Madeline Garza
Austin/Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Madeline Garza

One of the cornerstones of administrative law in the United States is the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA is a critical piece of legislation that helps regulate the process through which federal agencies create and enforce rules and regulations.
The APA plays an important role in a president’s executive orders. A president can set policy by issuing an executive action. This is done by directing a federal agency to execute that policy. For example, an executive order regarding environmental health risks would require the Environmental Protection Agency to carry it out. The APA was enacted in 1946 as a bipartisan measure to review and curb the executive branch’s growing influence. The APA applies to all Cabinet departments, such as the Defense Department, and independent agencies like the Security and Exchange Commission. The APA ensures administrative agencies in the executive branch act within their scope of authority, make decisions transparently, follow established procedures, allow for judicial review of agency decisions, and protect the rights of individuals affected by agency actions. Every president since 1946 has delt with APA challenges to their executive orders. Additionally, the APA plays a significant role in protecting the public’s right to challenge agency actions that may be unjust or exceed statutory authority. If an individual is harmed by an agency’s action, they can file a lawsuit stopping the agency from enforcing it, based on a violation of the standards in the Act. The most common standard of review used to challenge an agencies action is the “arbitrary and capricious” standard. This standard is largely fact-based and situation-specific. It requires an agency to demonstrate engagement in “reasoned decisionmaking” by showing an adequate explanation for its decision. This is done by providing the essential facts which the decision was based on while explaining what justifies the determination with actual evidence beyond a conclusory statement. The majority of lawsuits filed against the current Trump Administration include a violation of the APA. Some of these challenges include:
Executive orders on Immigration related actions on:
o Birthright Citizenship, punishment of sanctuary cities and states, expanding the use of expedited removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to include noncitizens located anywhere in the U.S. who cannot prove they have been continuously present for more than two years?, the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) issuance a stop-work order halting funding for four programs providing legal resources to unrepresented people facing deportation, and the suspension of the US refugee admission program
Executive orders on a temporary pause of grants, loans, and assistance programs.
Executive orders and policy memos on Civil Liberties including:
o The housing of transgender inmates, a passport policy targeting transgender people, immigration enforcement against places of worship and schools, a ban on DEIA initiatives in the executive branch and by contractors, and on the removal of information from HHS websites under the executive order on Gender Ideology Extremism
There have also been APA challenges on orders impacting federal workers. These orders range from a large-scale reduction in force, forced deferred resignation offers, to termination of probationary employees that directs federal agencies to terminate tens of thousands of probationary employees en masse. Importantly, probationary employees are members of the competitive service in their first year of employment or of the excepted service in their first two years of employment and may include long-term federal workers who have recently been employed in a new position or new agency. Additionally, orders that authorize directors to reclassify thousands of members of their civil-service protections which allows them to be fired at will, the removal of independent agency leaders, and the stop work order dismantling the USAID have been challenged using the APA.
Importantly, challenges to the orders does not mean they are completely unenforceable or presumed to be a violate of a law. Instead, the challenges ensure that the actions follow the correct procedure. Currently, the challenges against Trump’s orders vary in results. Some challenges are still waiting to be heard in court, some have been ruled unenforceable temporarily while the judge considers the issue, and others have been dismissed on various grounds. While some of Trump’s executive actions have been blocked temporarily by the federal courts, it is not a final rule. The federal government has avenues to appeal it. Regardless of the outcomes, it is clear the APA haunted Trump during his first term, and is coming back for seconds.


https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41546
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-lawsuits-apa-privacy-act-impoundment/
https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/08/g-s1-47098/trump-arbitrary-lawsuits-gender-executive-actions
https://www.wiley-wheeler.com
https://www.wiley-wheeler.com/madeline-garza.html

Areyana Johnson
Austin/Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Areyana Johnson

Arbitration agreements in the employment law context are very common. Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution.  Arbitration agreements in the employment law context are significant because they establish a framework for resolving disputes between employers and employees outside of the courtroom. These agreements typically require both parties to settle disputes, such as issues related to discrimination, wage disputes, harassment, or wrongful termination, through arbitration rather than going through litigation in a public court system.  An arbitrator is a neutral third party who makes decisions based on the evidence presented. This can be more appealing than a trial where a jury or judge might be influenced by outside factors. Employers may view arbitration as less risky than a jury trial, where outcomes can be unpredictable.

