Arbitration Provisions Involved in Wells Fargo Bank Case

Posted on

Dozens of bank customers have brought the first class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank as a result of its fraud and sham accounts fiasco. To be tried in Utah, the case is one to follow, Mitchell et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank et al. In the Mitchell case, Wells Fargo Bank customers have asserted claims against Wells Fargo Bank stemming from the opening of unauthorized customer deposit and credit-card accounts. Outside of the Mitchell case, Wells Fargo Bank has already agreed to pay $185 million in penalties and $5 million to customers for opening these unauthorized accounts. In October 2016, the bank’s chief executive, John Stumpf, retired as a result of the scandal.

Kilgore & Kilgore’s Experience with Arbitration Provisions Might Make a Difference in Your Case

Kilgore & Kilgore lawyers counsel and represent employees, executives, and customers of financial institutions who have arbitration provisions in their agreements, including provisions relating to the FINRA arbitration process. We have litigated the enforceability of arbitration provisions. We have represented numerous executives in arbitration proceedings. If you have a question about arbitration or arbitration provisions in an agreement, click here Contact Kilgore & Kilgore to connect with a lawyer for a consultation.

Bank Attempts to Compel Arbitration Provisions in Account Agreements

Wells Fargo Bank recently filed a motion asking the court in Utah to compel arbitration based on the customers’ purported contracts, which contain arbitration provisions. Granting Wells Fargo Bank’s motion would force each plaintiff to pursue his/her claims individually in a private arbitration. The court now must decide, as a threshold matter, whether these plaintiffs will have their day in court. Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), courts often compel arbitration.

Class Action Lawsuit Temporarily Suspended

In December 2016, the court entered a stipulated order staying, or temporarily suspending, the Mitchell case until the defendants’ pending and anticipated motions to compel arbitration are decided. A stay of the underlying litigation is not uncommon in cases in which a defendant is trying to compel arbitration.

Arbitration Provisions are contained in Typical Account-Opening Documents

When a customer opens a bank or brokerage account, s/he is asked to sign an account-opening document. This document contains in small print the arbitration provisions. Most people do not read or pay any attention to these arbitration provisions. However, they are important and potentially controlling when a dispute arises between the customer and the bank or brokerage firm. Customers should beware of these arbitration provisions because they may be giving up important rights, such as their right to pursue their claims in front of a jury or to participate in a class action lawsuit.

Arbitration Versus Litigation

The Mitchell case is a bit unusual. In Mitchell, Wells Fargo Bank is relying on the arbitration provisions in the customer agreements to cover claims relating to sham banking and credit card accounts that the plaintiffs did not actually open. Click here Arbitration Article Dated September 7, 2016 to read our previous blog that explains the arbitration process and how it differs from a traditional court proceeding in dispute settlements. One big difference is that arbitrations are private and court cases are public.

Typically, arbitration provisions prohibit class action lawsuits in which a large number of plaintiffs file suit to pursue common claims against a common defendant. An individual plaintiff may decide not to pursue his/her claims if the damages are small. However, in a class action lawsuit, the cumulative damages can be significant. Thus, a class action lawsuit can be a powerful weapon for customers who have common claims against a common bank or financial institution. A class action lawsuit can level the playing field between an individual customer and a mammoth bank or financial institution. It can be an important deterrent to wrongdoing.

Wells Fargo Bank, like most other banks and financial institutions, would prefer to send each plaintiff to arbitration. Wells Fargo Bank is hoping that if it prevails on its pending motion to compel arbitration, many of the plaintiffs will fade away and decide not to pursue their claims individually in private arbitrations.

Many People Believe Arbitration is Unfair

Many citizens and some politicians believe that the arbitration process unfairly disadvantages the customer. In arbitration, it is difficult for the public to learn about a defendant’s misconduct because the proceedings are not open to the public. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) are some of the leading congressional critics of forced arbitration provisions such as those used by Wells Fargo Bank. In addition, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is considering rules that would prohibit banks and other institutions from forcing customers to arbitrate their claims and to waive their rights to participate in class action lawsuits.

Kilgore & Kilgore Attorneys May Help You with an Arbitration or Fraud Claim

Our attorneys have experience with arbitration and fraud claims. We understand arbitration proceedings and have helped clients through them. Click here to review a couple of testimonials received from clients we helped through the arbitration process FINRA Arbitration Client Statements. If you have a FINRA claim or other case that will be decided in arbitration, contact us to see if we can help. We offer a free review of the facts of your case. Click here to get started Contact Us.

Federal Contractors May No Longer Deny Paid Sick Leave

Posted on

Employees who work for companies that are federal contractors may be entitled to receive paid sick leave from their employers. This new benefit comes through an executive order signed by President Obama. It applies to work connected with federal government contracts solicited after January 1, 2017, as well as to replacements of expired federal contracts. The right to paid sick leave for qualified employees of federal contractors comes in addition to the current right to a federal minimum wage, which was similarly granted under an executive order issued by President Obama. It follows closely on the heels of the new federal overtime rules for non-exempt workers that became effective in December 2016.

While most employers provide their employees with wages and benefits mandated by law, the reality is that some employers don’t abide by the law. If you feel you are being denied paid sick leave when you think you should be receiving this benefit, it is important for you to learn your employee rights. Click here to learn more about Kilgore & Kilgore’s employment law practice Wage and Hour Claims. If you need the advice of someone with the ability to enforce your employee rights, contact us for a free review of the facts of your case. Click here to get started with the discussion Contact Us. One of our employment law attorneys may be able to help.

Paid Sick Leave Coverage

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued rules and regulations to implement the federal contractor paid sick leave requirements contained in President Obama’s executive order. Coverage under the final paid sick leave rule is nearly identical to coverage under the minimum wage rule. However, the paid sick leave rule also covers employees who qualify for an exemption from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standard Act. As with most federal regulations of this type, it requires an experienced employment law attorney to understand and apply these provisions to a particular situation.

Categories of Contractual Agreements for Paid Sick Leave

The DOL estimates that the final paid sick leave rule will provide paid sick leave to about 1.15 million employees of companies with federal contracts. Both the federal contractor paid sick leave rule and minimum wage rule apply to four major categories of contractual agreements for primary and subcontracts:

  • Procurement contracts,
  • Service contracts,
  • Concessions contracts, and
  • Contracts issued in connection with federal property or lands and related to offering services for federal employees, their dependents, or the general public.

