Texas Employment Lawyer

Texas Employment Lawyer

Discrimination, Retaliation, Wrongful Termination, and Unpaid Wages

Texas Toll Free (800) 313-4020
Dallas-Fort Worth Area (214) 528-6500
Austin (512) 271-5527

Search Results for:

Alleging the underlying facts and the key players at issue is enough to sufficiently state a claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause due to race-based termination and sexual harassment.

Posted in Race Discrimination, Sexual Harassment

“In the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that (a) they are members of a protected class; (b) they were subjected to intentional discriminatory treatment during their employment with SLU; (c) similarly situated white employees were treated differently; (d) they were terminated due to their race; (e) Gandolfo was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment that was willfully… Continue Reading

Fact issue exists over whether Defendant’s decision to end assignment of Plaintiff employed by third party based on unlawful motive satisfies employment relationship requirement of Texas employment discrimination laws.

Posted in Sexual Harassment

“[W]e agree with Ochoa that the evidence establishes a fact issue as to  and that these opportunities were denied or interfered with based on unlawful criteria… After Ochoa reported sexual harassment to Johnson, he discussed Ochoa’s sexual harassment allegations with … Guerra … Guerra then directed Johnson to end Ochoa’s assignment at UTEP on the… Continue Reading

Success is the most critical “Johnson” factor for a prevailing plaintiff when a Judge adjusts the lodestar amount, but success is not measured solely on the recovery of monetary damages.

Posted in Sexual Harassment

“[A] lawsuit spawning some remedial measures to prevent a [civil rights violation “recurrence” is considered success when adjusting the lodestar. Here, the employer “distributing an employment manual to its employees containing its sexual harassment policy and … the company now [having] discussions with management to prevent sexual harassment” is considered success.  Damages recovered in this… Continue Reading

Prior congenial contact with alleged harasser is permissible if at some point the conduct becomes uninvited.

Posted in Sexual Harassment

“Contravening the heavy weight of this inference is the fact that the text messages at some point changed, indicating [Plaintiff]’s strong desire that [harasser] stop contacting her.  This suggests that [harasser]’s overtures were later uninvited.” Bourgeois v. Matrana’s Produce, 2013 WL 4525652 at *6 (E.D. La. August 30, 2013) (Roby, J.).… Continue Reading

An employer is not entitled to the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense as a matter of law where other supervisors were aware of the conduct and failed to report it in accordance with employer’s policies and procedure or where the employee is not provided any assurances as to how “no contact” with the harasser will be enforced.

Posted in Sexual Harassment

“Plaintiff testified that because she was provided no assurances about how no contact with [the harasser] was going to be enforced and [the harasser] was not disciplined in any manner, she had no choice but to accept the transfer.  A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the employer exercised reasonable care to… Continue Reading

Under the requisite totality of the circumstances, a material fact issue exists on whether the comments and actions of an employer were severe or pervasive.

Posted in Discrimination, Sexual Harassment

“A fact issue exists as to whether conduct is severe or pervasive where an employee provides evidence that the harasser ‘sought her out, gave her hugs, invited her to drinks, took a photo of her and showed it to his subordinate, used her cell phone and added him to her Facebook ‘friends,’ and showed her… Continue Reading

An employee does not have to identify the specific instances of sexual harassment or retaliation in the charge of discrimination to exhaust administrative remedies.

Posted in Discrimination, Retaliation, Sexual Harassment

“Plaintiff provided notice to the TWC that Dr. Decherd was sexually harassing her and that she complained to her supervisor of the alleged conduct. Plaintiff was not required to specifically detail each and every instance of sexually harassing conduct allegedly engaged in by Dr. Decherd.” Sanders v. Christus Santa Rosa PASC, 13-CV-250, 2014 WL 201071… Continue Reading