However,  the implications of an arbitration agreement in place may pose a thorn for some and not so much for others. By way of example, one of the most common questions received in consultations regarding arbitration agreements is whether or not the agreement precludes an employee from engaging in the administrative process. The answer is no. So if you have an employment discrimination or retaliation claim, you are still permitted to seek engagement with the applicable governmental agency, specifically the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Department of Labor where applicable. Additionally, there are other considerations of an arbitration agreement which employees should keep in mind.  Arbitration typically involves fewer procedural complexities than court trials, as it often lacks the formal rules of procedure and evidence that govern court cases. This can make the process easier to navigate, especially for employees without extensive legal knowledge. 

The enforceability of arbitration agreements has been subject to significant legal scrutiny. Courts, particularly in the U.S., have generally upheld the enforceability of arbitration clauses in employment contracts, but there have been some limits placed on these agreements. For example, some forms of arbitration clauses may not be enforceable if they are deemed to be too one-sided or unfair to the employee.  Arbitration agreements can limit employees’ access to the court system, which raises concerns about transparency and fairness. Critics argue that mandatory arbitration can take away the employee’s right to have their case heard in a public courtroom and to have access to a jury of their peers. In arbitration, employees may be limited in the types of remedies available, and the decisions made by the arbitrator are typically final and binding. This reduces the opportunity for appealing an unfavorable decision. Additionally, arbitrators may not have the same authority as a court to award large punitive damages or broad injunctive relief.

In conclusion, arbitration agreements in employment law are a double-edged sword, providing efficiency and privacy but also raising concerns about fairness, bias, and employee rights. The significance of these agreements largely depends on how they are structured and whether they balance the interests of both employees and employers.

If you are subject to an arbitration agreement and have questions, please contact an employment law attorney who will be able to guide you in addressing the pitfalls and obstacles. 

Harjeen Zibari
Dallas Employment Trail Lawyer Harjeen Zibari

A big part of my day-to-day includes consulting employees regarding non-compete and non-solicitation agreements that they are considering signing or have already signed. (Note: Please always have a lawyer review such agreements before you sign them, not after. We usually can’t do anything about it if you ask us after!) 

What is the difference between a non-compete and a non-solicitation agreement? 

A non-compete and non-solicit are both what are called restrictive covenants. Put very simply, a non-compete restricts where you can work, and a non-solicit restricts who you can contact or recruit. They are different types of agreements, but both can exist as different clauses in the same document and often do. 

Wasn’t there something in the news that said non-competes were illegal?

            Not exactly. In April 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a new rule that would ban most noncompetes, deeming existing and future noncompetes unenforceable. That rule also would have required employers to notify employees that their noncompete agreements are no longer valid. 

            However, as you can imagine, this was a very controversial move from the FTC. Litigation challenging the FTC noncompete ban was filed immediately. In Ryan LLC v. FTC, Judge Ada Brown sitting in the Northern District of Texas (which covers Dallas County) blocked the FTC rule. Similarly, a federal court in Florida also blocked the ban. However, a federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania declined to enjoin the rule, stating that the FTC does indeed have competition-related rule making authority.

Are non-competes valid in Texas?

Yes. Texas is a very pro-employer state, and employers can legally propose non-compete agreements to employees. However, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any limitations—there are.

Only four states have completely banned non-competes altogether: California, Oklahoma, Minnesota, and North Dakota. Other states have placed restrictions on them but don’t quite amount to a total ban, such as the income limits imposed on non-compete agreements in Colorado. 

            What limitations are there on non-competes in Texas?

            The Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act was enacted in 1989 and still governs Texas noncompete law. 

            For a non-compete to be enforceable in Texas, it must be:

1.     Ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement at the time the agreement is made. This means that there must be valid consideration in exchange for the employee’s covenant not to compete. This must go beyond continued employment or even a cash payment. Usually, the consideration given is the provision of the company’s “proprietary information,” but it could also be stock options or equity in the company, or even specialized training. 