Paid Sick Leave Accrual

The federal paid sick leave requirement mandates that employees working on matters connected to designated federal contracts receive one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours they work, with a maximum of 56 hours of leave a year. Employees will be able to use the days to receive medical attention, care for a relative, or deal with complications arising from domestic violence or sexual assault. The final rule of the DOL allows federal contractors to provide employees with at least 56 hours of paid sick leave at the beginning of each year, rather than allowing employees to accrue leave based on hours worked. The final rule of the DOL also provides that federal contractors must permit employees to carry over accrued, unused paid sick leave from one year to the next. However, federal contractors may limit the amount of paid sick leave employees have accrued to 56 hours at any point in time.

Federal Contractor Responsibilities for Paid Sick Leave

Federal contractors have certain obligations under the DOL final rules regarding paid sick leave and minimum wage. Federal contractors are required to provide their employees with notice regarding the paid sick leave and minimum wage requirements. Employees must be notified in writing of the amount of paid sick leave they have available at the end of each pay period, or each month if shorter. In addition, an employer must notify all employees performing duties connected with a federal contract of the applicable federal minimum wage rate. There are also certain pay frequency and recordkeeping obligations.

DOL Enforcement Procedures

Under the DOL final rules regarding paid sick leave and minimum wage, complaints may be filed with the DOL Wage and Hour Division (WHD) by any person who believes a violation of the executive order or the implementing regulations has occurred. The WHD treats information received related to a complaint confidentially. The rules contain a mechanism for WHD investigations and informal complaint resolution, as appropriate. They also specify remedies and sanctions for violations, including the payment of damages. The WHD may additionally direct that the applicable contracting agency withhold payments due on the federal contract as considered necessary to pay employees the full amount of wages due. While you may file a complaint yourself, to have the best chance of success, it is advised that you work with an experienced employment law attorney.

Federal Contractors May Not Retaliate Against Employees Who Claim Paid Sick Leave

Finally, and importantly, the DOL rules prohibit retaliation against any employee for exercising his or her rights under the executive order or the implementing regulations. It is unlawful for any person to be wrongfully discharged, or in any other manner, use discrimination against any employee for filing a complaint or testifying in any related proceeding.

Our Employment Law Attorneys May Help You Get the Paid Sick Leave You May Deserve

You deserve to receive the paid sick leave due under the law. You have the right to demand those benefits without fear of retaliation by your employer. If you were denied the paid sick leave or overtime wages you are entitled to, contact us. If you have experienced retaliation for exercising your rights, contact us. We offer a free review of the facts of your case with an employment law attorney. Click here to get started Contact Us.

Motive is Key in Retaliation Case under Section 1983

Posted on

In a recent case, a public employee was demoted by his supervisor because of his perceived support of a local political candidate, creating a case of unlawful retaliation. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a prior federal court decision in this case. The U.S. Supreme Court held that a public employee may claim a violation of constitutional rights under Section 1983 where there is an improper motive. In this case, the employee showed that the supervisor took an adverse action against the employee based on an improper motive, even though the supervisor made factual mistakes regarding the employee’s conduct. This decision changes how such retaliation claims are brought against public employers.

Was Retaliation a Factor in Your Situation?

The employment lawyers at Kilgore & Kilgore represent employees in a variety of retaliation and wrongful termination disputes. If you believe your employee rights have been violated, and wish to know more about our employment law practice, click here Employment Law Practice to learn more about the laws governing employee rights. To connect with an employment lawyer for a free review of the facts of your case, click here to connect with us Contact Kilgore & Kilgore.

Public Employer’s Motive Is Essential Factor in Determining if an Employee’s Constitutional Rights Were Violated

The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment generally prohibits government officials from terminating or demoting public employees because of their engagement in political activity that is constitutionally protected. For example, with limited exceptions, public employers cannot dismiss or retaliate against employees who support a particular political candidate or political party.

In April 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case in which Jeffrey Heffernan, a police officer in Paterson, New Jersey, was demoted. The demotion occurred because his supervisor incorrectly believed that he had supported a particular candidate in the city’s mayoral election. Heffernan brought a lawsuit in federal court claiming that he was illegally demoted for a political action constituting a protected activity. Heffernan argued that his supervisor had deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution. The lower court ruled against Heffernan because such court found that he had not actually engaged in any protected activity. However, the U.S. Supreme court disagreed and reversed that ruling.

In the case of Heffernan v. City of Paterson, New Jersey, Heffernan’s bedridden mother asked Heffernan to pick up a campaign sign for Lawrence Spagnola, a candidate for mayor running against the incumbent, Jose Torres. Torres had appointed the city’s police chief as well as Heffernan’s supervisor. Word quickly spread throughout the police force that Heffernan had picked up a Spagnola sign. The next day, Heffernan was demoted from detective to patrol officer. Heffernan’s supervisor demoted him because of his perceived support for Spagnola. However, Heffernan was not involved in Spagnola’s campaign. He merely picked up the campaign sign for his mother. Heffernan’s supervisors made a factual mistake regarding his activity.

U.S. Supreme Court Reverses Federal Court Decision

In Heffernan v. City of Paterson, New Jersey, with a 6-2 opinion, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court and reversed. In this case, Heffernan’s employer made a factual mistake. The Supreme Court found that it was the motive of the supervisor, and the facts as understood by the employer, that mattered. The Supreme Court concluded that it was the employer’s reason for demoting Heffernan that mattered for purposes of determining any violation of the law under Section 1983.

Even though his employer made a factual mistake about Heffernan’s conduct, Heffernan was nevertheless entitled to challenge his employer’s action. This was because his employer wanted to prevent him from engaging in a protected activity. To prevail, an employee such as Heffernan must prove an improper motive by the employer.

