Madeline Garza
Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Madeline Garza

The Uniform Services Employment Rights Act (USERRA) is a federal law designed to protect service members from employment discrimination and ensure their right to return to civilian jobs after military service. It applies to both public and private employers  and covers veterans and members of the active and Reserve components of the U.S. armed forces. There are different types of discrimination and retaliation that USERRA protects. 

Reemployment Claims 

These claims arise when an employer fails to reinstate a returning service member to their previous position or a comparable role. Employees must be reemployed promptly if they meet certain eligibility criteria. 

These conditions include:

–              The person must have been absent from a civilian job on account of service in the uniformed services;

–              The person must have given advance notice to the employer that he or she was leaving the job for service in the uniformed services, unless such notice was precluded by military necessity or otherwise impossible or unreasonable;

–              The cumulative period of military service with that employer must not have exceeded five years;

–              The person must not have been released from service under dishonorable or other punitive conditions; and

–              The person must have reported back to the civilian job in a timely manner or have submitted a timely application for reemployment, unless timely reporting back or application was impossible or unreasonable.

If employers meet these conditions, employers must restore seniority, benefits, and status as if the employee had never left. This is the “escalator” principle. USERRA states that returning servicemembers are to be reemployed in the job that they would have attained had they not been absent for military service with the same seniority, status and pay, as well as other rights and benefits determined by seniority. It also requires that reasonable efforts (such as training or retraining) be made to enable returning servicemembers to qualify for reemployment. If the servicemember cannot qualify for the “escalator” position, he or she must be reemployed, if qualified, in any other position that is the nearest approximation to the escalator position and then to the pre-service position. Reemployment claims do not require proof of discriminatory intent. Instead, the focus is on whether the service member meets the statutory requirements for reemployment.

Discrimination Claims 

Discrimination occurs when an employer denies initial employment, promotion, retention, or a benefit because of military service or obligations. The law requires only that military status be a “motivating factor” in the adverse action, not the sole reason. This includes not only active duty but also obligations such as reserve drills or training. Discrimination can manifest in subtle ways—such as unfavorable scheduling, exclusion from advancement opportunities, or derogatory remarks about military commitments. Courts have consistently held that the statute must be “liberally construed” to protect those who serve, reinforcing that bias based on military status is unlawful

A hostile work environment can itself constitute discrimination or retaliation under USERRA. This occurs when service members are subjected to severe or pervasive conduct—such as ridicule, intimidation, or derogatory comments—because of their military status or because they exercised USERRA rights. While isolated incidents may not rise to the level of a violation, repeated harassment or a pattern of hostility can create an unlawful environment. Employers should recognize that tolerating such behavior exposes them to liability, even if no tangible employment action (like termination) occurs. 

Retaliation Claims 

Retaliation claims involve adverse actions taken against individuals for asserting USERRA rights, filing complaints, or assisting in investigations. Employers cannot punish employees for exercising these rights. 

Retaliation under USERRA extends beyond termination or demotion. Employers cannot take any adverse action against individuals who assert their rights, file complaints, testify, or participate in investigations. Recent amendments under the Elizabeth Dole Act have expanded this protection to include “any other retaliatory action,” even those outside traditional employment contexts, such as harassment or reputational harm. This shift eliminates the need for employees to prove a “material change” in employment conditions, making it easier to challenge retaliatory conduct.

What should I do if I believe my USERRA rights are being violated?

Best practices include keeping documents of notices and communication by the employer and potential harassers. Additionally, we recommend scheduling time to speak with an employment attorney to best assess your case and potential avenues. You can schedule a time to speak to our employment attorneys here.

Cameron Hanson
Austin Employment Trial Lawyer Cameron Hansen

Under both federal and Texas law, most employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities. Central to this obligation is the “interactive process”—a collaborative dialogue between employer and employee aimed at identifying and implementing effective accommodations. For Texas workers, understanding the contours of this process is critical to ensuring compliance and protecting rights.

Understanding the Law

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Texas Labor Code § 21.128 require employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs Texas, has consistently emphasized the importance of the interactive process in determining whether an employer has met its legal obligations. 

What Triggers the Interactive Process?