2.     Reasonable in time. There is no bright line rule for what is a “reasonable” amount of time—this is a fact-specific inquiry for the court reviewing the noncompete. However, in general, Texas courts uphold non competes ranging from 1-4 years. 

3.     Reasonable in geographic scope. There is also no bright line rule for this element, and it is a fact-specific inquiry for the court reviewing the agreement. However, a lack of any geographic area mentioned in the agreement at all may very well make it suspect. 

4.     Reasonable in scope. A non compete cannot amount to an industry-wide ban on practice. For example, if you are a software engineer and you have an agreement that prohibits you from being a software engineer anywhere at all, period, that would likely be an invalid agreement. To be reasonable in scope, the restriction must bear some resemblance to the employee’s job and be limited to a particular segment of the industry. 

5.     Not impose a greater restraint than necessary. This is yet another fact-specific inquiry. However, agreements that appear merely to be punitive on the employee and intimidate them out of leaving the company are suspect. There must be a legitimate business interest that is being protected by the non compete. 

My employer wants me to sign a non-compete. What do I do?

Contact an attorney to review the document first so you know what you’re getting into. Schedule a document review with me in Dallas today or one of my talented colleagues in Houston or Austin, and we will be more than happy to walk you through the document, what it means, and what the law around the agreement is.

Harjeen Zibari
Dallas Employment Trail Lawyer Harjeen Zibari

President Donald Trump began his second term in office on January 20, 2025. Many speculated about what his first big move would be as president, but it seems that he quickly took many far-reaching actions. Of course, his immigration policies have been hard to ignore, as has his attempt to halt Medicaid, and his vows regarding impending tariffs. 

However, he has also launched a swift attack on worker’s rights. Immediately, President Trump instituted a hiring freeze at the federal level, which completely halted existing government employees’ abilities to receive promotions or transfers that were already in the works, plus resulted in the recission of pending job offers or interview processes for many. 

Perhaps even more shockingly, President Trump issued an executive order attacking DEI programs on the federal and private levels, halting certain federal DEI programs, ordering all federal DEI employees to be placed on leave, and targeting private companies with DEI programs. The President made it clear that he wishes “to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.” However, his characterization of DEI as “illegal” is highly misguided. As my colleague Kalandra Wheeler pointed out, “equity levels the playing field. Being against equity means denying the fact that systemic discrimination exists and refusing to take meaningful steps to dismantle it. This denial reinforces privilege for some while sustaining barriers for others—effectively upholding discriminatory practices.” 

In response, major companies began to immediately rescind their DEI programs—such as Target, Facebook, and McDonalds. This is highly disappointing. DEI programs ensure that those without generational wealth or connections have the opportunity to sit at the table and share their skills that otherwise would go unnoticed and unappreciated. The absence of them means far less demographic diversity, but also diversity in skills, worldviews, and ideas—all things that make a workplace dynamic and worthwhile, and make businesses successful. 

Next, Trump dismissed key officials from the National Labor Relations Board, including General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, Deputy General Counsel Jessica Rutter, and Gwynne Willcox. Doing so left the Board without a quorum, deeming it unable to issue decisions and adjudicate complaints before it. Just this past Monday, however, he appointed William Cowen as acting NLRB General Counsel to fill that vacancy, but that still leaves the Board with a quorum. 

Then, President Trump removed two of the three Democratic commissioners on the EEOC. With them gone, there is no longer a left-leaning vote at the EEOC, and there are only two commissioners left. Trump also removed EEOC general counsel Karla Gilbride, who was nominated for that position by President Biden. Alongside these abrupt terminations, all mentions of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination as illegal activity were stripped from government websites. Some have since been restored, but with a banner that reads, “The information on this webpage is being reviewed for compliance with the law and executive orders and will be revised.” On February 4, Andrew Rodgers was appointed by the President to serve as acting General Counsel. 