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, dissented in the Heffernan case. The dissent argued that Heffernan would actually have to engage in a protected activity in the first place in order to sustain his claim. Heffernan’s perceived support of Spagnola’s campaign was not sufficient, according to the dissent. Because Heffernan was not actually engaged in any constitutionally protected activity, these justices believed that the employee had no cause of action under Section 1983. The justices contended that the demotion of Heffernan by his supervisor might be callous, misguided or wrong, but not unconstitutional.

After Heffernan, a public employee is not required to show that he actually engaged in a protected activity in order to support a claim of retaliation under Section 1983. Instead, where the employer make a factual mistake regarding the employee’s conduct, the employee must show that the employer took adverse action against him based on an improper motive.

Our Employment Lawyers Handle Retaliation Cases

Employment laws can be challenged, are redefined, and evolve accordingly. If you wish to know more about the employment law practice of Kilgore & Kilgore, including retaliation cases, check out the many articles we have written by clicking here Employment Law Articles. If you wish to have an employment lawyer review the facts of your case for free, click here and submit a Contact Us form Contact Kilgore & Kilgore.

Whistleblowers May Benefit Under the FCA Law When Defrauders of the Government are Sued

Posted on

Typically, whistleblowers report misconduct in the workplace to their employers or to a governmental agency. Whistleblowers often risk retaliation and damage to their careers in the form of discrimination for blowing the whistle on wrongdoing. There are many different kinds of whistleblowers. And, there are a number of specific Texas and federal laws that protect whistleblowers.

The FCA Law Benefits Whistleblowers in Some Instances

The False Claims Act (FCA) is a federal law enacted in 1863 that imposes significant monetary penalties on those who defraud the U.S. government. The FCA permits a special kind of lawsuit known as a qui tam action. This is a civil lawsuit involving a private citizen who has evidence of a fraud. This person can blow the whistle and sue the perpetrator on behalf of the government. If the lawsuit is successful, the whistleblower could be entitled to between 15 and 30 percent of the government’s recovery.

Potential Whistleblowers Take Note

The employment lawyers at Kilgore & Kilgore represent whistleblowers who assert claims under a variety of state and federal laws, including the FCA. If you have evidence of a fraud of the government, you are a potential whistleblower. Click here to learn more about Whistleblower Protection. To connect with an employment lawyer for a free review of the facts of your case, click here Contact Kilgore & Kilgore.

Whistleblowers Can Help the Government Pursue People Who Defraud

A qui tam action encourages whistleblowers to come forward and help the government pursue those who have defrauded it. Liability under the FCA requires that people knowingly present false or fraudulent claims for payment to the government. Qui tam cases might be premised on fraudulent billing practices under the Medicare or Medicaid programs. Other government fraud might be committed by federal contractors or vendors providing goods or services to the government.

After a qui tam action is filed under seal, the U.S. Department of Justice begins an investigation into the allegations and can ultimately intervene in the action. A qui tam action can take many years to make its way through the courts.

The Implied False Certification Theory of Liability

In June 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important opinion in a qui tam case. In Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States, the Court held that the implied false certification theory could be a basis for a defendant’s liability under the FCA. Prior to the Court’s opinion, the lower federal appellate courts had disagreed over the validity and scope of this theory of liability.

In Universal Health Services, the alleged violations under the FCA arose under the Massachusetts Medicaid program. The case involved the death of a 17-year-old woman treated at a mental health facility. It was discovered that many of the alleged mental health workers who treated the woman lacked the proper qualifications and licenses to treat her.

A qui tam action was brought under the implied false certification theory of liability. The complaint asserted that reimbursement claims submitted under the Massachusetts Medicaid program showed that specific services were provided by particular professionals. However, these reimbursement claims failed to disclose the defendant’s noncompliance with regulatory staffing and licensing requirements. According to the complaint, the defendant defrauded the state Medicaid program because Medicaid paid defendant’s claims unaware of the staff’s regulatory violations.

An Employment Lawyer Must Prove Two Conditions under the Implied False Certification Theory

The Court held that FCA liability under the implied false certification theory can arise if two conditions are satisfied. First, the defendant must submit a claim for payment to the government that makes a specific representation about the goods or services provided. Second, the defendant must knowingly fail to disclose noncompliance with a material statutory, regulatory or contractual requirement. Further, the defendant’s omission must render its representations misleading.

FCA Liability Can Be Based on a Defendant’s Failure to Disclose

The Court held that a defendant’s failure to disclose its noncompliance with a legal requirement can be a basis for FCA liability. This is true even if that particular requirement was not expressly designated as a condition for payment.

The relevant inquiry, according to the Court, is whether the defendant knowingly violated a requirement that it knows is material to the government’s decision to pay the defendant. The Court emphasized that the materiality requirement is a rigorous standard. Ultimately, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded the matter to the lower courts. It is up to the lower courts to determine whether the complaint was sufficient under the Court’s guidelines.

Does it pay to be a Whistleblower?

Despite possessing proof of a government fraud, potential whistleblowers may have questions and concerns before stepping forward. There is a possibility of receiving monetary compensation if the government recoups damages through the provisions of the False Claims Act. However, achieving success involves a complex legal process. Kilgore & Kilgore can provide the legal assistance needed. Kilgore & Kilgore attorneys have experience with whistleblower protection cases. To learn more about Kilgore & Kilgore’s whistleblower protection law practice, click here Kilgore & Kilgore Whistleblower Protection. To get started on a free review of the facts of your case, click here Contact Kilgore & Kilgore.

Compensatory Damages from FINRA Form U-5 Defamation Claims

Posted on

When broker-dealers and other securities industry businesses terminate employees, the persons fired often feel like they are at a disadvantage. This is due to the potential for defamation from the FINRA Form U-5. Most businesses keep reasons for terminations private. However, the reasons for terminations are public in the securities industry business because of the regulatory oversight of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

FINRA Form U-5 Allows Public Scrutiny

All securities industry employers are required to file a FINRA Form U-5 within 30 days of an employee termination. This FINRA Form U-5 states the reason for the termination. It must also detail such matters as whether the employee was the subject of consumer complaints or under internal investigation or external investigation for alleged violation of securities industry rules and regulations. The terminated employee has no legal right to provide input regarding the content of the FINRA Form U-5. Therefore, he or she is at the mercy of the employer and the regulatory oversight of FINRA. When the employer includes misleading or false information on the FINRA Form U-5, it can severely damage the terminated employee’s chances for future employment in the securities industry.

