Articles Posted in Discrimination

Most of the time, if an employee decides to talk to an employment attorney it is because they have been fired.  And even if reinstatement to the employee’s old job is a possibility, often when they were fired for an illegal reason they are understandably afraid of returning to the lion’s den to face retaliation.  But if you are an employee who was fired for an illegal reason and do not feel safe returning to that same employer (or your employer just refuses to take you back), it is critically important that you keep in mind your “duty to mitigate.”  This article explores some key points of that means, why it is important, and what you can do to fulfill that dutyaustin-campbell

The point of any employment lawsuit is ultimately “restorative,” to put the employee in the same place they would have been but for the illegal actions of their employer.  If feasible, that includes reinstating them to the position they lost.  But reinstatement is not always feasible, and it alone does not always fully compensate an employee for what they lost.  So, one major thing that most employment lawsuits usually ask for is compensation for lost wages (“backpay”) through the time of trial.  However, courts will not allow an employee to artificially increase what they can get out of a lawsuit by tactically increasing what the employee has lost.  Instead, courts impose a “duty to mitigate,” which means a fired employee who is asking for backpay in a lawsuit must make reasonable efforts to find and keep comparable employment.

  Continue reading ›

deontae-wherryHave you ever wondered about what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) actually does? You are not alone. Every week, I speak to my clients or potential clients about the EEOC’s role in employment disputes. This article briefly explains the EEOC process, common questions, and why you may want to hire an employment attorney to assist you through the EEOC process.

What is the EEOC?

Continue reading ›

rgb-300x191

Like many, I feel an overwhelming sense of sadness and loss following the death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Not only did she establish herself as a champion of equal rights for all, but she lived the fight herself. Smart, accomplished, and determined, she chose law school at a time when women were not welcome. During law school, she found herself often demeaned and unappreciated, being asked by the dean himself how she justified taking a seat that could have gone to a man. She would ultimately rise to the highest level of American law, the United States Supreme Court. Among its nine members, there are few who have served with so much distinction.

Continue reading ›

rasha-zeyadehIf the events of the past few months have shown us anything, it’s that Black Lives Matter, words matter, and actions must have consequences. Both spoken and in writing, the language we use has the power to inspire, unite, offend, and divide. Sometimes, the use of seemingly harmless words, or the absence of words altogether, can have an everlasting impact.

This week, I gave an hour-long presentation to HR personnel about the negative impacts of implicit bias in the workplace and how to spot and eliminate such bias. Even so, I’d be remiss to believe that implicit bias will no longer exist simply because I spoke to a group of folks for about an hour.

Continue reading ›

deontae-wherryThe biggest step is usually the first step. I am glad that you have taken the first step by scheduling an initial consultation to discuss your employment case. If you have not scheduled an initial consultation, I hope you do it soon.

Many of my clients have never had to meet with an employment attorney, so my goal is to make each client feel as comfortable as possible when meeting with me. You should not be scared about having to meet with an employment attorney. I can assure you, you have likely made the right decision.

Continue reading ›

austin-campbellIn recent decades, employers have become increasingly interested in their employees’ private lives. One question that comes up often is the extent to which employers can look into and use their employees’ medical information. The COVID-19 pandemic has only made these sorts of inquiries more common, so it is important that you as an employee understand your legal rights and responsibilities.

For starters, the default rule is that your employer cannot ask you about medical conditions or demand medical documentation for just any reason. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (and specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)) your employer can ask about medical conditions (including disabilities) or ask you to undergo a medical exam only if doing so is “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” What does that mean? Generally, your employer must reasonably believe that you have a health condition that impairs your ability to do your job or that poses a direct threat of harm to others. It is entitled only to information on those things. However, this does mean that you employer can ask for a doctor’s note for things like going out on and returning from sick leave.

Continue reading ›

rasha-zeyadehPerhaps you resigned or were terminated or laid-off. On the other hand, you may have sued your employer for discrimination or some other sort of unlawful action. Either way, one of those events caused your employer to offer you a settlement or severance agreement. In exchange for signing the agreement, you will receive a payment, but also give up your right to pursue legal action against your employer, among other things.

If you are presented with a settlement or severance agreement, it is imperative that you read the agreement carefully and, if possible, get advice from an experienced Dallas Employment Lawyer. Typically, you will be allotted 21 days to review and sign the agreement, which provides you ample time to consult with an attorney. Oftentimes, companies sneak many clauses in the agreement that may come back to haunt you. Hence, consulting with an experienced employment lawyer is important.

Continue reading ›

deontae-wherryAfter watching the 8 minutes and 46 seconds video that outraged the world, many individuals have joined in the fight for racial justice. These individuals have chosen not to be silent; they have decided to speak up and to speak out against racial inequality. The fight against systematic and institutional racism and discrimination is not solely related to police brutality, but it is embedded in every facet of our society, including in the workplace. Although the Civil Rights Act was passed more than 50 years ago, there is still great progress to be made to end workplace race discrimination.

Continue reading ›

fadi-yousefThe Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating against women on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Although the PDA has been in effect since 1978, discrimination against pregnant women in the workplace continues to be an issue. In fact, in fiscal year 2019, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received over 2700 charges of discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and collected more than $22 million dollars in monetary settlements.

Continue reading ›

rasha-zeyadehThis month the Supreme Court of the United States of America handed down one of the most long-awaited decisions of the term. On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status constitutes discrimination “because of … sex” Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that protects employees and job applicants against discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion. Before Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law, an employer could reject a job applicant or discriminate against an employee based on the applicant or employee’s race, color, national origin, religion, or sex. In fact, an employer could reject a job applicant or fire an employee or in some other way discriminate against that person because they were black or white, Muslim or Christian, a man or a woman, or German or Mexican, and it would be completely legal.

Continue reading ›

Contact Information