Unfortunately, we are living in a day and age when a lot of people are being laid off, furloughed, or terminated. According to an article in the Texas Tribune, more than 1.5 million workers in Texas filed for unemployment benefits with the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) from mid-March to mid-April. This is a staggering
Dangers and Pitfalls of Blindly Signing an Employment Contract
We have all been there. You have gotten the job offer, and all that is left to do is sign the employment agreement. But before you sign that agreement, be sure to read it. In order to properly decide what is the best decision for you to make requires you to weigh all the available
An employer’s proffer of its own policy is not competent in itself as evidence the policy was followed.
“With regard to the letter, [Plaintiff]’s allegation is that he asked Chief Justice Jefferson to keep the letter confidential, not that Chief Justice Jefferson actually did so. In fact, [Defendant alleged that Chief Justice Jefferson did not answer the letter himself, establishing that the letter had not remained confidential. With regard to the disciplinary complaint,
When pleading knowledge, it is enough to plead simply that the bad actor knew and this this precipitated the bad acts.
“[Plaintiff was not required to allege how [Defendant] knew of the letter and complaint, only that [Defendant] knew. Having done so, he has sufficiently pleaded that his letter and his disciplinary complaint precipitated [Defendant]’s allegedly untoward conduct.” Anderson, 2016 WL 6647759, at *5 (footnotes omitted).
A plaintiff’s own assertions about his official job duties can plausibly establish that his actions were outside the course and scope of his job duties.
“In the context of Garcetti‘s clear instruction, [Plaintiff]’s letter and disciplinary complaint were not created pursuant to his official duties. It is useful to note that [Plaintiff]’s supervisor, Vela, did not ask him, much less require him, to send the letter or to file the disciplinary complaint. [Plaintiff] expressly alleged that he did so
In a collective FLSA action, an employee’s testimony that they worked overtime voluntarily and were satisfied with their pay does not create a genuine dispute of material fact when other employees were indisputably denied overtime wages.
“[The] declarations and timesheets [produced by Plaintiff] establish that there were weeks in which [Defendant’s] employees worked more than forty hours, and [two employees] both state in their declarations that they were not paid an overtime rate for this work. . . . [N]othing in [another employee’s] declaration refutes Plaintiff’s claim that employees often worked
To win summary judgment on the issue of whether overtime requirements were violated, the plaintiff in a certified collective FLSA action only has to show that some employees have claims, not necessarily all employees or even themselves.
“The only other argument Defendants make as to this issue is to point out that the evidence presented by Plaintiff only speaks to the overtime claims of [two other employees], and does not establish the claims of Plaintiff herself or the other employees she represents in the collective action. . . . Such a collective
Employees’ use of goods and materials produced outside the state as part of their jobs creates a a genuine dispute of material fact whether their employer is an “enterprise engaged in interstate commerce” under the FLSA.
“Therefore, because Defendants have pointed only to her lack of evidence, to defeat summary judgment, Plaintiff must adduce evidence that goods or materials she or the collective plaintiffs she represents handled or worked on during their employment with [Defendant] moved in or were produced for interstate commerce. [Plaintiff] has put forward evidence to show that
Allegations that an employer knew about the FLSA’s pay requirements and recklessly failed to investigate whether its wage practices complied with the FLSA are sufficient to state a claim that an employer’s violation of the FLSA was willful.
A violation is willful if the employer ‘either knew or showed reckless disregard for…whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute.’ Plaintiff claims Defendant acted willfully and intentionally because Defendant knew of the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime requirements, yet ‘recklessly failed to investigate’ whether its payroll practices were in accordance with the FLSA. The
Allegations that an employee worked an average of 70 hours per week over a nearly fourteen-month period are sufficient to state a claim for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA.
“Defendant also argues the Complaint should be dismissed because it does not identify a week during which Plaintiff worked more than forty hours and was not properly compensated for overtime. The Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately pleaded his overtime claim. He alleged that he worked on average seventy hours per week from December 3,