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.

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

As 2025 began, a noticeable shift emerged as employers increasingly required employees to return to the office. What had once been framed as temporary or optional during the remote-work boom had evolved into formal policy changes within many companies. That remote-work boom was largely driven by necessity, as the COVID-19 pandemic forced employers to rapidly adopt work-from-home arrangements to maintain operations, protect employee health, and comply with public safety restrictions. What began as an emergency response soon proved workable for many roles, leading to a dramatic and widespread expansion of remote work.

Employers will now commonly explain the return to the office as a necessary step to improve collaboration, productivity, and accountability. Many argue that in-person work allows for faster communication, stronger teamwork, and more effective supervision of employee performance. Others point to the benefits of hands-on training and mentorship, particularly for newer employees, as well as the desire to rebuild workplace culture and cohesion. Employers may also claim that operational consistency also plays a role in their decisions to bring employees back into the office, alleging it is easier to manage a single, uniform work model rather than multiple remote or hybrid arrangements. Regardless of the reason, at-will employment may leave some employee with no other choice but to return to the office.

The trend of employer making employee return-to-office is likely not temporary. As labor markets fluctuate and employers feel less pressure to offer remote options as a recruitment tool, in-person work requirements may become more common, especially in competitive or regulated industries. While fully remote roles will not disappear, they may be more limited and harder to obtain.

However, it is important for employees to understand that a return to the office does not mean the law no longer applies. Employers are still required to comply with all applicable employment laws, including those related to reasonable accommodations, disability protections, medical and family leave, anti-discrimination rules, and wage and hour requirements. Return-to-office policies do not erase legal obligations, and exceptions may still be required where the law demands them. Employees who previously qualified for accommodations or flexible arrangements should know that those rights do not automatically vanish with a change in workplace policy.

For some workers, returning to a shared physical workplace may also offer an unexpected advantage: increased visibility and transparency. While employers may claim to be motivated by a need to monitor work performance, the in-office environment allows employees to also monitor work performance. 

When everyone is in the same place at the same time, workplace dynamics become easier to observe. It is not unusual for an employee to believe that something is wrong in the workplace, that they are being treated differently. Yet, remote work may sometimes limit their ability to fully understand and observe office interactions. With a return to in office work, supervisors can no longer hide differential treatment behind computer screens or private virtual meetings that other employees never know are occurring. Employees are better positioned to see how managers interact with colleagues in similar roles, how opportunities are distributed, and whether expectations are applied consistently. Questions about how an employer treats others in the same position may be answered when conduct and decision-making happens in shared spaces rather than behind closed digital doors.

Ultimately, the return-to-office movement gaining traction in 2025 reflects a broader shift in how work, power, and accountability are structured. While the loss of flexibility is a legitimate concern for many employees, in-person work can also bring clarity. Greater visibility can mean fewer hidden practices, more awareness of workplace behavior, and a clearer understanding of where an employee truly stands. For some workers, being back in the room may provide insight, protection, and knowledge that remote work simply could not offer. If you believe your employer is engaging in unlawful discriminatory conduct toward you, our attorneys are available for consultation.

Areyana Gilbert
Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Areyana Gilbert

You may have heard the saying to “document everything” in the workplace or to “keep receipts” when matters in the workplace are seemingly unlawful. There’s some truth to that—a lot actually. This blog explores the significance behind the two concepts which stresses the importance of proper documentation. Employees who experience discrimination, harassment, or retaliation often assume that reporting the behavior verbally is enough. Unfortunately, when workplace disputes escalate into formal complaints or legal claims, what matters most is not just what happened, but what can be proven. That’s where documentation becomes critical.

Employment discrimination and retaliation cases are evidence-driven. Courts, agencies, and employers rely heavily on written records, timelines, and corroboration. Without documentation, unlawful conduct can become a “he said, she said” situation—making it far more difficult for an employee to prove their case.

Keeping records transforms personal experiences into tangible evidence. Notes, emails, texts, performance reviews, and internal complaints can establish patterns of behavior, show intent, and demonstrate how an employer responded (or failed to respond) once issues were raised.

What Should Employees Document?

