After filing for bankruptcy last month, retail chain store Charming Charlie was sued by a former employee as part of a proposed class action lawsuit for alleged violations of the WARN Act. To avoid being in the unfortunate situation that Charming Charlie now faces – a potential lawsuit on top of bankruptcy proceedings – employers should ensure they know whether the statute applies to them and what is required for full compliance.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fort Bend County v. Davis opens a narrow door for plaintiffs to attempt bringing claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended without previously filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) asserting such claims.
With the Texas Courts of Appeal lacking unity in their application of the TCPA, litigants face uncertainty when filing Anti-SLAPP claims. Here’s what litigants need to know about these inconsistencies.
Last year was filled with important employment decisions that will have an effect on future litigation of employment claims on both the state and federal level. In the first entry of our two-part series, we discuss some of the most significant SCOTUS cases from 2018 impacting employment law.
A Dallas judge threw out all claims against a C-level hospitality executive whose former employer accused him of violating his employment agreement, misappropriating trade secrets, and tortiously interfering with customer and employee relationships.
A Tarrant County jury delivered a $3.7 million verdict against Crossroads Christian Church for failing to provide supplemental retirement benefits to its former Executive Pastor and his wife, both of whom served the church for more than 20 years. Mel Dietz, who previously served as Executive Pastor from 1995–2015, helped oversee church operations and multiple construction projects on Crossroads’ sprawling 150-acre campus in Grand Prairie. His wife, Vicki Dietz, worked directly for Crossroads’…
The Texas Supreme Court has rejected a same-sex sexual harassment claim, concluding no sexual intent or gender motivation prompted allegedly offensive statements and unwanted touching.