The Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1 to November 30 each year. This year, in mid-June, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published the “Hurricane eMatrix,” a hazard exposure and risk assessment tool that provides employers with a host of suggestions and guidance to prepare for hurricane season, and, perhaps more importantly, to
“There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics” has famously been attributed to Mark Twain, who himself attributed it to British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. Data, however, never lies.
This year, as has been the case the past six years, January brings two items from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that almost all employers will want to keep in mind. One is an adjustment to the penalties OSHA can impose for a violation of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act and the other is a requirement to post injury and illness records.
Though the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in its entirety in Golden Glow Tanning Salon, Inc. v. City of Columbus, Mississippi, Judge James C. Ho’s concurrence raised an interesting issue of whether there is an unenumerated constitutional right to work that could limit the government’s ability to regulate business.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling concerning the discharge of Michael Harris from his position with the City of Schertz, Texas, as the city marshal. In doing so, the Fifth Circuit gave a bit more clarity on the situations in which comments made by an employer or agent of an employer amount to discriminatory pretext.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas recently denied an employer’s motion for summary judgment when its alleged shifting reasons for terminating the plaintiff’s employment contract raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether those reasons were a pretext for discrimination and/or retaliation.
Effective September 1, 2021, any employer that employs “one or more employees” or that “acts directly in the interests of an employer in relation to an employee” will be considered an employer under Texas law and subject to a heightened level of scrutiny for sexual harassment claims under Texas law. The new law is a significant change from the current standard, which shields employers with fewer than 15 employees from liability regarding sexual harassment claims.