The process begins when an employee communicates the need for an accommodation. Importantly, no “magic words” are required. A simple statement such as “I’m having trouble performing my job due to a medical condition” is sufficient to trigger the employer’s duty to engage. The request can be oral or written, and may even be made by a representative on the employee’s behalf. You cannot expect your employer to offer you accommodations if you never ask for them so be sure to communicate your needs to the appropriate representative of your employer, and better yet, document that request in writing. 

Employer Obligations

Once a request is made, the employer must promptly initiate the interactive process. This includes:

  • • Acknowledging the request within a reasonable timeframe
  • • Engaging in dialogue to understand the employee’s limitations and explore potential accommodations
  • • Requesting medical documentation, if necessary, to verify the disability and the need for and scope of any accommodation. However, such requests must be limited to what is necessary to make an informed decision. 
  • • Considering alternatives: Employers may not be required to provide the exact accommodation requested if an effective alternative exists. They may choose a less burdensome or less expensive option, provided it meets the employee’s needs. 

Employers must also avoid undue delays. Courts have held that failure to engage in the interactive process in good faith may constitute a violation of the ADA, even if no accommodation is ultimately possible.

Employee Responsibilities

Employees also have duties in the interactive process. They must:

  • • Clearly communicate their need for accommodation
  • • Participate in discussions about their limitations and potential solutions
  • • Provide documentation, if requested, to support their claim of disability and the necessity of accommodation.

Employees should be flexible and open to alternative accommodations proposed by the employer. Refusing to engage or failing to provide necessary information can undermine a claim.

Undue Hardship and Employer Defenses

An employer may deny a requested accommodation if it poses an “undue hardship.” This includes accommodations that are excessively costly, disruptive, or that fundamentally alter the nature of the business. However, courts scrutinize such claims closely. In Texas, employers who demonstrate good faith efforts to accommodate—such as consulting with the employee and exploring alternatives—may avoid liability even if no accommodation is ultimately provided. 

Conclusion

The interactive process is not a mere formality—it is a legal requirement and a practical tool for resolving accommodation issues. For Texas employees, initiating the process and participating in good faith can be the key to securing necessary workplace adjustments. 

At Rob Wiley, P.C., we advocate for employees whose rights under the ADA and Texas Labor Code have been violated. If you believe your employer has failed to engage in the interactive process or denied a reasonable accommodation, contact us to discuss your options.

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

What Employees in Texas Need to Know About Unemployment Benefits

If you’re an employee in Texas impacted by the federal government shutdown (e.g., furloughed, working but unpaid, or facing reduced hours because of the lapse in federal pay), you’re not alone. This can be a very stressful financial moment for many. The good news is that you may qualify for unemployment benefits through the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). You should visit: https://www.twc.texas.gov/programs/unemployment-benefits/applying-unemployment-benefits-after-federal-government-shutdown.

If you work in Texas and the shutdown has affected your federal employment, the TWC treats certain disruptions as a “layoff” or reduction in work that may qualify you for unemployment benefits. According to the TWC, if you are a federal employee who has been furloughed because of the shutdown, you are considered laid off. If you are still working but have not been paid or your hours have been reduced, you may consider contacting TWC so that they can review your situation and determine whether you meet eligibility requirements. 

When you apply, you’ll need basic information such as your Social Security number, date of birth, Texas driver’s license or state ID, and address, as well as details about your employment, including your employer’s name, location, and the dates you worked. You will also need to provide an estimate of the federal wages you earned in the past 18 months and proof of your federal employment. After you apply, TWC will send a form asking you to verify your wages and submit supporting documents. 

You can apply for benefits online through TWC’s Unemployment Benefits Services portal or by calling the TWC Tele-Center at 800-939-6631. After filing your initial application, you must continue requesting payment every two weeks and maintain your eligibility by being able to work, available for work, and actively seeking work unless exempted. Although your unemployment is caused by a government shutdown, eligibility rules still apply. Be sure to follow any and all instructions provided to you by TWC.

It’s also extremely important to understand what happens if you later receive back pay. If your federal employer eventually pays you retroactively for the shutdown period, and you have received unemployment benefits covering that same time, you will have to repay the benefits. The TWC makes this clear: “If you are paid retroactively for the period you were unemployed during the shutdown, you will have to repay the benefits you received.” In simple terms, you should treat any unemployment benefits you receive during the shutdown as a loan, because if you receive back pay later, you will owe that money back.