Employees should document any behavior that may be discriminatory, harassing, or retaliatory, including:

  • Inappropriate comments or conduct related to protected characteristics
  • Unequal treatment compared to similarly situated coworkers
  • Sudden negative performance reviews after raising concerns
  • Discipline, demotion, or termination following complaints
  • Employer responses to internal reports or HR complaints

Each entry should include dates, times, locations, individuals involved, witnesses, and a clear description of what occurred. Objective facts are more valuable than emotional language. Documentation should be created as close in time to the incident as possible. Contemporaneous notes are often viewed as more credible than records created months later. Waiting too long can result in faded memories, lost evidence, or missed legal deadlines.

In many jurisdictions, especially Texas, employees must meet strict time limits to file discrimination or retaliation claims. Detailed records help attorneys quickly assess claims and ensure deadlines are met. Such documentation is also helpful to credibly defend yourself in unemployment hearings with the Texas Workforce Commission as well. 

Even if a situation never leads to legal action, documentation can be essential during internal investigations. Employers are more likely to take complaints seriously when employees can provide clear, detailed records. Documentation also discourages employers from dismissing concerns as misunderstandings or isolated incidents. Employees should keep copies of documentation in a safe, personal location—not solely on work devices or company email systems. Access to employer systems can be revoked at any time, especially after termination.  Here are a few takeaways regarding proper documentation and its advantages. 

  • Documentation can make or break a discrimination or retaliation claim
  • Record incidents promptly, factually, and consistently
  • Include dates, details, witnesses, and employer responses
  • Written records strengthen both internal complaints and legal cases
  • Store documentation securely outside of work systems

When workplace misconduct occurs, silence and memory are rarely enough. Thoughtful documentation empowers employees to protect their rights and hold employers accountable.

Think you may have an employment discrimination case? It is highly advised that you consult with a Texas employment law attorney. Schedule a consult with an attorney in our firm here. 

Ty Photo
Austin Employment Lawyer Ty'Queese Keyes

The shift to remote and flexible work has reshaped the modern workplace. For many, working from home is a perk governed by company policy. However, for employees with disabilities, the ability to telework is often more than a benefit—it’s a potential legal right under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that can remove barriers. 

This right is not based on company-wide programs, but on a legal framework that requires employers to provide “reasonable accommodations.” The key to unlocking this right is the “interactive process,” a collaborative dialogue between an employee and employer. This blog will demystify five critical aspects of your right to telework under the ADA, based on guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

1. Your Right to a Telework Accommodation Is Not Tied to Company Policy.

Under the ADA, allowing an employee with a disability to work from home is considered a modification of workplace policies. This means that after an employee initiates the interactive process with a request, an employer may be required to grant it as a reasonable accommodation—even if the company has no existing telework program and does not allow other employees to work from home. 

This is because changing the location where work is performed, such as allowing an employee to telework, may fall under the ADA’s reasonable accommodation requirement of modifying workplace policies, even if the employer does not allow other employees to telework.

This is a powerful distinction because it separates a disability accommodation from a standard employee perk. Your right is based on individual need, not on existing company-wide benefits.

What This Means for You: Don’t assume you are ineligible for a telework accommodation just because your company has a strict “office-only” culture. Your right to an accommodation is independent of standard company policy.

2. Internal Eligibility Rules Can Be Waived for an Accommodation.

If a company does have a formal telework program, its standard eligibility rules are not absolute when it comes to the ADA. As part of the interactive process, an employer might have to waive certain requirements, such as minimum tenure, as a form of reasonable accommodation.

For instance, the EEOC provides a specific example: an employer that normally requires employees to work for one year before becoming eligible for the company’s telework program may have to waive that rule for a new employee whose disability necessitates working from home. This point is crucial because it demonstrates that the ADA’s requirements can supersede internal company policies when an effective accommodation is needed.

What This Means for You: Company policies on telework eligibility are a starting point, not a hard barrier. If you need an accommodation, the interactive process can lead to modifying those rules to meet your needs.

3. Your Preference Matters, but the “Effective Accommodation” is Key.

While an employee can specifically request to work from home, the employer is not legally obligated to grant that request if another effective accommodation is available that would allow the employee to work on-site. The employer has the ultimate discretion to choose between effective accommodations.

However, the EEOC guidance states that the employee’s preference should be given “primary consideration.” This reinforces the importance of a good-faith interactive process where both parties can find a solution that works.

Ultimately, the goal is an effective accommodation, and the dialogue between you and your employer is the prescribed method for finding it.

