperwork. When properly authenticated, these often fall under the “business records” exception.

That means your employer’s own documents can come into evidence even if the person who wrote them isn’t testifying.

3. Present Sense Impressions & Excited Utterances

These are more rare in employment disputes but can still show up.

If someone makes a statement while something is happening or immediately after, that statement may be admissible.

Example:

A coworker texting, “I can’t believe what John just said to you in this meeting!”

If it’s describing an event in real time, it may come in.

4. Statements Showing Motive, Intent, or State of Mind

Sometimes what matters isn’t whether the statement is true but whether it shows the speaker’s mindset.

Example:

“HR is sick of her medical leave requests.”

This could be relevant to show discriminatory motive regardless of whether HR was actually sick of the requests.

How Hearsay Can Affect Wrongful Termination Claims

Wrongful‑termination cases often hinge on why the employer made its decision. Direct evidence is rare—supervisors rarely put discriminatory motives in writing. That means many cases rely heavily on witness testimony about conversations, comments, and attitudes.

Here’s where hearsay can help or hurt:

If a statement is hearsay but doesn’t qualify for an exception, we might not be able to use it to prove our key point.

But if the statement was made by a manager or decision‑maker, it’s usually admissible and can become a cornerstone of the case.

Sometimes we don’t need the statement to prove the truth of what was said—just that it was said at all. That avoids the hearsay rule entirely.

Example: How One Statement Shapes a Wrongful‑Termination Case

Let’s say my client, Maria, complained to HR about gender discrimination. Two weeks later, she was fired for “poor performance.”

A coworker tells us:

“During the meeting, your supervisor said they needed to get rid of you because you kept causing trouble with those HR complaints.”

At first glance, it looks like hearsay—someone repeating what someone else said.

But legally, this statement is not hearsay because:

The supervisor is a decision‑maker.

The employer is the defendant.

Anything a company agent says on a matter within the scope of their job counts as an opposing‑party statement.

That one coworker’s testimony could turn a shaky case into a powerful retaliation claim.

Final Thoughts

Hearsay is complicated, but it’s not the roadblock many people think it is. In wrongful‑termination litigation, some of the most important evidence comes in precisely because of the exceptions—or because the rules treat employer statements differently.

If you believe you were wrongfully terminated and you’re unsure whether key evidence counts as hearsay, talk with an experienced employment lawyer. The strength of your claim may depend on understanding these rules correctly.

JB Headshot (1)
Trial Attorney Jermaine Brown

Summary: Courts have used the 50-year-old McDonnell Douglas framework to evaluate workplace discrimination and retaliation cases based on circumstantial evidence. Two Supreme Court Justices have called for it to be scrapped, and a new case in the Fifth Circuit could change how every discrimination lawsuit is litigated in Texas.

You gave a company years of your life. You arrived early, stayed late, trained the new hires, and never received a negative review. Then something changed. Maybe it was after you came back from medical leave. Maybe it was after you turned fifty. Maybe it was after you reported conduct you believed was illegal. Whatever the turning point was, the job you had on Monday did not feel like the same job by Friday. And then you were sidelined, demoted, or terminated. The reason they gave you did not match what you saw with your own eyes. You know what really happened. But the question that keeps you up at night is whether you can prove it.

You are not alone in that frustration. Most employees who experience discrimination or retaliation at work do not receive a memo explaining the real reason behind what happened to them. Employers rarely put motive in writing. There is no email from a supervisor stating that the termination was because of a protected characteristic (i.e., race, sex, age, disability), or because of a protected activity (filing a complaint about illegal conduct). What people typically see instead is a pattern: a sudden negative performance review after years of clean evaluations, a promotion given to someone less qualified, or a firing that comes suspiciously soon after a complaint to HR or supervisor.

The pattern you noticed is what the law calls circumstantial evidence. When an employee files a discrimination or retaliation lawsuit based on circumstantial evidence rather than direct proof of the employer’s intent, courts turn to a legal test to evaluate the strength of the claim. That test is known as the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. It applies to claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and similar antidiscrimination laws. The framework has been the standard method for evaluating these claims for more than fifty years. It determines whether your case survives long enough to reach a jury or gets thrown out before trial.

And right now, that framework is under serious scrutiny.

How the Framework Works

The McDonnell Douglas framework comes from a 1973 Supreme Court decision, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. It outlines a three-step process for cases without a smoking gun (aka direct evidence).

First, the employee must establish a prima facie case. In plain terms, this means showing enough basic facts to support a reasonable inference that discrimination or retaliation occurred. For example, in a termination case, the employee would typically need to show that they belong to a protected class, they were qualified for the position, they were terminated, and either someone outside their protected class replaced them or the circumstances suggest discrimination played a role.