For your financial planning, it’s smart to apply for unemployment benefits promptly if you qualify, but also to budget as though you may need to repay that money. Try not to rely on it as permanent income. Keep detailed records of your claim, including

Areyana Gilbert
Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Areyana Gilbert

Certain employees in the workplace are afforded more protections in the workplace. The primary determination is the status of employment: private or public. Drug testing in the workplace is a practice used by employers to ensure safety, productivity, and compliance with regulations. While both private and public sector employers may implement drug testing policies, the legal standards and constitutional considerations differ significantly between the two. These differences stem primarily from the nature of the employment relationship—private employment being governed largely by contract and company policy, while public employment involves government action and thus must comply with constitutional protections.

In the private sector, employers generally have broader discretion to require drug testing. Private companies are not considered government actors, so they are not directly bound by the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Instead, drug testing policies in private workplaces are regulated primarily by state laws, employment contracts, and collective bargaining agreements. Many states allow private employers to conduct pre-employment, random, and post-incident drug tests, especially in safety-sensitive industries such as transportation, construction, and healthcare. However, employers must balance their testing policies with employees’ privacy rights. Some states have enacted statutes that restrict random testing or require employers to demonstrate a legitimate business need. Additionally, with the legalization of medical and recreational marijuana in many states, private employers face complex challenges in determining whether and how to discipline employees who test positive for cannabis but are not impaired on the job.

By contrast, public sector employees—those who work for government agencies—are afforded greater constitutional protection. Because government employers are state actors, drug testing of public employees constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, such testing must be reasonable under the circumstances. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that blanket or random drug testing of public employees is permissible only in limited situations, typically when the employees hold safety-sensitive positions, such as law enforcement officers, transportation workers, or employees with access to classified information. For most other public employees, the government must demonstrate a compelling interest that outweighs the individual’s right to privacy. Courts have struck down overly broad testing programs that lack a clear justification or individualized suspicion.

For employees in Texas, if you are applying for unemployment compensation, you may want to consider a few factors when appealing a decision denying your receipt on benefits. For unemployment hearings, an employer needs to submit specific documentation where a former employee’s termination was the result of a positive drug test. Specifically, 

“A TWC precedent case, Appeal No. 97-003744-10-040997, sets out some fairly clear guidelines regarding the kind of documentation an employer needs to respond to an unemployment claim involving an ex-employee whose termination resulted from failing a drug test. To establish that a claimant’s positive drug test result constitutes misconduct, an employer must present:

1.     a policy prohibiting a positive drug test result, receipt of which has been acknowledged by the claimant;

2.     evidence to establish that the claimant has consented to drug testing under the policy;

3.     documentation to establish that the chain of custody of the claimant’s sample was maintained;

4.     documentation from a drug testing laboratory to establish than an initial test was confirmed by the Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry method; and

5.     documentation of the test expressed in terms of a positive result above a stated test threshold.

Evidence of these five elements is what TWC states is needed to overcome a claimant’s sworn denial of drug use. That is why it is so important to have each employee sign a consent form allowing complete disclosure of all test documentation by both the testing lab and the employer for the purpose of responding to claims and lawsuits.” For more information, see here. 

In summary, drug testing in the workplace reflects a careful balancing act between employer interests and employee rights. Private employers enjoy greater flexibility but must still adhere to state privacy and labor laws, while public employers must meet constitutional standards to ensure that testing is reasonable and not overly intrusive. As workplace norms and drug laws evolve, especially regarding marijuana use, both sectors continue to reassess their policies to maintain fairness, safety, and legal compliance. If you believe your rights have bene violated and you are a Texas employee, please consult with a Texas employment law attorney. 

#DrugTesting #Unemployment Compensation

Madeline Garza
Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Madeline Garza

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition. Does that guarantee protect you from losing your job due to engaging in First Amendment activities? It depends on your employer. 

Public employees do not give up First Amendment rights to free speech simply because they work for the government. Public employees have a right to speak out on important issues of public concern, balanced with an employer’s interest in promoting an effective and efficient workplace. 

Who is a Public Employee?

A person is considered a public employee if they work for any federal, state, or local government entity, agency or department. Additionally, teachers and other staff working for public school districts and public colleges and universities are public employees. 

What speech is protected?