Wrongfully Terminated Securities Industry Employees Take Note

If you work in the securities industry and believe your ex-employer included false and defamatory information on your FINRA Form U-5, you should contact a Kilgore & Kilgore attorney to review the facts of your case. Kilgore & Kilgore attorneys have experience with this type of claim. Kilgore & Kilgore attorneys have also been successful in getting the defamation expunged from a FINRA Form U-5. Winning these claims has given back their lives to broker-dealers hurt by the regulatory process. Click here to connect with a Kilgore & Kilgore attorney Contact Kilgore & Kilgore.

In most cases, you cannot contest a FINRA Form U-5 through a lawsuit in court. You must go through the FINRA arbitration process. Kilgore & Kilgore has several attorneys experienced with the FINRA arbitration process and Texas defamation law.

FINRA Form U-4 and FINRA Form U-5

FINRA has regulatory oversight over all securities industry companies that do business with the public. Every individual who works on securities-related matters is required to register with FINRA by submitting a FINRA Form U-4. By filing a FINRA Form U-4, employees agree to settle all disputes with their employers through the FINRA arbitration process. Additionally, the FINRA Form U-4 authorizes securities industry employers to furnish information regarding the history of all employees at the firm and reasons for termination.

Former Employees with FINRA Form U-5 in Public Files

When an employee is terminated, the securities industry employer is required to state the reasons for termination in a FINRA Form U-5. If the terminated employee violated any securities industry rules or regulations, the employer must provide an explanation of the violations. Also, the employer must explain if the terminated employee was under any internal investigation for the violation. The employer must also disclose whether there are any consumer complaints against the employee. The securities industry employer must file the FINRA Form U-5 within 30 days of the termination. The FINRA Form U-5 is stored in FINRA’s Central Registration Depository (CRD) and made accessible to all FINRA member firms. Together, FINRA Form U-4 and FINRA Form U-5 lay the foundation for how FINRA Form U-5 defamation claims must proceed.

FINRA Form U-5 Defamation

Sometimes, when an employer is unhappy with an employee, the employer places false and defamatory information in the FINRA Form U-5. This can have disastrous consequences for the employee. First, all potential new employers have access to, and will certainly review, the FINRA Form U-5. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the terminated employee to get another job in the securities industry. Second, potential customers have access to the FINRA Form U-5. Experienced investors often review this public information. Even when a terminated employee manages to get a new job in the securities industry, it is difficult to recruit new customers. When an employer with a bone to pick fires an employee and puts false information in the FINRA Form U-5 disclosure, it can be devastating. It can sabotage a career. This happens more often than you would think.

Compensatory Damage Awards and Expungement of Defamation from the FINRA Form U-5

The aggrieved ex-employee can take legal measures to claim damages and get the defamatory information removed from his or her FINRA Form U-5. He or she can file a claim against the former employer for defamation. Moreover, he or she can request an expungement of the defamatory information on the FINRA Form U-5. Processing such a claim is different from a typical defamation claim. Not just any attorney can successfully handle such a claim. The FINRA Form U-4 requires that all such claims between FINRA member businesses and their registered employees go through FINRA arbitration proceedings. This includes employment disputes that may have an effect on the professional record of a member firm’s employee—including FINRA Form U-5 defamation claims.

FINRA Form U-4 Provides the Basis for a Defamation Claim

The basis for defamation claims by FINRA Form U-4 employees is the false or inaccurate information reported on a FINRA Form U-5. Employees may also request that FINRA expunge such false information from its Central Registration Depository (CRD) records. Terminated employees must file an arbitration demand with FINRA within six years of the recording date of the FINRA Form U-5 in the CRD. One to three individuals chosen by the parties typically comprise the arbitration panel. It generally takes about one year to complete the arbitration process. FINRA arbitration hearings and the evidentiary record are not open to the public. The only information publicly released are the parties’ names, the nature of the claims, the arbitrator’s conclusory findings, and the remedy granted.

State Law Governs the Right to Damages in Defamation Claims

A FINRA arbitration panel hears and rules on FINRA Form U-5 defamation cases. However, state law governs the legal elements of the claim. This means that state law governs the elements of the defamation claim of the employee. State law also governs the defenses available to the employer. And, state laws are not all the same. Damages may include compensatory damages, punitive damages, lost value of benefits, emotional distress, attorneys’ fees, and a recommendation to expunge or amend the FINRA Form U-5.

Accordingly, attorneys often accompany FINRA Form U-5 defamation claims with other claims including wrongful termination, interference with business opportunities, and breach of contract.

The Absolute Privilege Rule

One of the most important rulings the FINRA arbitration panel will make is whether the employer is entitled to an absolute privilege or qualified privilege under the relevant state law. Due to the mandatory nature of the FINRA Form U-5 disclosure requirements and the public benefits they provide, some state courts have ruled that employers are entitled to an absolute privilege. Absolute privilege means that the person making the statement has the absolute right to make that statement at that time, even if it is defamatory. In other words, the person making the defamatory statement is immune from a defamation lawsuit. This makes it very difficult if not impossible to win a claim against them.

In other states, including Texas, either a qualified privilege applies or the law is unclear. A qualified privilege raises the bar for a wrongfully terminated employee to prove a claim. For example, it may be necessary to show the employer was malicious or reckless rather than merely negligent in the FINRA Form U-5.

Kilgore & Kilgore Attorneys Have Won Damage Awards in FINRA Defamation Claims

Despite the presence of a qualified privilege in many states, FINRA arbitration panels have granted significant monetary damage awards and expungement to aggrieved ex-employees. To obtain such an award is a complex legal process involving FINRA rules and procedures plus state defamation law. Kilgore & Kilgore can provide the legal assistance needed. Kilgore & Kilgore attorneys have won damage awards and expungements through FINRA arbitrations. To learn more about Kilgore & Kilgore’s securities industry and FINRA law practice, click here Kilgore & Kilgore Securities Fraud and FINRA Dispute Practice. To get started on a free review of the facts of your case, click here Contact Kilgore & Kilgore.

