(915) 996-9798

News Wrongful Termination, Workers' Compensation and Work Injuries

In a discrimination case an employer can sometimes avoid liability if it takes action to protect the employee and stop the harassment. However the employer must do diligently and in a expedient manner.

Written by Mr. Roger Davie on Friday, 25 Nov 2016.

In a discrimination case an employer can avoid liability for harassment by showing that it took proper and reasonable remedial action in response to an employee’s complaint about sexual harassment. However, this defense failed for the employer in River Oaks L-M. Inc. v. Vinton-Duarte, 469 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015). Despite the employee’s repeated contacts with the human resources department about her sexual harassment complaint, the company delayed inve [read more]

Even if your company violates their own policies and procedures that does not mean they are liable for wrongful termination.

Written by Mr. Roger Davie on Friday, 25 Nov 2016.

In Houston Methodist San Jacinto Hospital v. Ford, 483 S.W.3d 588 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015),  the employee claimed that she was being sexually harassed.  Under the law of sexual harassment the sexual harassment must be either sever or pervasive.  The employee claimed that while this was the "legal" standard the companies own policies and procedures lowered that standard so that sexual harassment included behavior that was below "severe and pervasive.&nbs [read more]

If your sexual harasser uses the same language to men and women one Texas Court says that's not sexual harassment.

Written by Mr. Roger Davie on Thursday, 24 Nov 2016.

In Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Whitman, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2016 WL 2854149 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2016). the plaintiff/employee, a woman, alleged sexual harassment based on repeated comments by other women in the workplace. The court of appeals held that the aggrieved employee's case should be dismissed  because her case lacked any evidence that the alleged harassers (other women) were motivated by sexual attraction or that they singled out [read more]

Offensive behavior is not necessarily sexual harassment, even if it is sexually offensive, unless it is “because of sex.”

Written by Mr. Roger Davie on Thursday, 24 Nov 2016.

In Alamo Heights Independent School District v. Clark, 2015 WL 6163252 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015), one female coach offended another—the employee who sued—by frequent comments about the her sexual anatomy. The Trial Judge  dismissed the employees claim of sexual harassment  on the employers argument that the harasser used the same behavior toward many employees, male and female, and that the offensive behavior was not “because of” the plaintiff’s sex. [read more]

Are unpaid interns covered for sexual harassment?

Written by Mr. Roger Davie on Thursday, 24 Nov 2016.

In the past unpaid Interns were not always covered by discrimination laws because they were not necessarily considered employees under State or Federal Discrimination laws. . There can be a question whether an unpaid intern is an “employee” protected by Chapter 21 or Title VII, but in the future an intern’s status as an employee or non-employee might not matter for purposes of sexual harassment law. Under newly enacted Tex. Labor Code § 21.1065, an unpaid intern gains protection from se [read more]

Your being harassed at work but you have not been fired. Can you sue for wrongful termination? Maybe not.

Written by Mr. Roger Davie on Wednesday, 23 Nov 2016.

You file a complaint of discrimination from your supervisor with the EEOC or your employers HR department. Your supervisor starts to retaliate by harassing you. Do you have a case of retaliation? In the recent case of   Esparza v. University of Texas at El Paso, __ S.W.3d ___, 2015 WL 4711612 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2015), the El Paso Court of Appeals  rejected the employee's retaliatory harassment claim, finding that the employer’s “micromanagem [read more]

Does Texas law cover you if you suffer retaliation after you have been fired or left employment including bad references?

Written by Mr. Roger Davie on Wednesday, 23 Nov 2016.

In a major opinion In Burlington N. & S.F.R. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision prohibits retaliation by adverse employment or non-employment actions, including post-employment actions (such as adverse job references). This was a major victory for employees because it kept employers from retaliating against employees by giving them bad references if they filed a claim of discrimination with the EEOC (or with the [read more]

You have a right to sue from the EEOC but no lawyer will help you -- Why?

Written by Mr. Roger Davie on Wednesday, 23 Nov 2016.

As an El Paso employment lawyer I often have people call me who have a "Right to Sue" from the EEOC but can't find a lawyer to help them.  Why?   First, you must understand that for most wrongful termination claims you can file a claim under both Texas State Law or under Federal Law.  The laws to some degree mirror each other but the time limits to file a lawsuit vary dramatically.  Under Federal law for most discrimination claims from the EEOC you must file a [read more]

When you go to the EEOC be careful to check the box that say "I want to file a charge"

Written by Mr. Roger Davie on Wednesday, 23 Nov 2016.

When you go to the EEOC you will fill out an intake questionnaire.  During that process you will be asked to check one of two boxes: Box 1:  I want to file a charge of discrimination”; and Box 2 “I want to talk to an EEOC employee before deciding whether to file a charge of discrimination. I understand that by checking this box, I have not filed a charge with the EEOC”. If you check the second box you have not filed a charge of discrimination.  This can have dev [read more]

You better make sure all your discrimination claims are included in the EEOC Charge.

Written by Mr. Roger Davie on Tuesday, 22 Nov 2016.

In the case of Davis v. Fort Bend County, 2016 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 113510 (S.D. Tex. 2016) a U.S. District Court held that the employee could not sue for religious discrimination because it was not put in his original charge.  This was an especially harsh opinion because the employee went to the EEOC to amend his charge to add religious discrimination and it was added to his intake questionnaire but not to his charge.  Therefore his claim was dismissed.  As an [read more]