The Supreme Court took up this issue in 1968, in the landmark case Pickering v. Board of Education. Specifically, the Court stated that “the threat of dismissal from public employment…is a potent means of inhibiting speech.” In this case, the Court ruled that a public high school violated free speech protections of a teacher when they discharged him for writing a letter to an editor criticizing school board officials. 

Under the Pickering-Connick test, created by the Supreme Court to determine whether a public employee’s speech is protected under the First Amendment, an employee must satisfy threshold requirements. Generally, a public employee’s speech is protected if you are speaking as a private citizen, about a matter of public concern, and your speech does not interfere with your job. However, there are exceptions. 

What does it mean to speak as a private citizen?

The public employee must be speaking as a citizen, not as an employee performing their job. For example, in Garcetti v. Ceballos, decided in 2006, the Court held that a district attorney, who wrote a memo as part of their job duties questioning the validity of a search warrant was speech made in pursuant to official duties. Therefore, that speech was not protected by the First Amendment. This holding highlights the interest of the government, as an employer, to control its operations and ensure efficiency. To summarize, public employees must speak as citizens, not as employees.

What is a public concern?

The Supreme Court, in Connick v. Meyers, explained that a public concern is anything that relates to a matter of political, social, or other concern to the community. This is decided based on the “content, form, and context of a given statement.” For example, speech about government policies and activities is likely to be categorized as a matter of public concern. A way to differentiate private vs. public is whether the speech is about a purely private workplace issue, that would be important only to the employee or those in the office compared to government functions like waste and fraud. 

What about Private Employees?

Private sector employees do not have First Amendment protections in the workplace. Since private employers are not government actors, they can generally restrict speech without violating the Constitution.

Especially if you are an at-will employee, as the majority of private sector employees are, you can be fired for expressing political views your employer disagrees with. Further, you can face discipline for social media posts that reflect poorly on the company.

However, other laws may offer limited protections: National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects speech about wages and working conditions; Whistleblower laws protect employees who report illegal or unethical behavior; and Anti-discrimination laws prohibit retaliation for complaints about harassment or bias regarding a protected class. Important to note, these are statutory protections, not constitutional ones.

The important distinction. 

The difference in First Amendment protections reflects the unique role of government in society. When the government is your employer, it must balance its interest in workplace efficiency with its obligation to uphold constitutional rights. When a private company is your employer, it has broader discretion to regulate speech.

This distinction has real-world consequences. Public employees may challenge disciplinary actions in court under constitutional grounds. Private employees must rely on contracts, company policies, or statutory protections.

The First Amendment is a powerful tool—but only in the right context. For public employees, it can be a shield against retaliation for speaking out on important issues. For private employees, it’s a reminder that constitutional rights don’t always follow you into the workplace.

If you’re unsure about your rights, especially in a workplace dispute, reach out to us and schedule a consultation. Understanding the boundaries of free speech at work is essential in today’s politically charged and digitally connected world.

Cameron Hanson
Austin Employment Trial Lawyer Cameron Hansen

At first glance, severance agreements may look like a generous offer. After all, your employer is giving you money that it does not legally owe you. But it’s important to remember that Companies offer severance agreements for a reason: to protect the company—not you. Severance agreements are contracts, and once you sign, you may be giving up important legal rights you didn’t even know you had. Before putting pen to paper, here are some of the most important things to look for and think about.

1. The Release of Claims

The central feature of almost every severance agreement is the release of claims. This means that, in exchange for the money or benefits offered, you agree not to sue the company for anything that happened during your employment. That includes claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, unpaid wages, and other legal violations.

For example, if you believe you were fired after reporting sexual harassment, signing the agreement may permanently prevent you from filing a lawsuit. Many employees don’t realize this until it’s too late. Before you give up those rights, it’s worth talking to an attorney who can help you assess whether your potential claims are worth more than the severance payment on the table.

2. Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Clauses

Severance agreements often go beyond waiving legal claims. Many contain confidentiality provisions that prohibit you from discussing the terms of the agreement, sometimes even with coworkers or friends. Others include non-disparagement clauses, which prevent you from saying anything negative about the company—even if what you say is true.

Violating these clauses, even unintentionally, can put your severance pay at risk. For example, posting a single frustrated comment about your old boss on social media could lead to the company claiming you breached the agreement. These restrictions can be overly broad and intimidating, and you should know exactly how far they reach before agreeing to them.