And perhaps most shockingly, federal employees were faced with the news that mass position eliminations are imminent. On January 28, 2025, most federal employees received an email presenting a deferred resignation offer, claiming that if they resign effective immediately, they could receive eight months severance. However, for those who elect not to resign, the government (via the Office of Personnel Management) went on to say, “we cannot give you full assurance regarding the certainty of your position or agency but should your position be eliminated you will be treated with dignity and will be afforded the protections in place for such positions.” However, outlets have reported that there have been acknowledgments that agencies don’t have guaranteed funding past March, so people may not even receive the eight months of severance—or even more than a full month. This is an unparalleled development, as reductions in force in the federal sector are heavily regulated, as is any ordinary termination. The last largescale reduction in force in the federal sector was under Reagan, and even then, it was not on the scale that the current administration proposes. 

Unsurprisingly, many legal challenges to this administration’s policies have already been filed. It will be many months—if not years—before the results of these challenges are known.

Yet again, we are living in unprecedented times. If you have been feeling uneasy, you are not alone. 

It can be exhausting and overwhelming, especially when it feels like drinking from a firehose. That’s why it is so important to have community. Get involved with a local organization that does work you believe in. Participate in a protest. Know that your voice still matters, even when it feels like it does not. And please, above all: remember to take care of yourself. Log off the internet for awhile if that’s what’s best for you, spend some time in nature, watch a movie. But wake up tomorrow ready to fight again, because the fight is far from over. 

And to be completely clear: workplace discrimination is still illegal. My colleague Cameron Hansen wrote a great blog about the current state of workplace discrimination laws that you can read here. 

Are you experiencing workplace discrimination or retaliation? Call me in Dallas today or one of my talented colleagues in Houston or Austin. 

Paige Melendez
Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Paige Melendez

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides specific guidelines regarding tipped employees and their compensation. Whether an employer pays the full minimum wage or claims a tip credit, it is essential to understand how these rules apply especially as some of the busiest restaurant days are ahead with Valentine’s Day falling on a Friday this year. The FLSA’s guidelines provide the minimum level of protection that can be supplemented with greater protections under state law. 

First, employees who qualify as a “tipped employee” are individuals that are engaged in an occupation where they customarily and regularly receive more than $30 per month in tips. As tipped employees, the FLSA permits employers to take a tip credit toward their minimum wage obligations. However, certain conditions must be met including:

  • • Employers must pay tipped employees a direct (cash) wage of at least $2.13 per hour.
  • • The employer can claim a tip credit equal to the difference between the cash wage and the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, which currently amounts to a maximum of $5.12 per hour.
  • • Employees must receive enough in tips to ensure their total earnings meet or exceed the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
  • • If an employee’s total earnings fall below the minimum wage, the employer must make up the difference.

However, before taking a tip credit, employers must inform tipped employees of the following:

  1. 1. The cash wage the employer will pay (minimum $2.13 per hour).
  2. 2. The additional tip credit amount claimed by the employer (maximum $5.12 per hour).
  3. 3. That the tip credit cannot exceed the amount of tips actually received by the employee.
  4. 4. That all tips received by employees must be retained by them unless part of a valid tip pooling arrangement.
  5. 5. That the tip credit will not be applied unless the employee is informed of these provisions.

This notice can be given orally or in writing. Failure to provide notice means the employer cannot legally claim the tip credit.

Similar to the guidelines on how tips are supposed to be allocated or paid, there are specific restrictions on who is eligible to receive the tips. Regardless of whether an employer takes a tip credit, the FLSA prohibits employers from keeping any portion of employees’ tips for any purpose, whether directly or through a tip pool. Employers may not require employees to give their tips to the employer, a supervisor, or a manager, even if the employee is paid at least the federal minimum wage and no tip credit is taken. Only employees who customarily receive tips may participate in traditional tip pooling arrangements. However, if an employer pays the full minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, they may implement a nontraditional tip pool that includes non-tipped employees (e.g., cooks, dishwashers). Regardless of the type of tip pool, managers and supervisors may not receive tips unless they directly serve customers and receive tips for their service alone. To be clear, managers and supervisors are defined as individuals who:

  1. 1. Primarily manage the business or a recognized department or subdivision.
  2. 2. Regularly direct the work of at least two full-time employees or their equivalent.
  3. 3. Have the authority to hire or fire employees, or whose recommendations carry significant weight in such decisions.
  4. 4. Own at least a bona fide 20% equity interest in the business and are actively engaged in management.