Employers Use Arbitration to Resolve Employee Disputes

Posted on

Arbitration is an Alternative System of Dispute Resolution

Arbitration is a private, alternative system of dispute resolution. In arbitration, the parties present their claims and defenses to one or more arbitrators who decide the matter. Typically, an arbitrator is an attorney or former judge who is paid a fee by one or more parties to serve as the arbitrator. The allocation of fees and expenses between the parties is typically outlined in the arbitration provision in the parties’ employment contract.

Many employers require their employees and executives to sign employment contracts or employment agreements that contain an arbitration provision. Generally, an arbitration provision requires an employee to assert any claims she or he might have against his employer in arbitration, rather than in state or federal court. An arbitration provision is usually, but not always, enforced by the courts.

Our Employment Lawyers Have Extensive Experience with Arbitration

Bill Masterson, a Kilgore & Kilgore attorney, recently successfully set aside an arbitration agreement in court. Bill Masterson argued that the arbitration agreement be voided because the employee who signed the agreement spoke only Vietnamese. The agreement was written in English. The case, Sang Nguyen v. Doskocil Manufacturing Company Inc., was heard recently in the Tarrant County court. The court ruled that, since the plaintiff did not understand the arbitration agreement, it must be set aside. If you have a question about arbitration or an arbitration provision in your employment agreement, click here Contact Kilgore & Kilgore to connect with an employment lawyer for a consultation.

Kilgore & Kilgore’s employment lawyers counsel and represent employees and executives who have arbitration agreements with their employers. We have litigated the enforceability an arbitration provisions. We have represented numerous executives in arbitration proceedings.

There are several private and non-profit organizations that administer arbitration proceedings. These organizations are often identified in an arbitration provision. Such organizations often supply a list of arbitrators that may be used for arbitration. In addition, these organizations often have their own procedural and discovery rules for arbitration.

Arbitration Compared with Trial

One significant difference between arbitration and trial is that the employee or plaintiff is no longer entitled to the right of trial by jury. A trial by jury usually is an employee or plaintiff’s right when a case proceeds in a courthouse. Some jurists or employers believe that arbitration is a faster, more efficient, and less expensive system of resolving disputes. However, in reality, arbitration proceeds at the same pace as a traditional court case. The legal and factual issues in arbitration can be just as complicated as in a court case. Arbitration proceedings are like formal court cases. Both processes can require pleadings, motions, discovery, and hearings. Both can be active for over a year. Thus, arbitration is often no less expensive or time-consuming than a traditional court case.

Arbitration May Be More Relaxed than a Formal Courtroom Trial

At the final hearing in arbitration, the parties present their evidence and examine their testifying witnesses in front of the arbitrator. While there is a fact finder, there is no judge in a black robe, courtroom, or jury. Instead, the final hearing is like an informal trial. The arbitration hearing may be held in an office or hotel conference room. Often, an arbitration provision identifies a specific city where the arbitration is to be conducted.
The rules of evidence may be relaxed at final arbitration hearings. After the final hearing, the arbitrator renders a decision. The arbitrator can also award monetary or other relief to a prevailing party. Often a prevailing party must go to court to enforce an arbitrator’s award. The legal standard in court for overturning an arbitrator’s award is extremely high.

Some Arbitration Agreements May Be Unenforceable

Some arbitration agreements prohibit employees from asserting collective arbitration or collective action in any forum. Many arbitration agreements require employees to bring claims, such as overtime pay claims, only through individual, piecemeal arbitration proceedings. Employers try to force this requirement on their employees to make it difficult for them to organize together and to assert a class action claim.
In an opinion dated May 26, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that an arbitration agreement between an employer and its employees for overtime pay claims violates the National Labor Relations Act, or NLRA. The Court also held that such an agreement is unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, or FAA. The case is Lewis v. Epic Systems Corporation.

NLRA, FAA, Worker Rights and Arbitration

The NLRA was enacted in 1935 and provides workers with collective bargaining rights. The NLRA was designed to level the playing field for workers and their employers. Section 7 of the NLRA permits employees to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. Section 8 of the NLRA enforces Section 7 by stating that any interference by an employer with an employee’s rights under Section 7 is an unfair labor practice.

In Lewis, the Seventh Circuit read the phrase concerted activities broadly to include collective or class remedies. Thus, the Seventh Circuit held that the arbitration agreement at issue in Lewis, which prohibited collective action, was unenforceable and in violation of Sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA.

The Seventh Circuit in Lewis also concluded that the NLRA was not in conflict with the FAA. The Seventh Circuit decided that because the arbitration provision at issue was illegal under the NLRA, the FAA did not require its enforcement. This Court also determined that the right to collective action in Section 7 is substantive, rather than merely procedural. An arbitration agreement that requires a party to waive a substantive right is unenforceable.

Courts are Split

The Lewis opinion is the law only in the Seventh Circuit. That means it is the law only in the federal courts in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana. Texas, on the other hand, is within the Fifth Circuit. Thus, the Lewis opinion is not the law in the federal courts in Texas. In fact, the Fifth Circuit, in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, came to the opposite conclusion from the Seventh Circuit. It held instead that Section 7 of the NLRA did conflict with the FAA.

There is a conflict of opinions in the federal circuits. They do not agree regarding the enforcement or not of arbitration and waiver provisions such as those at issue in Lewis and D.R. Horton. Thus, it may be up to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide this issue at a future date.

To learn more about our employment law practice, click here Employment Lawyer. To contact us for a consultation with an employment lawyer, click here Contact Kilgore & Kilgore.

Employment Lawyers Help White Collar Workers Win Overtime Pay

Posted on

Employment Lawyers Can Help White Collar Workers Understand the New Labor Rule as it Affects New Eligibility for Overtime Pay

Employment lawyers will soon be busy helping non-exempt employees understand a new rule from the U.S. Department of Labor. This new rule extends the right to overtime pay to 4.2 million additional white collar workers in its first year. In May, President Obama and Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez announced the publication of the Department of Labor’s new rule updating the overtime regulations that apply to white collar workers. We can define these white collar workers as executive, administrative, and professional (called EAP) workers. This also includes certain computer and outside sales employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The new rule will become effective on December 1, 2016.