3. Restrictive Covenants: Non-Compete, Non-Solicit, and More

Some severance agreements try to impose new limits on your future career. These may include non-compete clauses (preventing you from working for competitors), non-solicitation clauses (barring you from reaching out to clients or coworkers), or other restrictions.

In Texas, non-competes are enforceable under certain conditions, but that doesn’t mean they can’t cause you headaches. Even if a clause might not hold up in court, the company could still threaten enforcement, forcing you to spend time and money fighting it. Make sure you understand whether the agreement limits your ability to earn a living going forward.

4. Money and Benefits You’re Already Owed

Severance pay should be in addition to, not instead of, money and benefits you are already entitled to. For instance, Your final paycheck is non-negotiable—it’s legally owed.

Sometimes employers use severance agreements to blur this line, making it seem like you have to waive claims just to receive what you’re already owed. Be careful, and don’t leave money on the table.

5. Time to Review and Revocation Rights

If you are 40 years or older and the company wants you to waive claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the law requires them to give you at least 21 days to review the agreement and 7 days to revoke it after signing. For group layoffs, the time period is even longer—45 days.

Even if you are under 40, you should not feel pressured to sign right away. Take the time to review carefully and, ideally, consult with a lawyer. A rushed decision is often one you regret later.

6. Negotiation Is Possible

Many people assume severance agreements are “take it or leave it,” but that isn’t always the case. Depending on your situation, there may be room to negotiate for more money, extended health benefits, a neutral reference, or changes to restrictive clauses. Employers often expect some negotiation, and having a lawyer involved can strengthen your leverage.

Final Thoughts

Severance agreements can be valuable, but they always come with strings attached. Signing one without fully understanding the consequences can mean giving up important rights or limiting your future opportunities. Before you sign, ask yourself: What am I giving up, and is the exchange worth it?

If you’ve been offered a severance agreement, don’t go through it alone. At Rob Wiley P.C., our role is to help employees understand their options, protect their rights, and, where possible, improve the terms of what’s being offered. A short conversation now can prevent big regrets later. If you’d like to discuss your severance agreement or any other employment issue you face, reach out to us at 214-389-5527 or Austin Employment Lawyers, P.C.

Areyana Gilbert
Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Areyana Gilbert

In employment law, the concept of pretext refers to a false or fabricated reason given by an employer to justify an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or refusal to promote, when the real motivation is discriminatory or otherwise unlawful. Courts scrutinize the employer’s stated reason to determine whether it is merely a cover-up for illegal conduct, such as discrimination based on race, gender, age, or disability. If an employee can demonstrate that the employer’s explanation is a pretext, it strengthens their claim that the adverse action was motivated by unlawful factors, which can lead to liability for the employer. Pretext analysis is a critical tool in protecting employees from covert discrimination and ensuring fair workplace practices. 

The Fifth Circuit considered whether a genuine issue(s) of material fact existed regarding Motiva’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for termination were pre-textual, precluding summary judgment regarding the age discrimination claim. The lower court’s decision granting summary judgment regarding Dabbasi’s age discrimination claim was reversed. This case involved a former Motiva employee who asserted claims of age and disability discrimination against the company. Dabbasi was a Gasoline Coordinator in the Economics and Scheduling Department at Motiva’s Port Arthur, TX location. Dabbasi v. Motiva Enterprises, L.L.C., 107 F.4th 500, 503 (2024). Ultimately, Dabbasi was terminated for allegations of being too aggressive, poor performance,  and poor attitude. Id. at 503 and 504. Dabbasi filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and later filed a lawsuit against Motiva. Id. For purposes of this blog, only Dabbasi’s age discrimination will be discussed. Though he pursued a claim for disability discrimination, it failed. 

In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit decided that genuine issues of material facts regarding Dabbasi’s age discrimination claim was sufficient to surpass summary judgment. This rests on two findings. First, Dabbasi satisfied his initial burden of demonstrating  his prima facie age discrimination claim. Second, while Motiva offered a legitimate non-discriminatory reason, it was not found worthy of credence. The ADEA and TCHRA have different standards when it comes to proving pretext. With respect to the ADEA, a plaintiff is subjected to a but-for standard. Specifically, a plaintiff must show that the employer’s proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reason was not true by a preponderance of the evidence. Contrastingly, the TCHRA standard provides more leeway for a plaintiff asserting a claim for age discrimination.  

