In recent years, remote and hybrid work have become a normal part of many employees’ lives. For some, it has offered flexibility, improved health, and a better work-life balance. But along with this shift has come a dangerous myth — that workers lose legal protections once they are out of the physical office. As Texas
In employment law, the concept of pretext refers to a false or fabricated reason given by an employer to justify an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or refusal to promote, when the real motivation is discriminatory or otherwise unlawful. Courts scrutinize the employer’s stated reason to determine whether it is merely a cover-up
As Halloween approaches, most of us expect a few harmless scares — maybe a jumpy horror movie or a haunted house. But for employees, there are far scarier things lurking in the workplace than ghosts and goblins. We’re talking about employer mistakes that can lead to legal nightmares — wage theft, discrimination, retaliation, and more.
Age discrimination is an unfortunate reality that many workers eventually face. Federal and Texas laws provide protections to ensure that workers over the age of 40 are treated fairly in the workplace. This blog will explore these protections, highlight warning signs of age discrimination, and offer tips on addressing
My birthday is this week. I turn 40. That means I’m now in a protected class! The older worker class. So as I continue the slow walk up the stony steps towards the box, I thought I’d talk about the ADEA.
Age discrimination in the workplace is a pervasive issue
Summary:
With Layoffs on the rise, it has put a palpable amount of pressure on workers around the country. Turning a season of cheer into one of stress and uncertainty. There are many laws that are in play that govern how an employer must go about
“Although this evidence on its own likely would not support an inference of pretext, a rational juror could conclude that [Defendant’s] failure to re-hire these employees on a full-time basis further weakens the credibility of [Defendant’s] proffered rationale for not hiring [Plaintiff], thus buttressing a reasonable inference that the failure to rehire [Plaintiff] was based
“[W]e have recognized that subjective hiring criteria “ ‘provide opportunities for unlawful discrimination’ because the criteria itself may be pretext for age discrimination.” Id. at 11, citing Medina v. Ramsey Steel Co., 238 F.3d 674, 681 (5th Cir.2001) (quoting Lindsey v. Prive Corp., 987 F.2d 324, 327 (5th Cir.1993)).
Stennett v. Tupelo
“While the district court cites cases for the propositions made by an applicant and has no duty to verify information, it is worth noting that Thomas was not even asked about his education during the interview.”
E.E.O.C. v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Ops. Co., 537 Fed. Appx. 437, 446(5th Cir. July 26, 2013) (Davis, Graves, and Higginson,
“As we have noted, while a showing that a plaintiff is clearly better qualified is one way of demonstrating that the employer’s explanation is a pretext, it is not the only way … the question is whether the assessment, even if incorrect, was the real reason for the action.”
E.E.O.C. v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Ops. Co.,