What This Means for You: Clearly articulate why telework is your preferred and most effective solution during the interactive process. While the employer has the final say, a well-reasoned preference is given significant weight.

4. “Essential Functions” Are the Focus, Not Minor On-Site Tasks.

A common misconception is that a job must be entirely portable to be eligible for a telework accommodation. The key distinction under the ADA is between “essential” and “marginal” job functions. An employer is not required to remove essential duties—the fundamental tasks of the job—to allow for telework.

However, the EEOC clarifies that if only minor, non-essential (marginal) functions are preventing an employee from working at home, those tasks can be reassigned. For example, a food server cannot perform their essential duties from home, but an office worker whose essential duties involve writing reports and analyzing data might have a marginal duty of making occasional photocopies. Through the interactive process, that marginal task could be reassigned to allow for telework. This practical distinction makes telework a viable option for a much broader range of jobs than many people assume.

What This Means for You: Focus your accommodation request on how your essential duties can be performed remotely. Do not let minor on-site tasks derail the conversation; these are precisely the things the ADA allows to be reassigned.

5. Telework Accommodations Can Be Flexible, Not All-or-Nothing.

A reasonable accommodation for telework does not have to be a permanent, full-time arrangement. The structure should be tailored to what the employee’s disability necessitates, as determined through the interactive process.

This can take many forms: a hybrid schedule of one day a week at home, a temporary remote arrangement for a few months while recovering from treatment or even work from home on an “as needed” basis for a disability with unpredictable flare-ups. The frequency and duration should be based on the specific need, ensuring the employee can successfully perform their job.

What This Means for You: Your request doesn’t have to be for a permanent, full-time remote role. Propose a flexible arrangement through the interactive process that directly addresses the specific challenges your disability presents.

Beyond Policy, Towards Inclusivity

These “surprising truths” are not legal trivia; they are essential tools for self-advocacy and for building more equitable workplaces. Understanding that telework is a legal right, not just a company perk, reframes the entire conversation. For employees seeking support, knowledge of these rights is the first and most critical step in the interactive process.

 If you would like to consult with an attorney regarding your reasonable accommodations and the interactive process, Rob Wiley, P.C., is dedicated to informing you of your rights and your employer’s potential violations. Please contact us to discuss your available options.

Madeline Garza
Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Madeline Garza

Pregnancy discrimination remains one of the most persistent challenges in employment law. Despite decades of legal protections, thousands of employees still face adverse actions after announcing a pregnancy or requesting accommodations. Pregnancy discrimination occurs when an employer treats an employee or job applicant unfavorably because of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. 

This includes: 

·      Hiring and firing decisions based on pregnancy status;

·      Denial of promotions or training opportunities due to anticipated maternity leave;

·      Refusal to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related limitations;

·      Harassment or hostile work environment targeting pregnant employees.

Under federal law, pregnancy discrimination is considered a form of sex discrimination. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Employers must treat pregnant employees the same as other employees similar in their ability or inability to work. 

Key Federal Laws Protecting Pregnant Workers

Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)

The PDA ensures that pregnancy-related conditions are treated like any other temporary disability. Employers cannot refuse to hire, terminate, or demote an employee because of pregnancy. They must also provide equal benefits and accommodations as they would for other temporarily disabled employees. 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

While pregnancy itself is not classified as a disability under the ADA, many pregnancy-related conditions, such as gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, or severe morning sickness, qualify as disabilities. Employers must provide reasonable accommodations for these conditions unless doing so would cause undue hardship. This means: employees may request accommodations like ergonomic seating, modified duties, or telework, employers must engage in an interactive process to identify suitable accommodations, and medical documentation should be kept confidential and stored separately from personnel files.

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)

Effective June 27, 2023, the PWFA requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Examples include: flexible scheduling for prenatal appointments, temporary reassignment to light-duty tasks, additional breaks for hydration or rest, and/or remote work options when medically necessary.

Importantly, employers cannot force employees to take leave if another reasonable accommodation would allow them to continue working.