“[A] plaintiff can prove discrimination… by establishing that either (1) the reason stated by the employer was a pretext for discrimination, or (2) the [employer’s] reason, while true, was only one reason for its conduct and discrimination is another motivating factor.”

Dabbasi v. Motiva Enters., LLC., 107 F.4th 500, 507 (5th Cir. 2024) (quoting Goudeau v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, L.P., 793 F.3dd 470,475 (5th Cir. 2015)). Before addressing what evidence Dabbasi offered to rebut his then employer’s stated reasons, let’s address the stated reasons first. Ultimately the Fifth Circuit found that Motiva’s offered reasons of “unsatisfactory performance ratings and evaluations, poor attitude, and failure to improve” were sufficient to satisfy its burden. Id. at 507.  Nevertheless the inquiry does not end there. 

Pursuant to the McDonnell Douglas standard, the final inquiry is whether the “proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.” Id. Ultimately the Court found that the non-discriminatory reasons provided by Motiva may lack credibility before a fact finder. Id. The evidence offered by Dabbasi which was deemed suggestive of pretext were verbal statements by upper level management indicating that younger people were the desired class for rotations. Id. This, coupled with Motiva filling coordinator positions with “early-career employees,” also underscored the weight of its proffered reasons. Id. Notably, Motiva also placed Dabbasi on a performance improvement plan and promised him a role that did not ever materialize despite Dabbasi’s numerous award for his exemplary performance and verbal assurance that his job was not in jeopardy. Id.

           Ultimately, the Court deemed Dabbasi’s evidence as satisfactory in precluding summary judgment for his age discrimination claims under the ADEA and TCHRA. The lower court’s decision affirming summary judgment in Motiva’s favor was reversed and remanded.

#Age #Discrimination #Retaliation

As Halloween approaches, most of us expect a few harmless scares — maybe a jumpy horror movie or a haunted house. But for employees, there are far scarier things lurking in the workplace than ghosts and goblins. We’re talking about employer mistakes that can lead to legal nightmares — wage theft, discrimination, retaliation, and more. Whether intentional or just plain careless, these blunders can haunt workers and violate their legal rights. Here’s your guide to spotting the “tricks” employers pull — and how to make sure you’re getting the “treats” you deserve under employment law.

Trick #1: “You’re an Independent Contractor… Right?”
The Trick: Employers sometimes misclassify workers as independent contractors to avoid paying benefits, overtime, or employment taxes.
Why It’s Scary: Misclassification means you might be denied health benefits, workers’ comp, unemployment insurance, and protections under wage and hour laws.
Know Your Rights: Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), if you’re being treated like an employee — with a set schedule, specific duties, and supervision — you may legally be an employee, no matter what your title says. Misclassified workers can often recover unpaid wages, overtime, and other benefits. The FLSA, IRS, and Department of Labor all have set guidelines on proper classification.
If you suspect you’ve been misclassified, it’s important to gather evidence—such as pay stubs, job descriptions, or communications about your role—and reach out to your state labor agency or the

Department of Labor for guidance. Taking action can help you recover what you’re owed and may protect others from similar treatment. Employers who don’t follow the rules can face fines, be required to pay back pay awards, and even face lawsuits, so understanding your classification isn’t just about your paycheck—it’s about safeguarding your rights and ensuring a fair workplace for everyone.

Trick #2: “We Don’t Tolerate Complaints Around Here”
The Trick: Some employers subtly (or not-so-subtly) retaliate against employees who report illegal conduct, discrimination, or unsafe working conditions.
Why It’s Scary: Retaliation can look like demotion, discipline, reduced hours, or even termination — all for speaking up.
Know Your Rights: Federal and state laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) all have protections for either whistleblowers and/or employees who file complaints and face retaliation. If you’ve been punished for reporting wrongdoing, you may be entitled to compensation — and your employer could face serious legal consequences.

In addition to these robust legal protections, it’s crucial to document any instances of suspected retaliation—keep detailed records of communications, performance reviews, and any changes to your job status. This evidence can strengthen your case if you decide to pursue a complaint. Remember, you do not have to tolerate intimidation or punishment for standing up for your rights at work. By understanding the laws that safeguard you and taking proactive steps to protect yourself, you can help ensure that employers are held accountable for retaliatory behavior and foster a workplace where employees feel safe to speak out against injustice.

