Home ■ Firm Profile ■ Practice Areas ■ News ■ FAQ ■ Contact

Foye Law Firm image

Crawford v. Metropolitan Government

The United States Supreme Court in an unanimous ruling stated that employees who raise concerns about discrimination or harassment in an internal investigation are protected from retaliation under Title VII's anti-retaliation clause. The issue involved in the case was whether an employees cooperation in an internal investigation is protected under either the opposition or participation clauses of Section 704 of Title VII. The court made it clear that an employee who made allegations of inappropriate conduct by a supervisor during a company investigation of that supervisor, and who was later discharged, had stated a retaliation claim even though the employee did not initiate a complaint and her participation was limited to being interviewed during the internal investigation.

Unemployed Texans Granted Additional $25 Per Week in UI Benefits

Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) will increase weekly unemployment benefits by $25 for eligible Texans beginning February 22, 2009. The increase is effective for initial claims filed through December 26, 2009. The increase is unemployment is being provided through federal funding, and employers will not be charged the additional funds. Claimants do not need to call or take any additional action to receive the additional amounts; however, they should continue requesting payment as scheduled.

DHS to revive No-Match Regulations

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff announced on October 23rd that the Administration will ask a federal judge to lift a stay on new federal no-match regulations, a move that has angered both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). If DHS is successful in reviving the regulation, the government could begin mailing no-match notices to an estimated 140,000 employers regarding suspect Social Security numbers and immigration documents.

Texas Supreme court rehears arguments in Entergy Gulf States Inc. v. John Summers

The Texas Supreme court reheard arguments for Entergy Gulf States Inc. v. John Summers. The arguments focused on whether a premises owner can be a contractor for workers' compensation purposes. The case dealt with the issue of whether a premises owner who hires an independent contractor and provides workers' compensation insurance for the contractor's employees can be a "statutory employer" for workers compensation purposes. The Texas Supreme Court in its previous decision in the case held that a premises owner can be a general contractor. This meant that the premises owner would be protected from a negligence suit by an injured employees. The court has reheard arguments on its previous decision, but has not yet made a ruling on whether or not it will uphold or overturn that decision.

Changes to the ADA: Take Two

October 11, 2008

After being transferred to a lesser job, the employee sued under the ADA, claiming in part that the employer failed to engage in an "interactive" process with him concerning his disability and failed to provide a reasonable accommodation.

These two concepts go hand-in-hand. In the typical case, the employee first raises the need for an accommodation. The ADA (both old and new) requires the employer to then engage in a dialogue with the employee to determine what type of accommodation would be effective.

ADA Changes: What HR Professionals and Employers Need to Know

An amendment to the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) likely will mean that more employees will be considered disabled under the law – a development that could prompt more people to seek workplace accommodations, and at least initially, to file more lawsuits...

Texas Non-Compete Agreements: Staples, Inc. v. Sandler

In Staples, Inc. v. Sandler, the federal court in Dallas held that an employer need not provide confidential information that rises to the level of trade secrets to have an enforceable covenant not to compete. In Staples, the defendant, Sandler, was provided with confidential information about the company that was not readily available to the public. However, this information was not something that would constitute "trade secrets of the highest order." But, the court confirmed that the confidential information given by Staples to Sandler was sufficient consider for the non-compete agreement. Staples had provide Sandler with "access to cost margins, pricing lists, sales figures, and assorted business information, including customer information." The court, also, went on to hold that employers should not assume that by simply "requiring an employee to enter an access password does not make all information behind the password in this context."

Economist: Bailout bill is only the beginning Texas legislature...

October 08, 2008

Michael W. Brandl is a senior lecturer in the department of finance at the University of Texas at Austin’s McCombs School of Business. The day after President Bush signed the $700 billion financial bailout package, he was in Dallas to teach Managerial Economics as part of the Texas MBA at Dallas/Fort Worth program. The Business Press’ Robert Francis spoke to him about recent economic issues.

A bipartisan group of senators on Tuesday proposed a bill to require employers that offer health insurance to disclose to employees the amount spent on their premiums, CQ Today reports.

Employers to Shed More Jobs
Fri, 10/03/2008

Credit woes and large job losses spell a coming interest rate cut, but the economy will keep stumbling.
Read More

Changes to Covenant Not to Compete (Non-Compete) Law in Texas

The Texas Supreme Court in Alex Sheshunoff Management Services, L.P., v. Kenneth Johnson and Strunk & Associates, L.P., modified its 1994 holding in Light v. Centel Cellular. The Texas Supreme Court holding does not completely overrule the holding in the Light case, but it does change part of the holding.

Justice Don Willet states in the opinion: "In this case we revisit the Court's 1994 decision in Light v. Centel Cellular Co. and again consider the enforceability of covenants not to compete in the context of at-will employment. The question today is whether an at will employee who signs a non-compete covenant is bound by that agreement if, at the time the agreement is made, the employer has no corresponding enforceable obligation. Under Light, the answer to that question was always "no." Today, we modify our holding in Light and hold that an at-will employee's non-compete covenant becomes enforceable when the employer performs the promises it made in exchange for the covenant. In so holding, we disagree with the language in Light stating that Covenant Not to Compete Act requires the agreement containing the covenant to be enforceable the instant the agreement is made."

To read the entire opinion click on the following link:
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2006/oct/031050.htm

Texas Non-Compete Agreements: Staples, Inc. v. Sandler

Economist: Bailout bill is only the beginning Texas legislature...

Employers Required To Disclose Amount Spent On Employee Health ... Wed, 10/08/2008

A bipartisan group of senators on Tuesday proposed a bill to require employers that offer health insurance to disclose to employees the amount spent on their premiums, CQ Today reports.

Read More

Employers to Shed More Jobs Fri, 10/03/2008

Credit woes and large job losses spell a coming interest rate cut, but the economy will keep stumbling. Read More

Changes to Covenant Not to Compete (Non-Compete) Law in Texas

Employers Required To Disclose Amount Spent On Employee Health ...
Wed, 10/08/2008

Employers to Shed More Jobs
Fri, 10/03/2008

Credit woes and large job losses spell a coming interest rate cut, but the economy will keep stumbling.
Read More