Why This Matters

Pregnancy discrimination not only violates the law, it undermines workplace equity and economic security for families. If you are facing discrimination there are a couple steps to follow to ensure your rights are protected. First, document everything. It is important to keep records of conversations, emails, and policy changes, but also make sure you are following any company policy on confidential information. Second, make sure you request accommodations in writing. While it isn’t a strict requirement, it helps to clearly state your limitations and proposed accommodations. Further allowing you to circle back and keep track of your employer’s responses or lack thereof. Third, if your employer is interfering with your rights for accommodations or discriminating against you based on your pregnancy status, schedule a consultation with an attorney. Our office has decades of experience representing employees experiencing discrimination and fight for resolution.

Ty Photo
Austin Employment Lawyer Ty'Queese Keyes

Wage theft occurs when employees are not fully paid as required by law or contract. It includes unpaid overtime, withheld tips, misclassification to avoid benefits, and illegal paycheck deductions. These practices breach workers’ rights, violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, and can cause financial problems for those affected.

Wage theft is expressly prohibited under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which is overseen by the U.S. Department of Labor and establishes wage and hour regulations for the majority of employees. The FLSA sets the federal minimum wage, overtime compensation, and recordkeeping obligations, applying to the vast majority of workers in both private and public employment. 

Employees who have been subjected to wage theft have several avenues for recourse to recover unpaid wages and pursue applicable penalties. Individuals may exercise their private right of action by initiating a civil lawsuit against their employer. Additionally, affected employees may file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor for violations of FLSA. The Department of Labor may subsequently conduct an investigation, facilitate mediation, and mandate that the employer pay any outstanding back wages.

Individuals can also sue their employer in court. If they win, employees may receive back pay, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, court costs, and possible state penalties. Under the FLSA, willful violations allow employees to recover double the unpaid wages.

It is important to be aware of the applicable deadlines for taking action. Under the FLSA, employees generally have two years to file lawsuits—three years in cases involving willful violations—to safeguard their rights. If these deadlines lapse, the opportunity to recover unpaid wages may no longer be available to you.

Understanding these standards is crucial, especially during the holidays when wage disputes can become more prevalent. Employees should familiarize themselves with their rights under the FLSA, including how to identify wage theft and the steps to take if they suspect violations. For further guidance on wage and hour laws, employees can visit resources such as the U.S. Department of Labor’s FLSA overview and Workplace Fairness on wage theft. These sites provide practical information on documentation, complaint procedures, and how to recover unpaid wages, helping workers safeguard their earnings during the holiday season and beyond.

If you believe your employer owes you unpaid wages, Rob Wiley, P.C., is dedicated to representing employees whose rights under the FLSA have been violated. Please contact us to discuss your available options.

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

Employees often assume that every workplace complaint triggers a formal investigation. In reality, that is not the case. While Texas law does not contain a statute that literally states that an employer must investigate all complaints, there are important legal and practical reasons for employers to take allegations seriously. Some complaints will require a full investigation because of federal and state anti-discrimination laws, while others involve workplace disagreements or policy concerns that do not rise to the level of unlawful conduct. Understanding the difference is essential for employers and employees alike.

Texas does not impose a stand-alone requirement that every workplace concern must be investigated. Employees may raise issues such as personality conflicts, minor disagreements, or general dissatisfaction with management decisions. These situations may be frustrating or disruptive, but they are not automatically violations of the law. Because of this, employers are not legally obligated to launch a formal investigation into every complaint an employee brings forward. Employers must determine which complaints involve legally protected issues and which do not.

Accordingly, employees also need to understand where the law provides protections and where it does not. If an employee believes they are being subjected to unlawful conduct or are witnessing unlawful conduct, they should do their best to articulate the law that they believe is being violated. Where harassment alone may not be a violation of the law, sexual harassment is. While disproportionate work assignments or favoritism on their own may not violate the law, doing so because of an employee’s race does.

Even though employers are not required to investigate every complaint, conducting investigations is still a sound business practice. Investigations demonstrate that the employer takes employee concerns seriously. They help identify problems that could grow into larger issues and they promote a healthier workplace culture. Effective investigations also improve employee trust and morale. When employees see that leadership responds thoughtfully to concerns, the workplace becomes more transparent and efficient. This can be invaluable if a dispute later escalates into a legal claim.

There are situations in which an employer’s discretion disappears because the law steps in. When an employee reports discrimination, harassment, or retaliation based on a protected characteristic under federal law or under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code, the employer must take prompt and appropriate action. Courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission consistently hold that an employer cannot meet its obligations unless it conducts a timely and meaningful investigation. If the employer knows or should know that an employee may be experiencing unlawful conduct, failure to investigate can expose the employer to legal liability, even if the underlying complaint is ultimately unproven. In this context, the investigation is not optional. It is part of the employer’s duty to ensure a workplace free from illegal discrimination and harassment.