Second, if the employee clears that initial step, the burden shifts to the employer to offer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action. This is not a high bar. The employer only has to articulate a reason—poor performance, restructuring, policy violations, or any number of explanations.

Third, and this is where most cases are won or lost, the burden shifts back to the employee to show that the employer’s stated reason is pretextual. In other words, the employee must demonstrate that the employer’s stated reason was not the real reason and that discrimination or retaliation was the motive.

Why It Matters to You

If you have ever wondered why discrimination or retaliation cases are difficult to win even when the facts seem obvious, this framework is a significant part of the answer. The pretext stage—step three—is where many otherwise strong cases are dismissed on summary judgment before a jury ever hears them. An employer offers a facially neutral explanation, and if the employee cannot produce enough evidence to show that the explanation is false and that discrimination was the actual motive, the case is over.

This means that even if you were fired the week after filing an internal complaint, even if your replacement was less experienced, even if your supervisor made comments that felt discriminatory, your case can still be dismissed if a judge determines that you did not sufficiently prove that the employer’s stated reason was a pretext for discrimination.

The Framework Is Being Challenged

In June 2025, the Supreme Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case that struck down the so-called “background circumstances” rule in discrimination cases. The decision itself was significant, but what made headlines in legal circles was the concurrence written by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. In that concurrence, Justice Thomas directly questioned whether the McDonnell Douglas framework should continue to exist at all, calling it a “judge-made evidentiary tool” that has no statutory basis.

Justice Thomas had already signaled this view months earlier when the Court declined to hear Hittle v. City of Stockton. In a rare dissent from the denial of review, Justice Thomas wrote that he would have taken the case specifically to reconsider whether the burden-shifting framework remains workable.

Now, cases are developing in lower courts that could force the issue. In the Fifth Circuit—the federal appellate court that covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi—Bassett v. Gray Media Group (No. 25-60278) presents a direct challenge to how the framework is applied. At the Supreme Court level, the petition in Mays v. Newly Weds Foods Inc. (No. 25-499) asked the Justices to determine whether the pretext requirement conflicts with ordinary summary judgment rules, but the Court declined to hear the case in January 2026. That denial does not end the debate. It simply means the challenge will continue to develop in the lower courts.

The argument, in simplified terms, is this: under normal summary judgment standards in civil litigation, a plaintiff needs only to show that there is a genuine dispute of material fact—enough that a reasonable jury could find in their favor. But the McDonnell Douglas framework imposes an additional, specific requirement that the plaintiff must disprove the employer’s stated reason. Critics say this extra step is not found anywhere in Title VII and effectively gives employers an advantage that defendants in other types of civil cases do not enjoy.

What Could Change

If the McDonnell Douglas framework is modified or eliminated, it could significantly affect how discrimination and retaliation cases are litigated. Without the rigid three-step test, courts would evaluate discrimination or retaliation claims the same way they evaluate other civil claims at summary judgment: by looking at whether all the circumstantial evidence, taken together, creates a genuine question for a jury.

Some circuits are already moving in this direction. The Eleventh Circuit, for example, has adopted a holistic approach called the “convincing mosaic” standard, which allows courts to look at the totality of a plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence rather than requiring the employee to negate the employer’s specific stated reason. Under this approach, pieces of evidence that individually might not be sufficient—a suspicious timeline, a pattern of disparate treatment, inconsistent explanations—can be considered together to form a picture of discrimination.

For employees, this could mean that more cases survive to trial. For the legal system, it could represent the most significant change to employment discrimination litigation in a generation.

What This Means for Texas Employees

These developments are not abstract legal theory. They have practical consequences for anyone in Texas who believes they have been discriminated against or retaliated against at work. Right now, if you bring a discrimination case in a federal court within the Fifth Circuit, your attorney will need to navigate the McDonnell Douglas framework at summary judgment. That means building a record that not only supports your version of events but also specifically undermines whatever reason your employer offers for the adverse action.

Regardless of whether the framework changes, there are steps you can take to protect yourself. Document everything. If you receive a sudden negative review or a disciplinary write-up that does not reflect your actual performance, put your objections in writing. If you believe you were passed over for a promotion and someone less qualified received it, keep records of your qualifications and theirs. If you report discrimination or harassment and experience retaliation afterward, note the dates and the sequence of events. Timing often becomes a significant part of the story in these cases.

If you believe you have been discriminated against or retaliated against at work, speak with an experienced employment attorney who can evaluate the strength of your claims under the current legal standards and advise you on how evolving case law may affect your options. Contact us in Houston or one of my colleagues in Dallas or Austin today to schedule a consultation.