Trick #3: “What Harassment? Just a Personality Clash.”
The Trick: Employers sometimes downplay or ignore reports of harassment or discrimination, claiming it’s just a “bad fit” or “miscommunication.”
Why It’s Scary: This creates a toxic, unsafe environment — and it’s illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and similar state laws.
Know Your Rights: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964prohibits discrimination and harassment based on race, color, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), religion, and national origin. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects against disability-based harassment or failure to accommodate. Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects workers aged 40 and older. Employers are legally required to investigate and address complaints — failure to do so can result in liability. Every employee has the right to a workplace free from harassment based on race, gender, religion, disability, age, and other protected characteristics. You can file a complaint with HR, your state civil rights agency, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) — and your employer is required to take it seriously.

Taking proactive steps—such as documenting incidents, keeping records of communications, and following up on the status of your complaint—can make a significant difference in ensuring your concerns are addressed and your rights are protected. Remember, seeking support from legal professionals can provide guidance throughout the process and help you feel less isolated during what can be a challenging time. Ultimately, holding employers accountable is essential to creating a safer, more respectful workplace for everyone.

Final Word: Don’t Be Spooked — Know Your Rights
The workplace may not be haunted, but for many employees, employer misconduct can lead to real fear and uncertainty. Knowing your rights is the best way to protect yourself from tricks — and make sure you’re only getting the legal “treats” you’re entitled to. If you suspect your employer is engaging in any of these shady practices, you don’t have to navigate the haunted house of employment law alone.
Always consider speaking with an employment lawyer who can help you understand your rights and explore your options — before those workplace “tricks” turn into full-blown legal nightmares. If you’ve been the victim of unfair treatment at work, we are here to help. Contact us today for a legal consultation — and let us fight the monsters for you.

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

It was October 31st, and the office halls were darkened with cobwebs, glowing jack-o’-lanterns, and a fog machine that hissed ominously in the corner. Spirits were high. Costumes were bold. Laughter echoed. Pranks abound. But what no one realized was that hidden beneath the masks and makeup lurked something far more sinister than ghosts or ghouls… the risk of legal claims.


The Curse of the Cursed Costume
The first chill crept in when one employee arrived dressed in a revealing outfit. Laughter turned into whispers. By the end of the day, an HR complaint was filed, accusing the company of tolerating a sexually hostile environment. Another employee’s culturally offensive costume offended colleagues, unleashing a storm of discrimination claims. Suddenly, what seemed like harmless fun had awakened a monster: the specter of harassment and discrimination litigation.


The Ritual of Religious Rights
Not all employees wanted to join the festivities. For some, Halloween is in opposition with their religious beliefs. When a supervisor insisted that “everyone must participate,” the atmosphere shifted. A claim of religious discrimination rose from the shadows. The laughter from the breakroom party now sounded like sinister echoes in a haunted house of liability.


The Potion of Perilous Punch
At the after-hours party, the punch bowl was spiked. As the night wore on, pranks got rowdier, words got sharper, and boundaries disappeared. What followed was predictable—and chilling. Harassment complaints of all kinds. A fender bender on the way home. Suddenly, the company’s liability stretched beyond the office walls, conjured up by one too many drinks.


The Horror of Haunted Halls and Hardships
The fog machine hissed, and the strobe lights flashed. But in the flicker of fake lightning, one employee felt dizzy—another coughed from the smoke. A third couldn’t navigate through the cluttered, spooky decorations in their wheelchair. Accessibility and health concerns materialized, haunting the company with potential ADA claims.


The Wraith of Work Without Wages
As the party ended, the wraith of wage-and-hour soared in from the shadows. Non-exempt employees had spent hours decorating, attending, and cleaning up, all off the clock. The company hadn’t realized it, but now it owed back pay—lest it face the wrath of a wage claim rising from the grave.
The Specter of Sinister Snickers


Finally, pranks turned sour. A “harmless scare” in the stairwell led to tears. A joke about someone’s costume sparked outrage. The line between fun and fear blurred, unleashing the goblin of bullying and hostile work environment claims. Did that too result in more claims of unlawful behavior.