Another example would be a restaurant manager who serves their own tables may keep tips received from those customers but cannot take tips from a tip pool or other employees.

Further, if an employee is working in dual jobs (e.g., a maintenance worker who also serves as a waiter) they can only receive tip credits for the hours spent in a tipped occupation. However, incidental tasks related to the tipped role (e.g., a server cleaning tables or preparing drinks) do not disqualify the employee from receiving tip credits.

In conclusion, understanding the ways that tips are handled under the FLSA is incredibly important for employees who want to make sure they are being compensated fairly. In addition to understanding tipping, the FLSA provides protections from retaliation for employees who speak up about compliance with the FLSA guidelines. If you think that there is something fishy going on with the tipping at your job, feel free to consult with a Houston Employment Attorney to discuss what can be done or what protections you may have under the law.

Madeline Garza
Austin/Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Madeline Garza

Every four years when the United States of America gets a new president, the first couple weeks after the inauguration are filled with numerous of Executive Orders to push forward their agenda. This year is no different, with President Trump signing dozens of executive orders in the first week of office. These orders affect nearly everything from immigration to oil to federal spending. 

The most common questions I hear are “Can he even do that?” and “what is an executive order?” The concept that a sitting president can sign an order and enforce it without a vote in congress can understandably raise alarm bells, especially when the orders impact our employment, our healthcare, and the broader economic system.

An executive order does not require the same requirements of legislation passed by Congress. Yet, executive orders carry the force of law and can be challenged in court when it violates the U.S. Constitution. While the power to issue executive orders is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is derived from the president’s role as the head of the executive branch. The two primary sources of presidential power related to executive orders are found in Article II, Section 1 and 3, of the U.S. Constitution, which outlines the powers of the President.

Despite the seemingly broad powers granted to the president, luckily, executive orders are not without limits. In 1952, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on presidential powers relating to executive orders in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, also known to many as the “Steel Seizure Case.” Justice Black wrote for the majority, stating “the President’s power to see that the laws be faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.” In his concurrence, Justice Jackson stated a three-part test for analyzing conflicts between presidential and congressional powers, defining the limits of the president to issue executive orders. 

Under the test, the president’s powers are at their strongest when Congress has given the president authorization to act either directly or implied, basically providing the president a “permission slip” to execute an executive order.  When a president acts without permission or denial from congress, generally, they must rely solely upon the powers granted by the Constitution. However, as Justice Jackson stated, there is a “zone of twilight” where the President and Congress may have concurrent authority. In this case, any actual test of power will use the importance of the events at hand and factors that are difficult to estimate, instead of using abstract theories of law. Lastly, when the President takes measures that are incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his powers are at the lowest. Here, the President can only rely upon their constitutional powers minus congressional power over the matter in question. 

Outside of the zones of power, the checks and balances system plays an additional role, ensuring the orders are in compliance with the Constitution. For example, Congress has the authority to basically overrule an executive order by passing legislation that overrides or limits the effects of an executive order. Additionally, the courts have the authority to stay enforcement, which halts the implementation of an order, or overturn an order that is unconstitutional. 

There are already many legal challenges to Trump’s executive orders. As of January 29, 2025, there have been five cases filed in court, challenging the constitutionality of the executive order revoking birthright citizenship. In one of the cases, the judge issued a temporary restraining order against the executive order. Additionally, there have been numerous of challenges against the executive order establishing the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), arguing the order violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This Act bars the delegation of decision-making authority to private citizens without public access. Other executive orders have been challenged on violations of the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s Due process clause. These include the orders that ban transgender individuals from serving in the military, the housing of transgender inmates, the punishment of sanctuary cities and states and other orders impacting our civil liberties. 

With the President’s executive order power expanding based on the zone it falls under, and the inconsistency of the current Supreme Court following established precedent and tests for constitutionality, it is becoming a gamble of knowing which orders will be ruled unconstitutional, even if there is a strong basis to do so. With this said, it is imperative to stay up to date with the current orders, especially due to impact they have on our livelihood. 

