Texas Employment Lawyer

Texas Employment Lawyer

Discrimination, Retaliation, Wrongful Termination, and Unpaid Wages

Texas Toll Free (800) 313-4020
Dallas-Fort Worth Area (214) 528-6500
Austin (512) 271-5527

Search Results for:

Being placed in an off-duty status without pay is an adverse employment action.

Posted in FMLA violations

In May 2004, Plaintiff became a letter carrier with the USPS. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant retaliated against him after he filed numerous grievances and EEO complaints. He argues that his disciplinary actions began around the same time and are separated from his protected activity by only a two-month period. Because of this, Plaintiff contends that… Continue Reading

The statutory duty not to retaliate against employees for reporting violations of law does not directly relate to treatment that was or should have been performed for a patient therefore does not fall within the definition of an HCLC [Health Care Liability Claim].

Posted in FMLA violations

This is an interlocutory appeal from an order denying Loyds of Dallas Enterprises, LLC’s motion to dismiss an alleged health care liability claim (HCLC) for failure to file an expert report. … Jennings alleges she was fired for reporting violations of the health and safety code consisting of failures by Loyds to make adequate medication… Continue Reading

An employee can create a hostile work environment for their supervisor.

Posted in Hostile Work Environment

“The record shows that Plaintiff’s subordinate made an anonymous complaint against Plaintiff allowing other individuals to steal money and time from Defendant. The subordinate then filed a grievance against Plaintiff complaining that since she was hired for the position he had harassed her, wrote her up, investigated her and yelled at her in front of… Continue Reading

A Plaintiff’s subjective beliefs about why they are terminated are not relevant in determining whether they make a valid Title VII claim; the court is guided by McDonnell Douglas.

Posted in Race Discrimination

“During deposition, Plaintiff answered ‘no’ when asked if he was terminated because of his race but later stated that he believed race was a motivating factor in his termination.” Brooks, et al. v. Firestone Polymers, LLC, 2014 WL 4792653, at *27 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 24, 2014) (Crone, J.).… Continue Reading

Race related comments made by the alleged decisionmaker, on the day of termination, and apparently related to the employment decision at issue is arguably direct evidence of discrimination.

Posted in Race Discrimination

“Here, the alleged termination decision maker repeated (three times) the derogatory racial remark ‘[Plaintiff] didn’t fit into the culture of [Defendant].’  The last time the remark was made was on the day of Plaintiff’s termination.” Miller v. Kimes & Stone Const. Co., Inc., 2014 WL 4803094, at *2 (N.D.Miss. Sep. 24, 2014) (Brown, J.).… Continue Reading

Summary judgment should be denied when Defendant’s version of events is substantially different from the Plaintiff’s.

Posted in Race Discrimination

“The Court held the following to be issues of material fact based on Plaintiff’s and 3rd party affidavits: (1) discrepancy regarding who made the decision to terminate; (2) Plaintiff offering evidence that employees were undermining him while Defendant offers a company policy prohibiting discrimination; (3) Plaintiff’s claims of ‘phenomenal’ performance v. Defendant’s Affidavit’s claiming insubordination,… Continue Reading

The 4th prong of a plaintiff’s prima facie case is met when the Plaintiff’s position is eliminated but someone outside the protected class assumes their job duties.

Posted in Race Discrimination

“Here, the Plaintiff (white male) used an affidavit to assert that ‘defendant transferred his job responsibilities and authorities to … all African –American[s], and none of whom had anywhere near the experience and training.’” Quinn v. Capital Transp. Corp., 2014 WL 4782708, at *4 (M.D. La. Sep. 24, 2014) (De Gravelles, J.).… Continue Reading

Success is the most critical “Johnson” factor for a prevailing plaintiff when a Judge adjusts the lodestar amount, but success is not measured solely on the recovery of monetary damages.

Posted in Sexual Harassment

“[A] lawsuit spawning some remedial measures to prevent a [civil rights violation “recurrence” is considered success when adjusting the lodestar. Here, the employer “distributing an employment manual to its employees containing its sexual harassment policy and … the company now [having] discussions with management to prevent sexual harassment” is considered success.  Damages recovered in this… Continue Reading