Experienced Employment Lawyers

Our employment lawyers counsel employees covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act. We have litigated numerous unpaid overtime pay claims on their behalf. If you believe that you have a claim against your employer for unpaid overtime pay, click here Contact Kilgore & Kilgore to connect with an employment lawyer for a free review of the facts of your case.

Fair Labor Standards Act Protects American Workers

The Fair Labor Standards Act was originally signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1938. It provides several important protections for American workers. The Fair Labor Standards Act requires the payment of a minimum wage and overtime pay for eligible employees. Currently the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. We can define non-exempt employees as those covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act who are eligible for overtime pay. They are entitled to pay at a rate not less than one and one-half times their regular pay rates for time worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The U.S. Department of Labor administers and enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Exempt Employee Definitions

Under the U.S. Department of Labor’s regulations, an EAP worker is generally exempt from the overtime pay protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act if he or she meets three requirements.  First, the worker must receive a fixed, invariable salary.  Second, the worker’s salary must equal or exceed a specified amount. Third, the worker’s job primarily involves executive, administrative, or professional duties.

Since 2004 and up to December 2016, the weekly salary level for an EAP worker was $455 or $23,660 annually. Bona fide EAP workers who received a fixed annual salary of $23,660 or more were exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act

Under the new rule, the U.S. Department of Labor will increase the salary level to the 40th percentile of earnings of full-time salaried workers in the lowest-wage Census Region, the South. That level is $913 per week or $47,476 annually. Under the new rule, an employer must pay its salaried EAP workers $47,476 or more annually in order for them to be exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Under the new rule, salaried EAP workers who earn less than $47,476 annually are entitled to overtime pay if they work more than 40 hours in a workweek.

Thousands of Workers in Texas Affected

The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that under the new rule over 370,000 currently-exempt EAP workers in Texas will be entitled to overtime pay. This is only if they work more than 40 hours in a work week. This assumes their employers do not raise their salaries to the new threshold to make them exempt.

Female Workers Affected By the New U.S. Department of Labor Rule

The new rule, according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s estimate, will mean that American workers will earn an additional $1.2 billion in pay. U.S. Department of Labor estimates that approximately 56 percent of affected workers are women and that 61 percent are age 35 or older.

Highly Compensated Workers Also Affected

The new rule also raises the total annual compensation level for Highly Compensated Employees (HCE) above which they would not be eligible for overtime pay. The new HCE salary level will increase from $100,000 to $134,004 annually. In 2020, the salary thresholds for EAP and HCE workers will be updated automatically every three years. The new rule allows employers to use other income received by these workers toward the HCE compensation level. Income from discretionary bonuses, incentive payments, or commissions can satisfy up to 10 percent of the new threshold. However, these payments must be made at least on a quarterly basis.

Employment Practices May Change

Many employers may change their practices as a result of this new rule. With this in mind, employers may be concerned about a potential jump in overtime pay. First, employers could increase some salaries to the new salary threshold to make non-exempt employees exempt. Second, employers may limit some workers to 40 or fewer hours per workweek to avoid overtime pay. Third, employers may reclassify their white collar workers to non-exempt hourly workers. In such cases, hours will be closely monitored and restricted. Nevertheless, some employers could simply choose to pay overtime to their newly non-exempt, salaried workers for their hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
Kilgore & Kilgore has employment lawyers with the skill and experience to counsel and represent you in an unpaid overtime claim ay against your employer. To learn more about our overtime pay employment practice, click here Dallas Wage and Hour Lawyer. To contact us for a free review of the facts of your case with an employment lawyer, click here Contact Kilgore & Kilgore.

Estate Litigation Attorney to Help Protect Inheritance

Posted on

An Estate Litigation Attorney Can Help Protect a Potential Heir from Unpleasant Surprises

It is a good idea to involve an estate litigation attorney to protect your interests if you are expecting an inheritance. Estate distribution following the death of a loved one can be complicated, even under normal circumstances. If a blended family resulting from a second marriage of the deceased is involved, or if an unrelated third party such as a caregiver receives an inheritance, a dispute may arise. If you are the spouse or child of someone who just passed away are is elderly, click here Contact Kilgore & Kilgore for a free consultation on how best to protect your interests in your inheritance.

Blended Families Create Inheritance Complexities

When a parent divorces and remarries, the result is a blended family, whether or not the children of the first and second marriages interact with each other. When this parent passes away, it creates a situation with a potential for someone’s legal interest in an estate distribution to be compromised or abused.

Texas law does not always treat a blended family situation the same as a nuclear family for the purpose of estate distribution. An estate litigation attorney has knowledge of the law and how it should be applied. S/he knows of the numerous ways in which a family member could unfairly lose all or part of an inheritance and protect an heir’s interests with great sensitivity in the situation following a death.

Retain an Estate Litigation Attorney if an Inheritance is Anticipated

It is important that you retain an estate litigation attorney as near as possible to the outset of the estate administration process. A delay may seriously compromise one’s protection of interest.

When a spouse in a second marriage, who has children from a previous marriage, passes away without a will, a most critical legal situation arises for the child. Let’s look at how this can lead to a disputed estate distribution. In a normal nuclear family situation, if a married spouse passes away without a will, the surviving spouse will inherit the deceased’s entire estate. Under Texas law, if a person in a second marriage, with children from a previous marriage, passes away without a will, the surviving spouse from the second marriage gets half of the community property in the estate. The children from the first marriage divide the other half in equal shares. Only one-third of the deceased spouse’s separate personal property passes to the surviving spouse, with two-thirds going to any children from outside the current marriage.

Know Texas Law to Avoid Inheritance Surprises

When a person with a spouse and four children with that spouse dies, and there are two children from a previous marriage, the children from the previous marriage will receive half of the community property in the estate. The surviving spouse will receive half of the community property in the estate. The four children from the current marriage will get nothing.

In this example, you can see the tension in this situation. Unfortunately, that tension often creates disputes as to how and whether the estate was properly validated, assessed, partitioned, liquidated, and distributed. Those disputes can be settled or litigated.