Investigations of protected complaints must be prompt, thorough, and impartial. The law requires an employer to take the matter seriously and to make a good faith effort to uncover the facts. An employer that ignores a discrimination complaint, delays unreasonably, or conducts an incomplete review risks legal consequences. Courts often view a failure to investigate as evidence that the employer did not take the complaint seriously or attempted to avoid knowledge of misconduct. This can be just as damaging as the underlying violation.

Not every workplace conflict carries legal significance, yet good management requires attention to employee concerns before they escalate. Investigations can be a valuable internal tool even when they are not legally mandated. At the same time, there are clear situations where the law requires an investigation, and employers must understand which complaints trigger these obligations. 

Employers who establish consistent practices, train managers to recognize legally significant complaints, and respond promptly when protected issues arise are better equipped to maintain a lawful and respectful work environment. Even in Texas, where no statute explicitly requires investigations of all complaints, thoughtful investigative practices remain essential, and legally mandated investigations in discrimination, harassment, and retaliation cases are non-negotiable.

If you believe your employer has failed to investigate or remedy reported violations of the law, we have attorneys available for consultation. Contact me in Houston or one of my colleagues. Our team can evaluate your situation, explain your rights, and advise you on whether the law protects you based on the specific facts of your complaint.

Cameron Hanson
Austin Employment Trial Lawyer Cameron Hansen

In recent years, remote and hybrid work have become a normal part of many employees’ lives. For some, it has offered flexibility, improved health, and a better work-life balance. But along with this shift has come a dangerous myth — that workers lose legal protections once they are out of the physical office. As Texas employment lawyers who fight for workers’ rights, we want to be clear: whether you work from a cubicle, your couch, or a kitchen table, employment laws still protect you.

Discrimination doesn’t disappear just because it happens over Zoom.

Equal Opportunity Law Still Applies to Remote Workers.

Federal laws such as Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protect employees from discrimination based on characteristics like race, gender, disability, religion, age, and national origin. These laws apply to remote workers just as they do to onsite employees.

And Texas state law — particularly the Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21 — likewise prohibits discrimination and retaliation against workers who perform their work in Texas, even if their employers are based elsewhere.

How Discrimination Shows Up in Remote Work

While remote work might shield employees from certain in-person hostility, discrimination has found its way into the virtual workplace in subtle — and not-so-subtle — forms. Some common examples include:

  • • Exclusion from meetings or opportunities that could lead to advancement
  • • Unequal workload distribution based on bias
  • • Negative assumptions about productivity because of disability or caregiving responsibilities
  • • Harassment through digital communication — emails, chats, and video calls
  • • Forced return-to-office policies imposed selectively on protected groups
  • • Retaliation for requesting remote work as a reasonable accommodation
  • • Pay inequities that deepen because remote employees are “out of sight, out of mind”

Remote work hasn’t eliminated discrimination — it has simply changed where the harm occurs.

Reasonable Accommodations Are Still Required

The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to workers with disabilities, and that includes:

  • • Continued remote-work arrangements
  • • Modified work schedules
  • • Additional breaks
  • • Assistive software or equipment
  • • Adjusted expectations during flare-ups or treatment

Many employers approved remote work during the pandemic — proving it was feasible — but then refuse to allow it as a disability accommodation later. Courts across the country are taking a harder look at this inconsistency.

If remote work enables you to do your job successfully while managing a disability, you have the right to request an accommodation and engage in the interactive process — even from home.

Retaliation Is Still Illegal

Whether you are in-person or remote, your employer cannot retaliate against you for:

  • • Reporting unlawful discrimination
  • • Requesting accommodations
  • • Filing with the EEOC or Texas Workforce Commission
  • • Participating in a protected investigation
  • • Supporting a coworker who makes a protected complaint

Retaliation remains one of the most common violations we see in remote workplaces — because employers may mistakenly believe a termination over email will go unnoticed.

Remote Workers Deserve Documentation More Than Ever

When discrimination occurs over digital platforms, the evidence often speaks louder than anything said in person. Emails, chat logs, calendar events, and Slack or Teams messages can be powerful proof.

