Photo of Jairo N. Castellanos

We asked Jairo N. Castellanos, an experienced Trial Attorney in the Austin office of Rob Wiley, P.C., to impart his candid answers to a range of questions. After reading, you will be more more informed on the well-respected reputation that Mr. Castellanos carries.

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

I think labor and employment law is a fascinating part of the law that impacts everyone. Most people spend nearly as much time at work as they do with their family.

2. Who is your favorite Supreme Court Justice?

My favorite sitting justice is Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

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

I think an important skill to have as an employment attorney is the ability to tell people’s stories. It is important to be able to effectively convey entirety of the case beyond the legal aspects of it.

4. What do you do when you’re not practicing law?

I like to read fiction and spend time with my daughter.

5. What’s your favorite legal movie

That is a toss-up between A Civil Action and My Cousin Vinny.

6. What’s your favorite legal TV show

Always Sunny in Philadelphia when they are discussing bird law.

7. Have you ever learned something from one of your clients?

I’ve learned that there is no one size fits all solution to dealing with issues. Much like there is no one size fits all way of approaching a problem.

8. If you could argue any case in history, what would it be?

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

9. What do you most want your clients to know about you?

That in me they can find someone that will fight his hardest for them regardless of the outcome.

10. Who’s your favorite judge?

Former Chief Justice John Marshall

Jairo N. Castellanos is a Trial Attorney in the Austin office of Rob Wiley, P.C.  He graduated from The University of Nevada in Las Vegas with a bachelor’s degree in 2009.  Mr. Castellanos then graduated from The University of Texas School of Law in 2015. Mr. Castellanos is fluent in English and Spanish.

In March 2020, Governor Abbott joined several other governors around the nation to formally declare COVID-19 to be a public health disaster. Subsequently, Governor Abbot issued several executive orders limiting commercial activities to only those that were considered “essential businesses.” This meant that many Texans were left without work and eligible to receive unemployment benefits

“Plaintiff merely provides additional facts in her complaint that were not in her EEOC charge. In particular, she identifies the individuals mentioned in her charge who were allegedly promoted over her and who received higher wages for the same work. This is not an issue in which the Plaintiff is attempting to assert wholly new

“Plaintiff states during her employment she was paid less than her male counterparts with equal or less experience. She cites three examples: (1) an unidentified male employee, who worked at the vision center for a month longer than her, told her that he made two dollars more per hour; (2) an unidentified male employee made

“Heffernan’s supervisors demoted Heffernan from detective to patrol officer and assigned him to a “walking post.” In this way they punished Heffernan for what they thought was his “overt involvement” in Spagnola’s campaign.” Heffernan v. City of Paterson, New Jersey, et al., 2016 WL 1627953 *3 (2016). “In a word, it was the employer’s

Despite the fact that the employer posted an arbitration agreement with a 30 day opt out clause the Court held “that is a gamble every employer takes any time it foregoes an employee signature and instead hangs its hat on a fact finder’s determination of whether it met Halliburton ‘s notice requirements.” The Court further

Defendant contended that “the facts of this case are “unsuited for resolution via the FLSA’s collective action mechanism” because of the differences in the individual work and pay histories as well as the fact that each class member must show that Dauterive managers had actual or constructive knowledge that overtime qualifying work was being performed

“[A] repeated pattern of behavior consisting of sexual comments, humiliating jokes, insults, ridicule, and intimidation. Clark claimed she was subjected to continuous repeated sexual jokes and obscene language, most of which were directed at her” and although “it could be argued that most of the acts complained of by Clark were not objectively severe,3 the

“A reasonable juror could find that Defendant failed to accommodate Plaintiff’s request because Plaintiff was terminated thirty-two (32) hours after his refusal to include Bible quotes in the Morning Coffee[name of daily email].” Mindrup v. Goodman Networks, Inc., No. 4:14-CV-157, 2015 WL 5996362, at *8 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2015).  Based upon this finding,