Photo of Nicole M. Conger

We asked Nicole M. Conger, a Trial Attorney in the Austin office of Rob Wiley, P.C., to provide her extroverted answers to a range of questions.  After reading, you will be more more reasoned on the cognizance and finesse that Ms. Conger exudes.

1. What do you like most about being an employment lawyer?

Client interaction.  I love being a lawyer because it gives me the opportunity to use the law to make someone’s life better.  It also allows me to immerse myself with others by following my own instinct.  I could not ask for more.

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

America is a society based on law and justice.  The most important issue of being an advocate is listening and using creativity to make this ideal a reality for clients, however small.

3. What is the most satisfying part of working for Rob Wiley, P.C.?

Establishing a career with someone who is 100% dedicated to his attorneys and the growth of our law firm.  Mr. Wiley is exceedingly business savvy and demonstrates his profound knowledge of labor and employment law with every client interaction, marketing strategy, and relationship that he engages in.

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

Clients who have a strong personnel record.  I think that a good performance history shows the jury and judge what an admirable employee that person was to the employer.

5. What would you say to HR of a company about how to treat employees?

I would advise the Director of Human Resources or CEO to use the Golden Rule.  That is, treat employees and others the same way that he or she would like to be treated.  I cannot underline how important it is to empathize with others.

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

I worked at Banana Republic and Barneys New York throughout undergrad.  Working in retail with normal customers who have immediate issues to high-end clientele with ongoing desires really made me understand how to respond to different personalities in each situation.

7. What personality trait do you like most about yourself?

I am extremely compassionate.  I think it is so important to let other people know that you appreciate them.

8. What makes you laugh?

Great company and friends.

9. Where do you like to travel?

Anywhere that has a beach!  Australia is actually on my bucket list because I think it is gorgeous.

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

Austin is arguably the country’s best for outdoor activities and recreation.  The Boardwalk Trail at Lady Bird Lake, Barton Springs, and Deep Eddy are just a few of the highlights.  The fun factor cannot be beat: In the self-proclaimed live-music capital of the world, music, food, people and businesses emerge and flourish!

Nicole M. Conger is a Trial Attorney in the Austin office of Rob Wiley, P.C.  She graduated summa cum laude from The University of Texas at Austin with a bachelor’s degree in business management in 2006.  Ms. Conger went on and received her law degree magna cum laude from St. Mary’s University School of Law in 2011.

“[I]n the present matter, the Court finds that Stewart alleges facts sufficient to state a claim.  Stewart alleges that Caton lifted her shirt and touched her breasts, installed cameras to look down her shirt, and made repeated comments of a sexual and/or derogatory nature.”

Stewart v. Caton, 2013 WL 4459981, at *7 (E.D. La. Aug.

“Although the City’s complaints about the alleged shortcomings in [Plaintiff]’s analysis may go to the probative value of his testimony, based on the record as a whole we conclude that there is sufficient statistical evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that the Consolidation Agreement caused the disparate impact alleged.”

City of Austin v.

“In the instant case, the differences among employees in the putative class—job classifications, descriptions, and duties—are not materially relevant to plaintiffs’ allegations.”

Behnken v. Luminant Min. Co., LLC, 2014 WL 585333 at *7 (N.D. Tex. February 14, 2014) (Fitzwater, J.).

“[An employee] sets forth the factors for similarly situated employees as follows: (1) they shared the same supervisor, (2) were subject to the same standards, and (3) engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer’s treatment of them for it.”

Hoffman v. Baylor Health

“Pretext may be shown ‘either through evidence of disparate treatment or by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is false or unworthy of credence.”

Hoffman v. Baylor Health Care System, 2014 WL 772672 at *2 (N.D. Tex. February 27, 2014) (Lindsay, J.) (quoting Jackson v. Cal-Western Packaging Corp., 602 F.3d 374, 378 (5th

“As for the allegation that Defendants willfully violated the FLSA, that matter contains questions of fact, and at this pleading stage prior to discovery the motion to dismiss it is premature.”

Adkins v. United Airlines, Inc., 2014 WL 803460 at *2 (N.D. Tex. February 28, 2014) (Lynn, J.).

“So long as a plaintiff meets the ‘minimal’ initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, she is entitled to a presumption of discrimination….  Although the precise elements of this showing will vary depending on the circumstances, the plaintiff’s burden at this stage of the case is not onerous.”

Hall v. RDSL Enterprises

“Hall presented evidence that younger employees were trained to move into positions that assumed the duties of the food prep position—a position that Hall presented evidence was being phased out of RDSL’s corporate structure. Hall further presented evidence that unlike her younger counterparts, she was not trained for this new position. This evidence is the

“The Plaintiff’s assertions that he worked over forty hours in a work week and was not paid overtime or minimum wage are not legal conclusions, but rather factual allegations that if proven give rise to a plausible claim for relief.”

Holland v. Wright, No. 1:13-cv-16, 2013 WL 5290658 at *3 (E.D. Tex. September 19,