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/youngstown-sheet-tube-co-v-sawyer-steel-seizure-case

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/defining-the-presidents-constitutional-powers-to-issue-executive-orders

https://www.wiley-wheeler.com/contact-us.html

https://www.wiley-wheeler.com/madeline-garza.html

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

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives aim to foster environments where people of all backgrounds feel valued, have equal access to opportunities, and can thrive regardless of their race, gender, disabilities, religion, age, sexual orientation, class status, or military service status. The purpose of DEI initiatives is to create inclusive workplaces, schools, and communities. Yet, opposition to DEI efforts has grown and they are currently under attack from every direction.

Critics argue that such initiatives are unnecessary, divisive, or even unfair. To that I say, what world are you living in, because it is surely not this one. 

In an ideal world – excuse me, maybe I should say an unimpeachable world since what is ideal for some is certainly not ideal for others – we would all start at zero. Everyone could be judged on merit. Everyone would have equal access to resources and opportunities. In a world beyond reproach, bigots would not exist. Unconscious bias, or even outright hatred, would be no more.  However, this is not our world. If you claim it is, you are either woefully ignorant or being wholly disingenuous in your claims.

While debate is healthy in any society, it is essential to confront the core implications of being “anti-DEI.” Rejecting DEI initiative is not a neutral stance. Instead, it perpetuates systems of inequity and exclusion, making it, in effect, a position that supports and fosters discrimination. 

Diversity initiatives seek to rectify long-standing inequalities by creating spaces that reflect the world we live in. Historically, many institutions—corporations, universities, and governments—were structured to privilege certain groups while marginalizing others.

To oppose diversity efforts is to reject the idea of actively addressing these disparities. Without intentional action, the status quo of exclusion remains. This lack of action implicitly supports systems that benefit a few while disadvantaging many.

Equity ensures that everyone has access to the resources and opportunities they need to succeed, recognizing that some groups start at a disadvantage due to systemic barriers. Critics often misinterpret equity as unfairly favoring one group over another.

In reality, equity levels the playing field. Being against equity means denying the fact that systemic discrimination exists and refusing to take meaningful steps to dismantle it. This denial reinforces privilege for some while sustaining barriers for others—effectively upholding discriminatory practices.

Inclusion ensures that diverse voices are welcomed, heard, and respected. Without inclusion, marginalized individuals face isolation, underrepresentation, and bias.

Rejecting inclusion efforts sends a message that the voices and experiences of historically marginalized groups do not matter. It reinforces exclusionary norms that have long defined many workplaces, schools, and institutions. Choosing to oppose inclusion is choosing to tolerate—and perpetuate—exclusion.

Some argue that rejecting DEI efforts is about maintaining neutrality or avoiding “politics.” However, systems of inequality persist without deliberate efforts to challenge them. Neutrality in the face of injustice is not neutral; it is complicity.

Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” By opposing DEI, individuals signal that they are comfortable with – or indifferent to – systems of discrimination and inequality.

The absence of DEI efforts allows bias, prejudice, and discrimination to thrive unchecked. These systems are not self-correcting; they require intentional disruption. DEI is that disruption.

When someone opposes DEI, they are effectively saying they do not want to address disparities or create more inclusive spaces. This stance protects discriminatory practices by default, making “anti-DEI” synonymous with “pro-discrimination.”

Instead of dismantling DEI initiatives, we should strive to understand their importance and engage in meaningful conversations about how to create more equality. DEI is not about blame or division; it is about building stronger, more inclusive communities where everyone has the opportunity to succeed. 

Choosing to support DEI is choosing to reject discrimination and build a future rooted in fairness, respect, and equality. Opposing it, whether consciously or unconsciously, perpetuates the very injustices DEI seeks to combat. Many that opposed DEI initiatives truly don’t understand them or merely like the feeling of superiority created by making sure others are disadvantaged.

It’s time to move beyond debates over DEI’s necessity and focus on how we can collectively create a world where diversity is celebrated, equity is prioritized, and inclusion is the norm—not the exception.

By embracing DEI, we make a commitment to justice and equality. The alternative is to tacitly endorse systems that exclude, oppress, and discriminate. The choice is clear.

Cameron Hansen
Austin/Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Cameron Hansen

Throughout his presidency, Donald Trump made numerous statements and signed executive orders that raised concerns about employment discrimination protections. However, despite any political rhetoric or directives, federal and state laws remain clear: workplace discrimination is illegal. Employers are still bound by long-standing statutes that protect workers from discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, religion, disability, and other protected characteristics.