Texas Law Follows the Deceased’s Will

If the deceased had a valid will, Texas law requires that the will be followed. Even if the deceased left a will, due to the inherent conflicts of interest in a blended family situation, there is the potential that the will can be deemed invalid because it was created with undue influence by one of the beneficiaries. There are many situations that could invalidate the will. Also, the terms of a will are not always clear. The probate court’s interpretation of ambiguous terms could have significant financial consequences. It is often not clear how an estate should be properly assessed, classified as community or separate property, partitioned, and liquidated. To protect your interests, it is vital that you have an estate litigation attorney monitor the estate administration process and step in to advocate on your behalf when necessary.

Estate Litigation Attorneys Setting Inheritance Disputes

And, of course, there is a situation where an actual dispute over the distribution of an estate occurs. When this happens, or there is any hint that it might happen, it is critical that you have an estate litigation attorney representing your interests from the very outset. A good estate litigation attorney can also help diffuse combustible situations. Often, the estate litigation attorney’s mere presence can dissuade anyone involved from trying to take unfair advantage.

Beware of Caregiver Predators

An especially trying situation both legally and emotionally arises when a caregiver or other third party influences an elder family member to leave all or a substantial part of an estate to the caregiver or third party. The caregiver or third party may have access to estate funds during the elder’s lifetime to use in an attempt to build a legal wall around the estate assets. It may be necessary to retain an estate litigation attorney in an effort to obtain legal redress. Kilgore & Kilgore has successfully handled situations like this, which can require expert testimony from economists, psychiatrists and doctors, litigation in multiple forums, and an extended time to obtain relief.

To learn more about how to protect your inheritance rights to an estate, click here for a free consultation with one of our experienced estate litigation attorneys Contact Kilgore & Kilgore.

Employee Discrimination Cases Involving Job Applicants with Disabilities Now Enjoy a More Lenient Interpretation of Physical Impairment

Posted on

Employees with denied disability claims were recently given more hope. A court decision in January 2016 demonstrates the more lenient standards that now apply to disability claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). In a decision in the case Cannon v. Jacobs Field Services North America, Inc., the Fifth Circuit reversed a summary judgment that a lower court had granted in favor of the employer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decides appeals of the rulings by federal district courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

The ADA prohibits discrimination in the workplace against persons with disabilities. The ADA was significantly amended by the ADAAA. Those amendments became effective in January 2009. The ADAAA relaxed some of the legal standards under the ADA and made it easier for individuals with disabilities to obtain protection and pursue disability discrimination claims against employers.

The lawyers at Kilgore & Kilgore have an abundance of experience in counseling employees under the ADA and litigating denied disability claims on their behalf. If you believe that an employer has unfairly discriminated against you because of your disability, click here Disability Discrimination Attorney  to connect with a Kilgore & Kilgore attorney for a free review of the facts of your case.

In Cannon, the plaintiff Michael Cannon (Cannon) was offered a job by Jacob Field Services (JFS) as a field engineer at a Colorado mining site. However, JFS revoked its employment offer soon after it learned that Cannon had a rotator cuff impairment that prevented him from lifting his right arm above the shoulder. JFS informed Cannon that it was rescinding its employment offer due to his inability to climb a ladder. Cannon’s efforts to show JFS that he could climb a ladder and to discuss his injury and limitations were unsuccessful.

For purposes of the ADA, a person suffers from a disability if that person has “a physical … impairment that “substantially limits” one or more major life activities.” The ADAAA relaxed the definition of disability by clarifying that the substantially limits language is not an especially demanding standard and favors broad coverage. Moreover, the ADA and its regulations now specifically include lifting, reaching, and numerous other activities in its list of major life activities. The Fifth Circuit, contrary to the district court’s conclusion that Cannon was not disabled, found that Cannon had presented sufficient evidence showing that his shoulder injury was a qualifying disability under the ADA.

Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit found that there was a second reason that Cannon satisfied the disability test under the ADA. The ADA not only covers persons with disabilities, but it also covers persons who are “regarded as having … an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.”  The Fifth Circuit found sufficient evidence in the record showing that JFS perceived Cannon’s shoulder injury to be a physical impairment.

Under the ADA, Cannon was required not only to show that he was disabled or regarded as disabled, but also, to show that he was qualified for the job of field engineer. In order to be qualified for the job at issue, a plaintiff must show that he can perform the essential functions of the job in spite of his disability or with a reasonable accommodation of his disability. JFS argued that driving a company vehicle and climbing a ladder were essential functions of the field engineer job that Cannon was unable to do. The Fifth Circuit, again contrary to the district court’s determination that Cannon was not qualified for the job, found sufficient evidence in the record that Cannon was able to drive and some evidence that Cannon could climb a ladder despite his impairment, raising fact issues for a jury to determine. Thus, summary judgment for JFS was inappropriate on this basis, as well. Having reversed JFS’s summary judgment, the Fifth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Kilgore & Kilgore has disability claims attorneys with exactly the skill and experience required to counsel and represent you in your denied disability claim against your employer. To learn more about our disability claims practice, click here Employee Rights Attorney. To contact Kilgore & Kilgore through our website, click here Disability Claims Attorneys. We offer a free review of the facts of your case with a lawyer for employee rights.

#   #   #

Employment Discrimination Cases – The Evolution of Adverse Employment Action

Posted on

Employment discrimination under federal laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, state it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against you as an employee with respect to your compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of your race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability. The problem—as we’ve discussed in each of our posts in this series on employment discrimination laws covering the workplace—is that the various federal courts often disagree on the meaning of both statutory and judicially created terms and phrases.

For example, the courts must determine what type and level of employment discrimination action your employer must take in order for it to constitute unlawful employment discrimination regarding your compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment. For the sake of clarity and simplicity, the federal courts collectively adopted the phrase adverse employment action for this required element of any employment discrimination claim.

But clarity and simplicity flew out the window when those same courts became split about the meaning of their own term. To make matters worse, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, appears to be a house divided within itself as well, with some judges favoring a stricter interpretation and some a looser interpretation of adverse employment action.

The good news for our clients is that Kilgore & Kilgore has been directly involved in some of the key Fifth Circuit rulings on what constitutes an adverse employment action in an employment discrimination case. Our experienced employment law attorneys are well suited to handle your employment discrimination claim in Texas. If you believe you are the victim of an employment discrimination, contact Kilgore & Kilgore, click here. We offer a free review of the facts of your case.

