Dallas Employment Trial Lawyer Riley Carter

Employees in the food industry are often the first people to see when something is wrong. Unsafe sanitation practices, contaminated ingredients, improper storage, falsified safety records, or pressure to ignore food safety rules can put the public at serious risk. Congress recognized this reality when it passed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)—and included strong protections for employees who speak up.

If you reported food safety concerns and were punished for it, you may have legal protections and remedies under federal law.

The post When Food Safety Violations Happen at Work: FSMA Protections for Employees Who Speak Up appeared first on Dallas Employment Lawyer Blog.

Dallas Employment Trial Lawyer Cassidy Monska

If you traveled recently, you probably noticed it. Airport security lines wrapping around terminals. Missed flights. Frustrated travelers staring at their phones and wondering how getting through TSA suddenly felt like a test of endurance.

While the long lines grabbed headlines, the real story was not about travel. It was about workers.

The post Fasten Your Seatbelts: What TSA Airport Lines Can Teach Us About Workers’ Rights appeared first on Dallas Employment Lawyer Blog.

Rachel Bethel Dallas
Trial Attorney

Neurodivergent professionals work in all industries and bring exceptional strengths to the workplace. Yet workplaces are generally built around neurotypical communication styles, needs, and other neurotypical norms. Thankfully, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, workers with qualifying disabilities are entitled to request reasonable accommodations.

Neurodevelopmental conditions may qualify as disabilities when they substantially limit major life activities. These might include concentrating, thinking, communicating, regulating emotions, sleeping, interacting with others, or managing executive functioning.

The post Reasonable Accommodations for Neurodivergent Workers appeared first on Dallas Employment Lawyer Blog.

Dallas Employment Trial Lawyer Harjeen Zibari

There is a general concept in civil procedure is called standing. Standing is the question of whether or not the Plaintiff bringing the claim can actually legally do so. In employment law, it seems like a pretty straightforward inquiry, but sometimes it can get pretty complicated.

Generally speaking, an employee who has been discriminated or retaliated against in a way that is defined by a statute has the most easily established standing in court. For example, a woman who is constantly subjected to sexist comments in the workplace and then fired and replaced by a male employee has standing under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to bring a case against her former employer. Whether she’ll win is another battle in and of itself, dependent on the facts, but the threshold question of whether she’ll get in the door is pretty easily answered. Or, an employee who was fired two days after requesting a reasonable accommodation similarly has standing under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as he was retaliated against for engaging in a legally protected activity: requesting an accommodation. Again, whether he’ll win is another question, but he’s able to get in the door, as he’s the appropriate person to bring the suit against the employer, as opposed to someone who just witnessed these things happen.

The post Standing Up to Employers, and Having the Standing to Bring an Employment Case appeared first on Dallas Employment Lawyer Blog.

Dallas Employment Trial Lawyer Cassidy Monska

Summary: This blog explains the “cat’s paw” theory of liability in employment law, which allows an employee to hold an employer accountable when a biased supervisor influences an otherwise neutral decision‑maker to take adverse action.

One of the most frustrating things employees hear after being fired or disciplined is that the person who made the final decision “wasn’t biased.” Employers often rely on that fact to argue they cannot be held responsible for discrimination or retaliation. Employment law, however, recognizes that bias does not always sit at the top of the organizational chart. This is where the “cat’s paw” theory of liability comes into play.

The post The Cat’s Paw Theory: How Employer Bias Can Still Lead to Liability appeared first on Dallas Employment Lawyer Blog.

As previously discussed elsewhere in this blog, in 2022 the Biden administration signed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) into law.  This law made it clear that employers were no longer allowed to force employees to “hide” any sexual harassment and assault claims in private, confidential arbitration (where typically the decisionmaker is paid by the employer) instead of being allowed to go to court.  This law was very important for workers because – beyond the fact employers could no longer conceal whether they had been sued for sexual harassment – in general arbitrations favor employers over employees.  The law thus let workers keep their cases in more favorable venues, the courts.

One thing that old article noted that was less than clear was the question of what happened if an employee brought sexual harassment claims in addition to other legal claims – could those other claims be forcibly separated out and put into arbitration anyway?  Some lower courts across the country have looked at the issue, but those are not binding precedents.  On February 25, 2026, however, a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision reached a definite answer – and that answer is no.  In a case involving claims protected by the EFAA, everything can stay together in court.

The post The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act means employers can’t break up cases, Sixth Circuit concludes appeared first on Dallas Employment Lawyer Blog.

Dallas Employment Trial Lawyer Riley Carter

In civil litigation, liability is only half the story. Even when a defendant is clearly at fault, the amount of damages recoverable by a plaintiff is often shaped by a less-discussed but critically important principle: the duty to mitigate damages.

Understanding this doctrine is essential for litigators, clients, and courts alike, because it limits recovery without excusing wrongdoing—and frequently becomes a battleground at trial.

The post What is the plaintiff’s duty to mitigate their damages and why is it necessary? appeared first on Dallas Employment Lawyer Blog.

Rachel Bethel Dallas
Trial Attorney

Although Texas is an “at-will employment” state, this doctrine has important limits, especially when it comes to your employee benefits.

Federal law protects workers from being targeted for their use of health insurance, retirement plans, and other benefits. That protection comes from ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The post Understanding ERISA Discrimination and Retaliation appeared first on Dallas Employment Lawyer Blog.

The short answer is no. But the longer answer matters and understanding what actually changed (and what didn’t) can help you protect yourself at work.

What happened?

The post Did the EEOC Really Roll Back Workplace Protections? What Texas Employees Need to Know appeared first on Dallas Employment Lawyer Blog.

The answer is more nuanced than most people realize – and it depends on what actually happened at work.

Is Alcoholism a Disability Under the ADA?

The post Can You Be Fired for Alcoholism in Texas? What Employees Need to Know appeared first on Dallas Employment Lawyer Blog.