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.

“Plaintiff contends that DHS, through its discrimination and harassment, constructively discharged him. Plaintiff resigned in September 2008. Given that it has determined that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, and in light of other conduct by Defendant’s employees, the court concludes that a genuine dispute of material

“In the interrogatories, Plaintiff states that Wood called him a “wetback”on five different occasions: (1) April 21, 2008; (2) May 29, 2008; (3) June 21, 2008; (4) July 10, 2008; and (5) August 8, 2008. Wood also told Plaintiff that “Salvadorans are liars” on July 8, 2008. Given the number of times these racial comments

“A review of her pleadings reflects that [Employee] has alleged that she has worked for [Employer] since 1988, she encountered no problems in the workplace until she was listed as a witness in [Co-worker]’s complaint in July 2008, and, shortly after being listed as a witness in the legal action [Co-worker] filed in state court

“The Fifth Circuit has suggested that an extended gap of time between the plaintiff engaging in a protected activity and an adverse employment action can cut against a finding of retaliation. Mayberry v. Vought Aircraft Co., 55 F.3d 1086, 1092 (5th Cir. 1995) (noting that an interval of several years between the adverse action and

“The Court finds that [Supervisor]’s unambiguous statement that Plaintiff ‘didn’t do anything wrong, but [he] filed that Complaint,’ recalled by both Plaintiff and a co-worker, amounts to direct evidence of retaliation sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Had [Supervisor] said something more along the lines of, ‘I did not vote to promote you because you filed

“When asked why Plaintiff’s position was eliminated, as opposed to one of the workers in the maintenance department, Childress testified that the District was ‘making decisions based on cost savings.’  Plaintiff points out that none of the other employees laid off as a result of the reduction in force were terminated after the 2010 through

“In the case at bar, Plaintiff suffered injury on August 2, 2010. Shortly thereafter, Defendant was made aware that Plaintiff had suffered an injury to his arm and would be at least temporarily unavailable for work. Plaintiff provided and continued to provide all relevant medical paperwork to his employer. Plaintiff further informed Defendant that he