Articles Posted in Retaliation Claims

Riley Carter

Dallas Employment Trial Lawyer Riley Carter

Employees in the food industry are often the first people to see when something is wrong. Unsafe sanitation practices, contaminated ingredients, improper storage, falsified safety records, or pressure to ignore food safety rules can put the public at serious risk. Congress recognized this reality when it passed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)—and included strong protections for employees who speak up.

If you reported food safety concerns and were punished for it, you may have legal protections and remedies under federal law.

Harjeen Zibari

Dallas Employment Trial Lawyer Harjeen Zibari

There is a general concept in civil procedure is called standing. Standing is the question of whether or not the Plaintiff bringing the claim can actually legally do so. In employment law, it seems like a pretty straightforward inquiry, but sometimes it can get pretty complicated.

Generally speaking, an employee who has been discriminated or retaliated against in a way that is defined by a statute has the most easily established standing in court. For example, a woman who is constantly subjected to sexist comments in the workplace and then fired and replaced by a male employee has standing under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to bring a case against her former employer. Whether she’ll win is another battle in and of itself, dependent on the facts, but the threshold question of whether she’ll get in the door is pretty easily answered. Or, an employee who was fired two days after requesting a reasonable accommodation similarly has standing under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as he was retaliated against for engaging in a legally protected activity: requesting an accommodation. Again, whether he’ll win is another question, but he’s able to get in the door, as he’s the appropriate person to bring the suit against the employer, as opposed to someone who just witnessed these things happen.

Cassidy Monska

Dallas Employment Trial Lawyer Cassidy Monska

Summary: This blog explains the “cat’s paw” theory of liability in employment law, which allows an employee to hold an employer accountable when a biased supervisor influences an otherwise neutral decision‑maker to take adverse action.

One of the most frustrating things employees hear after being fired or disciplined is that the person who made the final decision “wasn’t biased.” Employers often rely on that fact to argue they cannot be held responsible for discrimination or retaliation. Employment law, however, recognizes that bias does not always sit at the top of the organizational chart. This is where the “cat’s paw” theory of liability comes into play.

Rachel-Bethel-200x300

Rachel Bethel Dallas
Trial Attorney

Although Texas is an “at-will employment” state, this doctrine has important limits, especially when it comes to your employee benefits.

Federal law protects workers from being targeted for their use of health insurance, retirement plans, and other benefits. That protection comes from ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Rachel-Bethel-200x300

Rachel Bethel Dallas
Trial Attorney

No one wants to discover that their employer is knowingly defrauding the government. That sounds frightening, both to discover it and to figure out what to do about it. You might feel torn between doing the right thing and protecting your livelihood. Fortunately, federal law provides a powerful tool for workers who take action and report fraud against taxpayer-funded programs.

The False Claims Act (FCA) is aimed at addressing fraud on the U.S. government, which is surprisingly rampant. It protects workers who blow the whistle as well.

Summary: This blog briefly goes over the “adverse action” standard in Texas and some recent changes in the law in that area. It then focuses on the question of whether you should wait for an adverse action to happen before talking to a lawyer about your rights.

Roughly speaking, employment law in Texas is centered around what are called “adverse actions”: you can seek legal redress from your employer if you can identify some harm it caused to the terms or conditions of your employment.  Of course, that is separate from the critical question of why the employer did what it did, and whether that why was illegal.

I previously wrote a blog on how Texas employees no longer need to prove they suffered an “ultimate employment action” or financial harm to establish they were discriminated against.  And retaliation claims are subject to an even lower bar for adverse actions, requiring only the employee show the employer took a “materially adverse” action that would (or could) dissuade a reasonable person from engaging in legally protected activity.

This blog explains the role Human Resources actually plays in the workplace, why HR is not an employee advocate, and why Texas employees should still report workplace issues while protecting themselves through documentation and realistic expectations.

Blog Text:

Many employees believe Human Resources exists to help them, which is a totally understandable assumption. HR is the go-to for employees with just about any workplace question and is often presented as a neutral resource. But when a serious workplace issue arises, such as discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, employees often discover that HR’s role is not what they expected.

Rachel-Bethel-200x300

Rachel Bethel Dallas
Trial Attorney

Domestic violence (“DV”) does not confine itself to a victim’s home. DV hunts survivors down to factory floors, hospital units, classrooms, and office desks.

Several states have recognized the intimate link between a survivor’s physical safety and a survivor’s financial security.

For many Dallas employees, December feels like the worst time to deal with a work problem. Everyone is juggling holiday travel, office potlucks, and year-end deadlines, and it’s extremely tempting to tell yourself, “I’ll deal with that in January.” We hear this all the time. Employees want to rock around the Christmas tree, not rock the boat, and employers often count on that hesitation. Unfortunately, your workplace rights don’t take a holiday break, no matter how much we wish the law would let us hit “pause” until after New Year’s.

The truth is that waiting can have real consequences. Employment laws run on strict timelines, evidence can disappear quickly, and employers make major decisions in December that can shape your case long before the new year ever arrives. As cozy as it sounds to postpone everything until January, that delay can close doors you didn’t even know were closing.

One of the most important reasons not to put off seeking advice is the legal deadlines that apply to discrimination and retaliation claims. In Texas, employees generally have 300 days from the date of an adverse action to file with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC explains these filing rules clearly on their website. Meanwhile, state-level claims filed through the Texas Workforce Commission often have even shorter timelines. Here’s the part many employees don’t realize: the clock keeps ticking regardless of holidays, holiday parties, or your supervisor being “OOO until January 3.” If your boss retaliated against you in March or April, December might be your last chance to preserve your rights.

Cassidy Monska

Dallas Employment Trial Lawyer Cassidy Monska

If you’re experiencing discrimination or harassment at work, your first instinct may be to tell someone, but how you report it can make a significant difference in how your complaint is handled and whether you’re protected under the law.

Why Reporting Is Essential

Contact Information