Here’s what to save:
✔️ Harassing or biased messages
✔️ Exclusion from meetings or assignments
✔️ Disparaging comments made about protected characteristics
✔️ Pay stubs showing unequal compensation
✔️ Notes of conversations where rights were denied

Remote workers have the advantage of a written record — use it.

You Are Still Protected — and We Are Here to Help

Being physically distant from your workplace should never mean being unprotected. If you are facing discrimination, harassment, or retaliation while working remotely, you have the same rights as any worker in Texas.

And in some cases — you may have even stronger evidence.

Our firm is dedicated to helping remote employees across Texas stand up against unlawful treatment and regain control of their careers. If something feels wrong, don’t ignore it. Reach out. We are here to listen to your story, explain your options, and aggressively protect your rights.

You deserve respect — whether you are in the office or online. Let us help you make sure you get it. Contact Austin Employment Lawyers at https://www.wileylawyers.com/ or call (512) 271-5527 to schedule a consultation to discuss your situation.

Areyana Gilbert
Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Areyana Gilbert

Investigations in the workplace are pretty common and can be a useful tool in negotiations. As an employee of the company, there are a number of considerations which should be at the forefront before the investigation begins. For example, an employee should be mindful of the Upjohn warning and know when to have an attorney present for his or her interview. This blog further explores the contours on information an employee should be aware of before participating in a workplace investigation. 

Workplace investigations have become a routine part of modern organizational life. Companies investigate everything from harassment complaints and safety violations to financial misconduct and conflicts of interest. While these inquiries are meant to uncover facts and protect both the business and its employees, they can also feel intimidating—especially when a corporate investigator sits down to interview you. One of the most important moments in that interview is the Upjohn warning, a legal disclosure many employees have heard of but may not fully understand.

What Is an Upjohn Warning?

An Upjohn warning—sometimes called a “corporate Miranda”—is a statement an investigator gives to clarify who the investigator represents. It stems from a 1981 Supreme Court case, Upjohn Co. v. United States, which affirmed that conversations between company lawyers and employees are protected by attorney-client privilege—but the privilege belongs to the company, not the employee. 

Because employees sometimes assume the company’s lawyer is their lawyer, investigators must clarify:

  • The investigator represents the company, not you.
  • The purpose of the interview is to gather information for the company’s legal needs.
  • The company controls the confidentiality of the conversation and may choose to disclose information to third parties.
  • You are expected to provide truthful information.

This warning ensures employees are not misled and helps maintain the integrity of the investigation.

What Does the Upjohn Warning Mean for Employees?

Hearing that the company’s attorney does not represent you can be unsettling. But understanding the implications helps you approach the conversation responsibly and with appropriate caution.

The warning means:

  • Your statements go to the company, and the company may choose to share them—even if it is not in your personal interest.
  • You still must be truthful. Lying or intentionally withholding information can lead to disciplinary action.
  • You have the right to seek your own legal counsel, and investigators should not discourage you from doing so.

Should an Employee Have an Attorney Present?

Whether you should have a personal attorney depends on the circumstances.

You may want to consult or bring an attorney if:

  • You believe you may be implicated in wrongdoing.
  • The investigation involves harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or other legally protected issues.
  • Law enforcement or regulatory agencies may be involved.
  • You feel uncomfortable or believe your job may be at risk.

An attorney can help you understand your rights, guide your responses, and ensure you are treated fairly.

However, many employees choose to participate without an attorney during routine fact-finding investigations, especially when they are witnesses rather than subjects. Some companies may not allow a personal attorney to attend the interview but will often allow you to speak to your lawyer before or after the meeting.

In sum, workplace investigations are serious, but they aren’t inherently adversarial. Understanding the Upjohn warning empowers employees to participate responsibly and protects both personal and organizational interests. For more information about this warning, click here. If you are ever unsure about your role in an investigation or how your statements may be used, consulting a Texas employment law attorney can provide clarity and peace of mind. Contact me in Houston or Austin today.

Madeline Garza
Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Madeline Garza

In November 2025, Tyson Foods filed a WARN Act notice with the Texas Workforce Commission announcing a mass layoff of 1,761 employees at its Amarillo beef-processing plant. The layoffs are scheduled to take effect on or about January 20, 2026, as the company eliminates its entire B-shift operations, the plant’s second production shift, typically covering afternoon and evening hours.