The Civil Rights Act Still Stands

The primary federal law prohibiting employment discrimination is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.). This law makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate in hiring, firing, compensation, or any other terms and conditions of employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Despite the Trump administration’s efforts to weaken certain protections, Title VII remains fully enforceable. Courts have repeatedly upheld its protections, ensuring that employees continue to have legal recourse when facing workplace discrimination.

Sex Discrimination Includes LGBTQ+ Protections

One of the most significant employment discrimination rulings in recent years came from the U.S. Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). In this landmark decision, the Court ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII.

Despite opposition from the Trump administration, which argued that Title VII did not cover LGBTQ+ individuals, the Supreme Court unequivocally held otherwise. This means that regardless of any statements or policy positions taken by Trump or any other politician, employers cannot legally fire or refuse to hire someone simply because they are gay or transgender. The Trump administration has removed educational materials informing Americans of these protections from government websites, but it is important to know they still exist and protect you and your coworkers. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act and Disability Protections

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) remains a powerful tool protecting workers with disabilities. The ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations.

During the Trump administration, there have been efforts to roll back protections for individuals with disabilities, including proposed changes to Social Security Disability Insurance and efforts to weaken accessibility requirements under the ADA. However, these actions did not alter the fundamental protections guaranteed under federal law. Employees with disabilities continue to have the right to fair treatment and reasonable accommodations in the workplace.

Retaliation is Also Illegal

Employees who report discrimination, either internally or through government agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC), are protected from retaliation under federal and state law. Title VII, the ADA, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) (29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.) all prohibit retaliation against employees who assert their legal rights.

Even if an employer believes they are following a presidential directive, firing or punishing an employee for filing a discrimination complaint is illegal. Employers who retaliate against workers can face lawsuits and significant financial penalties.

Texas Law Also Protects Workers

In addition to federal protections, Texas employees have additional protections under the Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21 (formerly known as the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act). This law mirrors Title VII and provides Texas workers with protections against employment discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, and age.

Texas courts generally follow federal case law when interpreting Chapter 21, meaning that decisions like Bostock apply to Texas employees as well. Employers operating in Texas must comply with both federal and state anti-discrimination laws or face legal consequences.

Conclusion: The Law is Clear

While presidential statements and executive orders can shape policy, they do not override existing laws passed by Congress and upheld by the courts. Employers in Texas and across the United States must still comply with federal and state anti-discrimination laws, or they risk serious legal consequences.

If you believe you have been discriminated against at work, you have rights. Consulting with an experienced employment attorney can help you understand your options and seek justice. Discrimination in the workplace remains illegal—no matter who is in the White House.

Rachel Bethel
Austin/Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Rachel Bethel

Age discrimination is an unfortunate reality that many workers eventually face. Federal and Texas laws provide protections to ensure that workers over the age of 40 are treated fairly in the workplace. This blog will explore these protections, highlight warning signs of age discrimination, and offer tips on addressing potential issues.

Legal Protections Against Age Discrimination

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

The ADEA is a federal law that protects workers aged 40 and older from age-based discrimination in workplaces with 20 or more employees. It prohibits discrimination in all aspects of employment, including hiring, firing, promotions, compensation, and other terms or conditions of employment.

Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code 

In Texas, Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code includes a subsection regarding age discrimination. It mirrors many of the ADEA’s protections but applies to employers with at least 15 employees. 

Signs of Age Discrimination in the Workplace

Recognizing age discrimination can be challenging, as it is often subtle. Here are some red flags to watch out for:

  1. Harassing Comments About Age
    • Remarks or casual jokes about being “too old” to understand something or perform certain tasks.
  2. Preference for Younger Employees
    • Favoring younger workers for promotions, training opportunities, or high-profile projects, despite your qualifications and experience.
  3. Sudden Performance Criticism
    • Receiving unjustified negative feedback after years of positive reviews and a proven record.
    • Being placed on a performance improvement plan without a clear explanation, perhaps close to retirement.
  4. Changes in Job Duties
    • Being reassigned to less desirable tasks or roles without justification.
    • Seeing your responsibilities diminish as younger employees take on more significant roles.
  5. Layoffs Targeting Older Workers
    • Noticing a pattern of older employees being let go while younger employees in similar positions are retained.
  6. Unsolicited Queries Regarding Retirement Plans
    • Questioning your retirement plans out of nowhere, without any indication of interest in retiring on your end. 