The Moral of the Tale
Halloween at work can be a treat, but it can also turn into a terrifying legal trick. To ward off these workplace spirits, employers should cast protective spells with clear costume and conduct policies, keep participation voluntary to avoid religious claims, beware the perilous punch bowl by managing alcohol responsibly, ensure that the haunted office is accessible and safe for all, and pay employees properly for any after-hours work. And above all, remember—not all pranks are funny. Show respect to everyone. The haunted office may be a tale, but the risks it warns of are real. If you believe you’ve been the target of Halloween pranks, games, or workplace behavior that crossed the line, our attorneys are here to consult with you and determine whether the law offers protection.

Thomas Brockland
Austin Employment Trial Lawyer Thomas Brockland

At the time of writing, the federal government is shut down due to a lapse in appropriations, which means that Congress and the President have not been able to agree on how to fund the various agencies and other services Americans rely on. This shutdown started at 12:00am on October 1, 2025, and will continue until Congress passes a funding bill and the President signs it. The shutdown has also had a trickle-down effect in the Austin area.

So what does this mean for workers? If you work for the federal government and you were furloughed or laid off during the shutdown, you may be eligible for unemployment benefits and should contact the Texas Workforce Commission immediately. The rest of this blog post considers how the rights of workers employed by private companies are impacted by the shutdown.

Federal government agencies currently lack the funding to do their jobs.

Typically, when workers or the attorneys who represent them find out about illegal conduct in the workplace and want to resolve it, they rely on one or more government agencies. When the issue is employment discrimination, employment lawyers turn to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or the EEOC. The EEOC processes and investigates charges of employment discrimination under federal law. When the issue is a company interfering with union activity or collective bargaining, or even interfering with workers coming together to advocate for better conditions, employment lawyers turn to the National Labor Relations Board, or the NLRB. And when the issue is workplace safety or certain kinds of whistleblower retaliation, employment lawyers turn to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, a division of the U.S. Department of Labor.

However, because of the federal government shutdown, none of these agencies are able to review or process charges or complaints, investigate claims, or make any decisions. Some agencies, like the NLRB, have even delisted all of their helpful resources from their public-facing website, including complaint forms! This is a critical problem because many employment law causes of action cannot proceed in state or federal court without first going through something called “administrative exhaustion,” which means you took all steps through a government agency’s process before filing.

And speaking of federal courts, they are impacted by the shutdown as well. While they remain open as of writing, their funding is set to run out by approximately October 17, 2025. Anyone who wants to sue their employer, whether because they have gone through administrative exhaustion or because there is none, might not be able to do so in federal court after October 17 until funding resumes.

State and local agencies investigate employment issues too!

So what are workers and their attorneys to do? Despite the federal government shutdown, state and local agencies still have the power to investigate employment issues in Texas. The state agency is the Texas Workforce Commission, or the TWC. Most Texans first interact with the TWC to apply for unemployment benefits, but the Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division, or TWCCRD, has the power to investigate employment discrimination that happens in Texas. The TWC also investigates violations of the Texas Payday Law, which requires employers to pay their employees in full and on time.

However, if you work in Austin or Fort Worth, those cities have their own agencies that cover you for employment discrimination issues instead of the TWC. If you work in Austin, the agency is the City of Austin Office of Equity and Inclusion—Civil Rights Division. If you work in Fort Worth, the agency is the Fort Worth Civil Rights Office.

State courts also remain open for business and can pick up the slack from federal courts when workers have a claim that is ripe for litigation.

We can help you navigate employment issues during the shutdown!

Deciding where, how, and when to take action in employment issues is what employment lawyers are experts in. It is especially important to speak to an employment lawyer about your employment issues during the shutdown because of the current information blackout from the federal government, and because many statutes of limitation will continue to run during the shutdown. The resources and hotlines in the federal government which are normally available to all private-sector employees are restricted or unavailable during these times. We hope they will resume soon, but in the meantime we can help you prepare for when they do.

Austin employees who believe they have suffered illegal discrimination, harassment, or retaliation at work should contact my office, Austin Employment Lawyers, P.C. The attorneys at Austin Employment Lawyers, P.C., represent employees in the Austin area and across Texas in all types of employment law claims, including wrongful termination, pay disparities, harassment, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, and retaliation.

For more information or to schedule a consultation, please visit our website or call us at (512) 271-5527.