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 to help them through these troubling times. As we enter the gradual re-opening of businesses, a large swath of pressing questions presents itself to many workers that are worried about what could be seen as a premature action in light of the health risks. I will aim to shed light on two major questions that are frequently posed to us.
Continue Reading What The Reopening of Businesses Could Mean For Your Unemployment Benefits And Work From Home Status
When the Silence is Broken, and the Secret is Out (Part 1)
Nearly 19.7 million Americans have something in common. Of those millions, those in the workforce keep their pain a secret – the idea of their employers finding out fills them with fear.
Sadly, that fear is not misplaced.
For millions, the battle with alcoholism and drug addiction is a daily fight. And because of the stigmas attached to these disabilities, people suffer in silence.
But what happens when the silence is broken, and the secret is out?
When an employee realizes they need help, they don’t know what steps to take. But they should act early. This is especially true if the employee realizes their work attendance or performance is suffering, or pressures on the job are having a negative effect on them.
Continue Reading When the Silence is Broken, and the Secret is Out (Part 1)
COVID-19 is an important reminder why we fight for employee rights
In the face of a global pandemic, workplaces as we know them have drastically changed. Working from home has become common place, jobs that were undervalued in our society are now seen as essential, and workplaces once seen as safe now have increasing health and safety risks. The circumstances in this essentially unprecedented time serve as an important reminder to why we fight for the rights of workers and why it is so important to continue advancing that fight.
Continue Reading COVID-19 is an important reminder why we fight for employee rights
Undisputed allegations that an employee was subjected to intentional sabotage in the workplace, which included forcing the employee to operate a two person machine by herself and placing heavy materials she needed to work out of her reach, is enough to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.
“Lopez responds that she suffered the following adverse employment actions as a result of her complaints: (1) she became the subject of actual sabotage in the workplace; (2) she was given a machine that usually had two operators, but she was supposed to operate it alone; (3) the men in the workplace were threatened not
An employee being seven months into her pregnancy, coupled with her supervisor’s awareness of her pregnancy and consequent FMLA leave request, is enough to raise a genuine dispute of material fact whether she was terminated because of the leave request.
“The Defendants also claims [sic] that the Plaintiff could not satisfy the third prong of the prima facie case [for FMLA retaliation] and could not establish a causal connection that her pregnancy caused her to get fired. The Defendants contend that there is no indication [Defendant] was aware that the Plaintiff was pregnant or wanted
An employee who can perform the essential functions of her job with the use of a cane is a qualified individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
“A ‘qualified individual’ means ‘an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodations, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.’ In Plaintiff’s Third Amended and Restated Complaint, Plaintiff adds the allegation that she ‘required the cane to perform the tasks within the course and scope of employment at
Evidence that a plaintiff worked offsite and from home via telecommunication to the employer’s corporate office which has more than 50 employees raises a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she is an eligible employee under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
“The plaintiff attested that, as a Technical Support Specialist, she worked offsite and from home through telecommunication and reported to the Tampa, Florida corporate office, which has more than 50 employees . . . . Here, the plaintiff provides sufficient evidence to support her claim that she is an eligible employee under the FMLA. Because
Emails from non-lawyer employees of a company hired to provide legal and regulatory guidance to that company’s customer are not protected by attorney-client privilege.
“[Defendant] was not acting as AUM’s agent in any respect. Instead, [Defendant] was AUM’s customer. The proper description of the facts here is not that [Defendant] was acting as an agent of AUM, and AUM was passing on legal advice to [Defendant] in the context of a principal-agent relationship; rather, [Defendant] was AUM’s customer, and
There is no requirement that employees of open-enrollment charter schools exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to the Texas Education Code before filing suit for breach of contract.
“[D]espite there being instances, such as in Section 12.1056(d), where an open- enrollment charter school is treated in the same manner as a school district, nothing in the Texas Education Code or the common law dictates that open-enrollment charter schools and school districts are universally equivalent.”
“Section 7.057(a)(2)(B) sets forth the process by which
Where an investigation revealed that there was overbilling for activities such as arriving late, leaving early, and breaks that were not permitted by the contract between the company and its customer, there is sufficient evidence that the acts occurred.
“[The investigator] testified that a portion of the hours she found Dow to have been overbilled was in the form of employees arriving late, leaving early, and taking breaks. (Id. at pp. 113—15). [The investigator] stated that the contract between Axion and Dow did not permit Axion to bill Dow for its employees’ breaks.