The 44-page WARN filing detailed job titles ranging from production laborers and machine operators to maintenance and quality assurance roles. Tyson cited industry-wide challenges, including tight cattle supplies and restructuring efforts, as reasons for the reduction. While the company expressed regret over the impact on workers and pledged to minimize disruption, the notice raised questions about compliance with the WARN Act’s 60-day notice requirement.

If the company failed to meet the statutory timeline, affected employees could be entitled up to 60 days of back pay and benefits. This case underscores the importance of monitoring employer compliance and seeking legal advice when large-scale layoffs occur

When a company announces mass layoffs or plant closures, employees often face sudden financial uncertainty and emotional stress. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) was enacted to protect workers by requiring employers to provide advance notice before significant workforce reductions. If you believe your employer violated this law, understanding its scope and limitations is critical.

What Is the WARN Act?

The WARN Act is a federal law passed in 1988 to give employees and communities time to prepare for the economic impact of large-scale job losses. It requires certain employers to provide 60 days’ written notice before:

Plant Closures: Shutting down a facility or operating unit that results in job loss for 50 or more employees during a 30-day period.

Mass Layoffs: Reducing the workforce by 500 or more employees, or by 50–499employees if that number represents at least 33% of the workforce at a single site.

This notice allows employees to seek new employment, enroll in retraining programs, or adjust financially before losing income.

Consider a manufacturing plant with 200 employees that announces a closure effective in 30 days. Under the WARN Act, the employer should have provided 60 days’ notice. If they fail to do so, affected employees may recover up to 60 days of back pay and benefits. However, if the closure was due to a sudden natural disaster, the employer may invoke the unforeseeable business circumstances exception.

Who Is Covered Under the WARN Act?

Employers: Businesses with 100 or more full-time employees.

Employees: Full-time workers who have been employed for at least six months in the past 12 months.

Part-time employees and those with less than six months of service are generally excluded from the threshold calculations, though they still receive notice if affected.

Failure to provide proper notice can result in significant liability for employers. Employees may be entitled to back pay for each day of violation (up to 60 days) and benefits compensation, including health insurance premiums. These remedies can make a meaningful difference for workers blindsided by sudden layoffs.

Employers sometimes attempt to sidestep WARN Act obligations by splitting layoffs into smaller groups to avoid triggering thresholds, misclassifying employees as contractors, and/or claiming unforeseeable business circumstances without proper documentation. If you suspect these tactics, schedule a consultation with one of our employment attorneys promptly.

What Is NOT Considered a Violation of the WARN Act?

Not every job loss scenario falls under WARN. Here are key exceptions:

–       Small Reductions in Force: layoffs affecting fewer than 50 employees at a single site generally do not trigger WARN.

–       Short-Term Layoffs: if the layoff is expected to last less than six months, WARN notice is not required.

–       Unforeseeable Business Circumstances: sudden, unexpected events, such as a natural disaster or abrupt loss of a major contract, may exempt employers from the full 60-day notice requirement.

–       Faltering Company Exception: if a company is actively seeking capital or business to avoid closure and believes notice would jeopardize those efforts, it may qualify for an exception.

–       Sale of Business: when ownership changes but employees continue working without interruption, WARN does not apply.

Understanding these exceptions helps employees distinguish between legitimate business decisions and unlawful conduct.

State WARN Laws: Additional Protections

Many states have their own WARN statutes that provide greater protections than the federal law. For example: California WARN Act: Covers employers with 75 or more employees and requires notice for layoffs of 50 or more employees, regardless of percentage and New York WARN Act: Requires 90 days’ notice and applies to employers with 50 or more employees.

Employees should check their state’s specific requirements, as these laws often expand coverage and penalties.

Final Thoughts

If you believe your employer violated the WARN Act, document everything. Keep copies of termination notices, emails, and internal communications, determine whether thresholds for layoffs or closures were met. Lastly seek legal advice.

The WARN Act is a powerful tool for protecting workers during times of economic upheaval. While employers have legitimate defenses, many violations occur due to poor planning or deliberate avoidance. If you’re facing sudden job loss, knowing your rights is the first step toward securing the compensation you deserve. Schedule a consultation with one of our attorneys today. Contact me in Houston or any one of my colleagues in Austin or Dallas. We represent employees all over Texas.