Supreme Court of Texas Agrees to Hear Two Employment Cases

Posted on February 28, 2011 by Russell Cawyer

The Supreme Court of Texas has agreed to hear argument in two employment cases. 

In Prairie View A&M University v. Diljit K. Chatha, (No. 10-353) the Court agreed to consider whether the 180-day statute of limitations for a government employee’s complaint about discriminatory pay begins from the date of the first paycheck reflecting the decision or the (earlier) date on which the employee was informed of the decision.

In El Apple I, Ltd. v. Myriam Olivas, (No. 10-0490), the Court will consider the appropriate manner of calculating attorney's fees of a prevailing party in a discrimination case.   

H/T to the Supreme Court of Texas Blog.

Tags: , , , ,

Social Media Exposes Another Employee's Lack of Judgment

Posted on February 25, 2011 by Russell Cawyer

In another example of social media exposing an employee's lack of judgment, the Washington Post reports that an Indiana assistant attorney general was discharged for tweeting that police should "use live ammunition" when clearing protesters outside the Wisconsin state capital.

Social media doesn't cause employee lapses in judgment; it merely exposes them.  Perhaps the best Social Media policy is the simplest: "Use good judgment."

Molly DiBianca identifies other examples of discipline at the The Delaware Employment Law Blog:

Employee’s Fake Jury-Duty Leave Busted via Facebook

District Attorney's Sexting Is a Lesson for Employers

Use Twitter, Get Fired (Discussing the Philadelphia Eagles' Employee terminated for his tweet)

Tags: , , ,

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

Posted on February 23, 2011 by Russell Cawyer

If I had a dollar for every time I reminded a client that "no good deed goes unpunished," my childrens' college funds would be flush and I'd be planning to retire early.  The recent case of Terwilliger v. Howard Mem. Hosp. (W.D. Ark. 1/27/2011) reminds us that employees will often attempt to ensure that "no good deed goes unpunished" and employers are often "darned if they do and darned if they don't."

Fellow bloggers have comprehensively covered Terwilliger (See Ohio Employer's Law Blog, The FMLA Blog, FMLA Insights, Employment Law Matters) and so only a brief summary is necessary.  In that case, Terwilliger was out on FMLA leave for a back-related injury.  She testied (which the court was required to accept as true) that her supervisor called her weekly while on leave to inquire when she was going to return to work.  As a result, she felt pressured by these calls to return to work.  Because of this testimony, the Court denied the employer's motion for summary judgment finding that a fact-issue existed on Plaintiff's claims that these calls chilled her willingness to and interferred with the exercise of FMLA rights. This is probably the technically correct ruling at the summary judgment stage, but at trial I suspect a different story will be told where the jury, unlike the court, will not be required to accept the plaintiff's version as true.

At trial, I suspect the supervisor will testify that, if she called at all, she was merely calling to check on how the plaintiff was doing and to check on her well-being.  Should that be illegal?   Imagine, if the supervisor never called to check on the employee.  The employee can then complain, "They never even bothered to call to see how I was doing."  Instead, because the supervisor called to check on the employee, she complains that her FMLA rights were interferred with.  Terwilliger teaches that employers cannot always predict how their actions will be spun by creative lawyers representing employees.  Instead, supervisors should ensure they follow the law; treat employees consistent with the employer's policies; and in a manner in which they would want to be treated.  Leave it to the company lawyers to take the spin out of the employee's efforts to punish good deeds.

Tags: , , ,

Newly Enrolled Employment Law Bills in the Texas Legislature

Posted on February 16, 2011 by Russell Cawyer

The following employment-related bills were enrolled for consideration in the Texas Legislature over the past two weeks.

HB 1178 (Flynn) (Relating to employment protection for members of the state military forces).

HB 1219 (Miles) (Relating to the right of an employee to time off from work if the employee and/or the employee’s child is the victim of family violence or a violent felony offense).

HB 1272 (Miller) (Relating to the requiring of employees to participate in the Federal Electronic Verification of Work Authorization Program or E-Verify; establishing an unlawful employment practice and providing criminal penalties).

HB 1275 (Harless) (Relating to the suspension of certain licenses held by employers for knowing employment of persons not lawfully present in the United States).

HB 1202 (Riddle) (Relating to the creation of the offense of an employing or contracting with an unauthorized alien).

HB 1166 (Zerwas) (Relating to the tobacco sensation program for certain public employees and their dependents and to the assessment of the fee on certain public employees who use tobacco).

SB 545 (Seliger) (Relating to employment records for law enforcement officers, including procedures to correct employment termination reports; providing an administrative penalty).

HB 1057 (Anchia) (Relating to business leave time for certain municipal fire fighters and police officers).

SB 439 (Van de Putte) (Relating to the exclusion from unemployment compensation charge back for certain employers of uniform service members).

HB 954 (Lozano) (Relating to an employee’s transportation of certain firearms or ammunition while on certain property owned or controlled by employee’s employer).

HB 884 (Howard) (Relating to a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for state and local governmental entities and certain employment lawsuits filed by nurses).

HB 878 (Howard) (Relating to the participation of governmental entities and other employers in a Federal Work Authorization Verification Program; establishing an unlawful employment practice).

HB 681 (Kleinschmidt) (Relating to an employee’s transportation of certain firearms or ammunition while on certain property owned or controlled by the employee’s employer).

Tags: , , , , , ,