The division in the federal circuit courts over what constitutes an adverse employment action breaks down into two main camps. The first camp, comprised of a majority of the federal circuit courts, has ruled that an adverse employment action occurs when an employer’s action is materially adverse to an employee. The second camp, which historically has included the Fifth Circuit, takes a stricter approach, ruling that an adverse employment action consists only of ultimate employment decisions such as hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting, compensating and demoting an employee.

In 2004, Kilgore & Kilgore was successfully involved in one of the most important, and most often cited, cases in this area of employment law. In Pegram v. Honeywell, Inc., Kilgore & Kilgore’s client filed a race discrimination claim in which we argued on his behalf that a transfer to a different position constituted an adverse employment action. In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit panel reaffirmed the strict ultimate employment decision standard and stated that our client’s “claim that his reassignment… was a less prestigious or desirable transfer, without more, does not lift him over the hurdle of summary judgment for the purpose of an adverse employment action.”

However, the court also stated that an employment transfer may qualify as an adverse employment action if the change makes the job objectively worse. Kilgore & Kilgore was able to convince the court that our client’s earnings potential had been reduced as a result of the discriminatory transfer. The Fifth Circuit therefore overturned the district court and ruled in our client’s favor, finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the transfer created a demotion sufficient to constitute an adverse employment action, even under its strict ultimate employment decision standard.

Following the Pegram v. Honeywell, Inc. decision, the Fifth Circuit made a series of rulings regarding adverse employment actions based on different fact patterns, the most important of which was its 2007 decision in Alvarado v. Texas Rangers, where the panel ruled that “denial of a transfer may be the objective equivalent of the denial of a promotion, and thus qualify as an adverse employment action, even if the new position would not have entailed an increase in pay or other tangible benefits.”

This set the stage for another case successfully argued by Kilgore & Kilgore in front of the Fifth Circuit. In the 2012 case of Schirle v. Sokudo USA, our client filed a claim for employment discrimination based on national origin when he was stripped of his European executive responsibilities. The Fifth Circuit opinion first cited Pegram v. Honeywell, Inc. in restating that adverse employment actions are limited to ultimate employment decisions. But the opinion then went on to state that “it is recognized that a significant diminishment of material responsibilities, citing the U.S. Supreme Court case, Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, that led other federal circuit courts to adopt the looser materially adverse employment action standard… or a demotion, citing Pegram once again, also constitutes an adverse employment action.” Based on this analysis, the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of our client, stating that the loss of his European sales responsibilities was a diminishment of material responsibilities significant enough to satisfy the adverse employment action element of his prima facie case of employment discrimination.

The Schirle v. Sokudo USA decision laid the foundation for and played a key role in the most recent, and most controversial, of the Fifth Circuit’s line of adverse employment action cases. In its 2014 decision in Thompson v. City of Waco, Texas, the court further extended, in a published opinion, the standard that had evolved through cases such as Pegram, Alvarodo and Schirle, to a situation where an employee’s job responsibilities were significantly diminished, but he retained his same position and title. The Fifth Circuit majority ruling acknowledged previous cases, including Pegram v. Honeywell, Inc., which held that that the mere loss of some job responsibilities does not constitute an adverse employment action.

But the opinion went on to state that, “this does not mean that a change in or loss of job responsibilities can never form the basis of an actionable discrimination claim …. In certain instances, a change in or loss of job responsibilities, similar to the transfer and reassignment contexts, may be so significant and material that it rises to the level of an adverse employment action. See Schirle v. Sokudo USA, LLC.”

The Fifth Circuit noted that the plaintiff in Thompson v. City of Waco alleged more than a mere loss of some job responsibilities. He alleged facts that, taken as true, plausibly suggested that his employer changed his job description to such an extent that he no longer occupied the position he had previously performed, hence it was a de facto demotion. Citing Alvarado v. Texas Rangers, the majority opinion stated that, “we previously have held that an employment decision ‘need not result in a decrease in pay, title, or grade’ to constitute a demotion; ‘it can be a demotion if the new position proves objectively worse, such as being less prestigious or less interesting or providing less room for advancement.’” The majority then concluded that Thompson plausibly alleged that he was subject to the equivalent of a demotion due to the significant changes to his job responsibilities.

The adoption of the easier material adverse employment action standard is good news for those wishing to file employment discrimination claims in the Fifth Circuit. However, this fact did not go unnoticed by those judges on the Fifth Circuit who wish to adhere to the strict standard. First, the justice who dissented from the Thompson v. City of Waco decision accused the majority of using legal smoke and mirrors in order to avoid the strict Fifth Circuit standard of ultimate employment decisions. Subsequently, after the entire Fifth Circuit voted not to rehear the case en banc, another justice filed a dissent complaining that the law governing adverse employment actions in the Fifth Circuit had been subject to such a degree of “panel ping-pong” that “a particular panel can find language, and indeed even legal principles, that likely will support any conclusion that it may reach.” He went on to conclude that “in short, our cases give district judges and litigants no guidance as they attempt to thread their way through our confusion. They deserve better. We should give them better.”

Where does that leave the law regarding adverse employment actions in the Fifth Circuit? At best, it is uncertain. While the state of the law is unclear, what is clear is that the legal standard for what constitutes an adverse employment action has clearly shifted, through the course of Pegram to Alvarado to Schirle to Thompson, in the direction of employees. It is also clear that Kilgore & Kilgore has been instrumental in both protecting the interests of its clients in front of the Fifth Circuit, and in moving the ball forward for all employees who have been discriminated against, making it easier for them to receive justice under the law.

From these high profile cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, our employment law attorneys have gleaned a depth of experience in employment discrimination cases in Texas. This includes not just legal experience in a complicated area of employment law, but invaluable practical experience and familiarity with the courts and the judges. This helps every employment discrimination client as we bring claims on behalf of employees against large, medium and small employers in federal and state courts. When it comes to employment discrimination lawsuits, there really is no substitute for experience. To learn more about employment discrimination, click on this link Employment Discrimination Law. To contact Kilgore & Kilgore, click here. We offer a free review of the facts of your case.

#  #  #