Steps to Address Age Discrimination

It truly is never too soon to call an attorney if you are experiencing discriminatory acts in the workplace. 

If you have questions and want to learn more about your rights, contact one of us for a consultation. We’ll be able to assess whether there is unlawful misconduct afoot and guide you through next steps in pre-litigation and/or litigation. 

Other tips to keep in mind:

It is a good idea to keep detailed records of any discriminatory incidents, including dates, times, locations, and the names of individuals involved. 

Consider making a report with HR regarding the discriminatory actions. Review your employer’s anti-discrimination policies and procedures for making internal reports. 

If you a file a complaint with HR, do so in writing for your records. 

Know that discrimination complaints may result in retaliation or even termination. This is an unlawful response on your employer’s part.

Conclusion

Age discrimination is serious and unlawful. Understanding your rights and knowing how to respond can empower you to protect your hard-earned career. If you suspect that you are being discriminated against on the basis of age, don’t hesitate to reach out to our firm for help.

Areyana Johnson
Austin/Houston Employment Trial Lawyer Areyana Johnson

In case you missed part one, the cursory intro blog can be found here. 

As described below, this blog serves as part two covering a deeper look into the benefits and payment provided to uniformed service members in the workplace. Such benefits include pensions, health benefits, and even vacation leave. If you’re wondering whether your employer provided health coverage upon request where your leave was for more than 30 days or less than 31 days then keep reading. Similarly, if you’re wondering whether your employer must grant your pension plan benefits which accrued during your military service then also keep reading. This brief blog broadly covers the answers.

Under USERRA, employees who leave their civilian jobs to serve in the uniformed services are entitled to continue receiving health insurance coverage while they are on military leave. If the employee is enrolled in an employer-sponsored health plan, they can maintain their coverage for up to 24 months during military service, though the employee may be required to pay up to 102% of the premium cost for the continued coverage. This provision is designed to ensure that service members do not experience a lapse in essential healthcare during their absence from civilian employment. Upon returning from military duty, the employee’s rights to reinstatement of health coverage are similarly protected; they must be reinstated in their previous health insurance plan, as though their employment had not been interrupted by military service.

In addition to health benefits, USERRA also addresses the issue of pay and other compensation. While military service typically results in a temporary loss of civilian income, USERRA ensures that service members are entitled to the same pay and benefits they would have received had they remained employed, particularly in the form of compensation during the reemployment process. This includes adjustments for any pay increases or bonuses the employee may have missed during their time away.  A vivid example as it applies to vacation leave: a  service member must be permitted to utilize any vacation leave which accrued prior to beginning their service instead of being offered unpaid leave. This permittance is by the service member’s request and the service member cannot be forced to use vacation time for the duration of the military service he or she was called to perform. Employers are prohibited from discriminating against service members on the basis of their military service, and must reinstate the employee to their prior position or an equivalent position with the same level of pay, benefits, and seniority.

 Notably, USERRA also protects the employee’s rights to other benefits like pension and retirement contributions during their military service. Contributions to retirement plans must be made by the employer for the duration of the employee’s military absence, ensuring that the service member’s long-term financial security is not adversely impacted. In summary, USERRA plays a vital role in safeguarding the financial and health benefits of service members, ensuring they do not suffer undue hardship due to their military commitments and can seamlessly transition back into civilian employment with all their rights intact.

If you think your rights have been violated under USERRA, please consult with an employment law attorney. Based on the assessment of the facts, actionable claims can be brought first to the attention of the Department of Labor Veterans’ Employment and Training Service. This is the governmental entity which handles USERRA complaints. A qualified attorney can assist in the navigation of filing the Form 1010 to initiate an investigation by VETS. Stay tuned for Part Three.

#DepartmentofLabor #Veterans #USERRA