Seyfarth Synopsis: the Sixth Circuit recently sided with employer Fresh Products, LLC and its HR Manager, Dawn Shaferly, in an age, race, and disability discrimination lawsuit. In doing so, the Court helpfully clarified when...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In an important decision for employers, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the all-too lenient but commonly accepted Lusardi standard for conditional certification under the FLSA. In its place, the...more
As COVID-19 cases surge again in the United States, state and local governments continue to recommend or require remote work arrangements, and some employers have already announced plans to permit remote work to continue well...more
In March 2020, state and local governments across the United States began to issue shelter in place orders to slow the spread of COVID-19, often mandating that companies allow work to be performed remotely to the greatest...more
Real estate startup HouseCanary made headlines when it secured a $700 million judgment against Title Source, Inc., now known as Amrock, in a trade secrets misappropriation case. In short, HouseCanary claimed that Amrock...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The First Circuit recently sided with an employer in a disability discrimination suit in Trahan v. Wayfair Maine, Inc., Civil Action 19-1961....more
In a case following a familiar trade-secret set of facts, on April 28, 2020, the Texas First District Court of Appeals in Houston reversed the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation...more
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has suspended certain regulations governing Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”) and first responders, which will allow qualified, but not certified, EMS workers to provide services during the...more
On January 23, 2020, the Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas retracted its previous ruling in the trade secrets dispute Goldberg, et al. v. EMR (USA Holdings) Inc., et al. and issued a new opinion upon rehearing. ...more
In a trilogy of recent cases, the Texas Courts of Appeals have employed the “commercial speech” exception to exclude certain business claims from the scope of the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act (“TCPA”). This trend will...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendant in an Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) interference and retaliation case, the Fifth Circuit reinforced the importance of documenting performance...more
8/20/2019
/ Corporate Counsel ,
Disability Discrimination ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Interference Claims ,
Medical Leave ,
Performance Reviews ,
Retaliation ,
Summary Judgment
The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, issued an opinion in Tejas Vending, LP, et al. v. Tejas Promotions, LLC further delineating the applicability of Texas’s anti-SLAPP statute, the Texas Citizens Participation Act...more
7/12/2018
/ Anti-SLAPP ,
Appeals ,
Breach of Contract ,
Civil Conspiracy ,
Confidential Information ,
Declaratory Relief ,
Gaming ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Misappropriation ,
Non-Disclosure Agreement ,
State and Local Government ,
Trade Secrets
In her appeal to the Fifth Circuit, Plaintiff Bonnie O’Daniel argues that the trial court wrongly concluded that it was unreasonable for O’Daniel to believe that a complaint about discrimination based on sexual orientation...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a decision that is sure to increase the costs and complexity of litigation, the Texas Supreme Court recently held that a former employee’s common law assault claim was not preempted by the state’s...more
3/2/2017
/ Appeals ,
Commission on Human Rights ,
Common Law Claims ,
Dismissals ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Negligent Supervision ,
Preemption ,
Sexual Assault ,
Sexual Harassment ,
State Law Claims ,
TX Supreme Court
On August 20, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a plaintiff could not prevail on a Title VII religious discrimination claim if there was no evidence the employer knew that the plaintiff refused...more
Employers are well aware that the protections provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1981 extend to both United States citizens and permanent residents, colloquially referred to as “green card holders.”
Some employers, however, may...more