The City of San Antonio’s Sick and Safe Leave ordinance has been enjoined. The ordinance was originally scheduled to go into effect on August 1, 2019, but on July 24, 2019, a Texas state court delayed implementation until December 1, 2019, pending a ruling on a motion for temporary injunction filed by business groups and the state.
In response to a lawsuit filed by a number of San Antonio business groups, the San Antonio City Council approved certain revisions to the city’s paid sick leave (PSL) ordinance, including renaming it the Sick and Safe Leave (SSL) ordinance. The SSL ordinance is scheduled to become effective on December 1, 2019.
On August 6, 2019, in State of Texas v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) overstepped its limited rulemaking and enforcement power when it issued its 2012 Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
On July 30, 2019, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking to enjoin the City of Dallas’s paid sick leave ordinance, which is set to take effect on August 1, 2019.
On July 24, 2019, a Bexar County district court judge entered an order delaying the implementation of the San Antonio paid sick leave (PSL) ordinance from its current August 1, 2019 date to December 1, 2019. The order represented a compromise between the City of San Antonio and a coalition of San Antonio business groups that filed suit against the city on July 15.
The Texas Legislature’s 86th session adjourned on May 27, 2019, and there is little likelihood that the governor will call a special session. The legislature primarily focused on educational reforms this year. Regarding employment matters, most observers expected the legislature to adopt laws preempting any attempt by municipalities to pass paid sick leave laws. While the legislature failed to pass any such law, they did pass other laws impacting the employer-employee relationship.
Despite broad-based support, the Texas Legislature failed to pass a law preempting the type of paid sick leave ordinances enacted in Austin, San Antonio, and most recently Dallas before the end of its regular session on May 27, 2019. While a Texas court of appeal enjoined implementation of Austin’s paid sick leave ordinance and later ruled it unconstitutional, no litigation has been filed concerning the San Antonio and Dallas ordinances. Accordingly, companies with employees in San Antonio and Dallas may want to review their current policies to ensure compliance with these ordinances, both of which will take effect for most employers on August 1, 2019.
On April 24, 2019, the Dallas City Council passed an ordinance requiring employers to provide paid sick leave beginning as early as August 1, 2019. Dallas is the third Texas city (after Austin and San Antonio) to pass such an ordinance.
The issue of whether workers who utilize online digital platforms to obtain business and deliver services to third parties are employees or independent contractors has already been subject to much debate and litigation. In the growing gig economy, questions surrounding these issues can create uncertainty for both businesses and gig workers.
In Delaronde v. Legend Classic Homes, Ltd., No. 17-20027 (January 18, 2018), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s denial of an employer’s post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding that the jury had been presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that sex discrimination had motivated the transfer of a female sales associate for a Houston-area home builder from a successful community where she had achieved more than $3 million in sales to a very challenging community where the home prices were the lowest of any of the builder’s properties.
The Texas Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District recently reversed and remanded a judgment in favor of an employer on an employee’s claim of retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court found there to be a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a change in the employer’s stated overtime policy, which was implemented after the employee filed an overtime lawsuit against the employer and applied only to that specific employee, constituted a materially adverse employment action.
Maintaining a company anti-harassment policy on a bulletin board and website is not enough to avoid liability for sexual discrimination according to a recent decision. On July 20, 2016, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals revived a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a school board’s clerical employee who alleged inappropriate comments and touching from a manager. While the board’s policy manual contained reasonable policy and complaint procedures to prevent harassment, the court found evidence the board made insufficient efforts to train the alleged harasser and other employees about such policies. This case clarifies the scope of an important affirmative defense for employers and demonstrates the importance of clearly explaining policies to employees.
In a case of first impression, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 permits employment discrimination suits by independent government contractors. In Flynn v. Distinctive Home Care, Inc., the court held that unlike the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act did not require that the defendant be the plaintiff’s “employer.”
On December 4, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court vacated a jury verdict in favor of a former employee who had alleged workers’ compensation retaliation, rendering judgment in favor of the employer and finding that the employee had not presented evidence that his termination had resulted from anything other than the uniform enforcement of a neutral absence control policy.
In Bodle v. TXL Mortgage Corp., No. 14-20224 (June 1, 2015), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a generic, broad-form settlement release between an employer and two of its former employees did not bar those employees’ subsequent lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for alleged overtime violations.
As a general rule, a party who has not been named in a charge filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) may not be sued under Title VII. For some employees, complying with this general rule may be easy. With the growing complexity of corporate ownership structures, however, an employee may misidentify his or her employer in filing a charge.
An opinion out of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals demonstrates why employers need to be weary of developing a practice of oral agreements in regards to compensation upon which at-will employees may detrimentally rely. The court affirmed a judgment in excess of $1.1 million in favor of a former at-will…..
The Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA or the Act) takes effect on September 1, 2013, and will apply to the theft of trade secrets occurring on or after that date. While trade secrets have long received protection under Texas common law, TUTSA will provide companies with additional safeguards and will expand the available legal remedies to address actual and anticipated harm.
It is 4:00 p.m. on a Friday afternoon. You just learned that your top-performing salesman resigned his position to accept employment with a direct competitor. You quickly locate the salesman’s personnel file to determine whether he signed a non-compete or similar restrictive covenant agreement. Much to your dismay, you see…..