texas law

Fair Labor Standards —White Collar Exemption—Expert Witness Testimony.

Fair Labor Standards —White Collar Exemption—Expert Witness Testimony. Beck v. Access E Forms, LP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192741 (E.D. Tex. 2017). The district court granted the employer’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s expert witness testimony. The expert offered legal analysis and conclusions about the applicability of a white collar exemption for the plaintiff, but […]

Fair Labor Standards —White Collar Exemption—Expert Witness Testimony. Read More »

​Title VII—Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies—What Constitutes a “Charge.”

Title VII—Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies—What Constitutes a “Charge.” Gonzales v. Pan American Laboratories, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173899 (N.D. Tex. 2017). The plaintiff’s submission of a signed intake questionnaire and narrative to the EEOC did not satisfy the requirement of a verified charge of discrimination. Amon other things, the employer did not receive notice

​Title VII—Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies—What Constitutes a “Charge.” Read More »

Title VII—Chapter 21—Limitations Period—Relation-Back Doctrine.

Barrett v. American Airlines, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 21336 (5th Cir. 2017) (unpublished). After completing administrative proceedings the plaintiff filed a Chapter 21 discrimination claim in a state court alleging only state law claims. But the state law claim was barred because it was not filed within two years of the filing of the

Title VII—Chapter 21—Limitations Period—Relation-Back Doctrine. Read More »

EEOC—Subpoena—Attorney-Client Privilege.

EEOC v. BDO USA, L.L.P., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 23067 (5th Cir. 2017). The EEOC subpoenaed certain documents and the employer asserted that some of the documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege because they involved communications between a corporate employee and the corporation’s attorney. The district court granted the employer’s motion for a protective

EEOC—Subpoena—Attorney-Client Privilege. Read More »

ADA—Prohibited Inquiries.

Mir v. L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, L.P., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185426 (N.D. Tex. 2017). There was an issue of fact precluding summary judgement with respect to the plaintiff’s ADA improper inquiry claim, where the plaintiff walked with a limp and used a cane as a result of an impairment, the employer interviewed the plaintiff

ADA—Prohibited Inquiries. Read More »

Americans with Disabilities Act—Prescription Medications—Drug Testing

Barnard v. L-3 Communications Integrated Systems L.P., 2017 WL 3726764 (N.D. Tex. 2017)—This case is an example of a growing issue in employment: drug testing for lawful prescription medications. The Americans with Disabilities Act does not prohibit drug testing for “illegal” drug use. Moreover, it allows post hiring medical examinations and inquiries that are job

Americans with Disabilities Act—Prescription Medications—Drug Testing Read More »

It is very dangerous to secretly record a conversation you are not a party to; in fact it is probably a felony!

The highest criminal court in Texas (equal to the Texas Supreme Court — The Court of Criminal Appeals); held that it was a felony for a parent to get her child to sneak into a locker room and record the half-time speech. Now it must be noted that the child did not stay and in

It is very dangerous to secretly record a conversation you are not a party to; in fact it is probably a felony! Read More »

Texas Supreme Court holds that “Sex Talk” between same sex employees by itself is not discrimination

Alamo Heights Independent School District v. Clark, 544 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. 2018) The Texas Supreme Court stated that harassment is illegal “discrimination” only if it is “because of” sex or some other protected characteristic. The Court held that harassment that is merely “about” sex is not, standing alone, sex “discrimination.” Thus sex talk that is

Texas Supreme Court holds that “Sex Talk” between same sex employees by itself is not discrimination Read More »

Truck drivers are not allowed overtime if their trucks are over a certain weight, but they, not the employer must prove the weight of the vehicles.

Employees subject to certain Department of Transportation standards under the Motor Carrier Act are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements, but the exemption depends on details including the weight of the vehicle a driver operates. The Fifth Circuit held that a plaintiff driver bears the burden of proving the weight of the motor vehicle, and

Truck drivers are not allowed overtime if their trucks are over a certain weight, but they, not the employer must prove the weight of the vehicles. Read More »

Scroll to Top