Both Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code and the federal discrimination laws prohibit discriminatory selection for needed layoffs (based on age, gender, national origin, disability, FMLA leave), and Chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code prohibits discrimination against those who've filed and are out on workers' comp, and there is a federal law governing mass layoffs/plant closings (called the WARN Act), but Texas is an at-will state and there is no requirement for severance, or specific criteria...
4 people marked this answer as helpful
Pregnancy discrimination is protected under the Texas Labor Code, Ch. 21, and under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which was amended with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act), and retaliation for opposing or filing a charge of discrimination is also protected. If you oppose the discrimination internally (rather than filing a charge with the EEOC (http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/index.cfm) or with the TWC, Civil Rights Division (http://www.twc.state.tx.us/customers/jsemp/jsempsubcrd.html)...
1 person marked this answer as helpful
I agree with the practical advice from Mr. Collins. Some oral agreements are enforceable in Texas, and there may be a basis to file a wage claim for the 8 weeks at the new rate. You really need to confer with a local attorney before threatening to sue, to weigh the options. go to www.telaonline.com or www.nela.org to find a local lawyer in Houston to set up a consultation before threatening suit or TWC wage claim. There are some fine lawyers on both lists.
1 person marked this answer as helpful
In addition to the prior answers, there may be a common law (not from a statute, but from caselaw developed over the years/centuries) claim of invasion of privacy under Texas law. If there is any authorization that you've given for disclosure, the employer/supervisors have been given "carte blanche" from the Texas Supreme Court, which is pro-business and tough on employee rights (there have been 9 Republicans, all from business/employer-friendly backgrounds, on the Texas Supreme Court for many...
1 person marked this answer as helpful
They could sue you for it based on "unjust enrichment" under Texas common law, probably in a JP court as a "small claims" case, to keep their cost down, but there's a good possibility that they might not, since even if they won, they realize they would have a tough time collecting, unless you've got siginficant exempt assets (your cars, your home, any retirement funds are all protected under law). I also imagine someone in payroll would or should be embarassed if it was a mistake, and they have...
1 person marked this answer as helpful
While it can be within the "servers" role to bus their own tables, and "restock" for their tables (rolling silver, and replenishing salt/pepper and sweetener containers, for example), there might be an issue that you are really doing "dual jobs" - server and dishwasher. The facts of what you do as a dishwasher, and whether you're actually working "split duties" that can be broken down for compensation purposes, would probably need to be reviewed by the DOL - 1-866-4-USA-DOL. The more "...
I think I already answered another version of this question you also submitted. Given that you've now said the test was a "random" test, you might be able to attack your selection for testing as retaliatory, and tie into this that the "randomness" of the test is suspect and contrary to policy and legal requirements for random tests, but my prior answers apply to the general policy that most employers can dictate which type of test is used. "Less invasive" doesn't fly, by itself, as the...
Since you haven't described what kind of business, what kind of issue and whether or not you think it's going to result in discipline, it's hard to answer your question. You might want to write down your version of events, and be prepared to give it to your director at the meeting, so you won't leave things out when you meet, but if you do, make it a "timeline" without any emotional content - just the facts, not stuff like "I was so confused" "I don't know but it seemed like" or "I'm worried...
The drug testing policy at UHS or Brady Green (assuming it's one of these) really controls - whether there's a requirement you undertake the blood test, rather than the urine, and whether you have a viable health or other privacy reason for refusing the blood test (hemophilia or HIV/hepatitis disclosure). The blood test is usually more accurate for presence of some drugs, which is why the employer can (usually) require this, unless the policy in writing permits you to refuse one, or that...
A tough question without a simple answer, but a couple of thoughts. First, you need to report his request to your insurance carrier (homeowner's and any umbrella policy) and let them do battle, and also so that if he does make a claim with your carrier, they don't deny coverage if there is any liability. I think there is only liability on your part (and your carrier's) if he can show "comparative" negligence that gives him relief under Texas law. As for whether you should "lie" for purposes...