Photo of Eric P. Dama

We asked Eric P. Dama, a Trial Attorney in the Dallas office of Rob Wiley, P.C., to provide his open answers to a range of questions.  After reading, you will be more more versed with the advocacy that Mr. Dama affords.

1. What did you start practicing labor and employment law?

The prospect of representing another person's interests and helping those who are going through the toughest and most stressful times in life really intrigued me.

2. What is the most important issue to you of being an advocate?

Giving my clients a voice.

3. Who is your favorite Supreme Court Justice?

Hugo Black.

4. What do you think is the most important part of a good case?

A likable client with a strong story to tell.

5. If you could write a new law, what would it do?

Not give companies so much leeway in dealing with terminating employees.

6. Besides Rob Wiley, P.C., what is the most interesting job that you have had?

I worked as a Journalist and Newspaper Staff Writer at The University of Oklahoma.

7. Who is your favorite celebrity?

Barry Switzer.

8. What skills do you value as an employment attorney?

Empathy and patience.

9. What is your favorite food?

Any shell food.

10. What’s the best part of living in Dallas?

Family and friends!

Eric P. Dama is a Trial Attorney in the Dallas office of Rob Wiley, P.C.  He graduated summa cum laude from The University of Oklahoma with a bachelor's degree in journalism in 2011.  Mr. Dama went on and received his law degree from Baylor University School of Law in 2014.

Plaintiffs allege that Rite–Way was an enterprise covered by the FLSA because (1) its employees handled materials such as “mops, brooms, towels, soap, chemicals, vacuum cleaners, and other cleaning materials, supplies, and equipment” that had moved in interstate commerce, and (2) its annual gross volume of sales exceeded $500,000.

Therefore, as held persuasively by the

Plaintiff contends that she “was succeeded by one or more of three new male MEs and so was replaced by someone outside her protected class.” There is evidence that Defendant had “three temporary or agency MEs” but didn’t know if they were actually hired and was not sure of their race. Defendant argues that evidence

Plaintiff’s earnings prior to her employment with Defendant are not relevant to this cause of action. Therefore, the temporal scope of the financial information relevant to Plaintiff’s case is limited to the time period during and after her employment with Defendant. Because Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in June of 2014, only Plaintiff’s earnings (and

Plaintiffs allege that Rite–Way was an enterprise covered by the FLSA because (1) its employees handled materials such as “mops, brooms, towels, soap, chemicals, vacuum cleaners, and other cleaning materials, supplies, and equipment” that had moved in interstate commerce, and (2) its annual gross volume of sales exceeded $500,000.Therefore, as held persuasively by the Eleventh

Plaintiff contends that she “was succeeded by one or more of three new male MEs and so was replaced by someone outside her protected class.” There is evidence that Defendant had “three temporary or agency MEs” but didn’t know if they were actually hired and was not sure of their race. Defendant argues that evidence

In this case, Crawford moved for summary judgment on December 16, 2015—less than two months after the case was initiated. The Court has yet to issue a scheduling order or conduct an initial case management conference. Additionally, the parties have not yet begun discovery—on the issue presented in the motion or any other. (“The [parties]

Under these alleged facts, Wade has established a prima facie case for purposes of summary judgment. The Court disagrees with Home Depot that, under these alleged circumstances, Wade was required to apply through Career Depot. Although Home Depot did have a formal application process and Wade failed to follow that process, viewing the evidence in

“‘Commerce’ means trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States or between any State and any place outside thereof.’ Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendant itself has offices in four states and five countries. In addition, PetroMar’s business involves shipping in the oil and maritime industry, and its employees were sent to work on

“In the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that (a) they are members of a protected class; (b) they were subjected to intentional discriminatory treatment during their employment with SLU; (c) similarly situated white employees were treated differently; (d) they were terminated due to their race; (e) Gandolfo was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment that was willfully

“Defendant suggests that Plaintiff’s complaint fails because he does not allege the total amount of unpaid wages that he deserves.  An FLSA plaintiff is not, however, required to plead the precise amount of unpaid wages to which he is allegedly entitled.”

Murphy v. Multi-Shot, LLC, 2014 WL 4471538, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 10,