According to Texas Labor Code, Chapter 411, Workers’ Health & Safety, the Texas Workforce Commission maintains a Safety Violations Hotline.  See, www.twcc.state.tx.us/services/hotline.html .  As described in Texas Labor Code Section 411.082, an employer may not suspend or terminate the employment of or otherwise discriminate against an employee for using the telephone service to report in good faith an alleged violation of an occupational health or safety law.  Texas Labor Code Section 411.083 provides a description of judicial relief for employer retaliation in this regard, saying, in part, that an employee whose employment is terminated or suspended in violation of Section 411.082 may be entitled to, for example, reinstatement, lost wages, court costs and reasonable attorney fees.  According to Texas Labor Code Section 411.083(b), an employee seeking relief under this section must file suit not later than the 90th day after the alleged conduct of the employer occurred or was discovered or discoverable by the employee through reasonable diligence.

Whether discrimination against an employee for reporting a safety violation occurs in Beaumont, Houston or elsewhere in Texas, victims of safety report retaliation may consult an attorney to determine if a retaliation lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential employment discrimination claim.

As reported at the website of the U.S. Department of Labor, on August 14, 2008, Section 219 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (”CPSIA”) of 2008, was enacted, establishing new retaliation protections for employees in the consumer product safety industry.

See, http://www.osha.gov/dep/oia/whistleblower/consumer-product-industry-employees.html

In general, covered employees under CPSIA include manufacturers, importers, private labelers (owners of brand or trademark on the private label of a consumer product), distributors and retailers.  Under the CPSIA, a covered employer may not discharge or in any other manner retaliate against an employee because the employee provided, caused to be provided or is about to provide or cause to be provided to the employer, the federal government, or the attorney general of a state information the employee reasonably believes is related to any violation of, or any act or omission the employee reasonably believes to be a violation of the Consumer Product Safety Act (”CPSA”) or any other Act enforced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (”CPSC”), or any other order, rule, regulation, standard or ban under any such Acts. 

The website posting also states that, under CPSIA, employers may not discharge or in any manner retaliate against an employee because the employee participated in or assisted in a proceeding under the laws, orders, rules, regulations, standards or bans enforced by the CPSC.  Further, an employer may not discharge or in any manner retaliate against an employee because the employee objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, practice, or assigned task that the employee reasonably believed to be in violation of any provision of the CPSA or any other Act enforced by the CPSC, or any order, rule, regulation, standard or ban under any such Acts.

The website posting lists unfavorable personnel actions, saying that an employer may be found to have violated the statute if the employee’s protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer’s decision to take unfavorable personnel actions against the employee.  Examples of unfavorable personnel actions include: firing or laying off; blacklisting; demoting; denying overtime or promotion; disciplining; denying benefits; failing to hire or rehire; intimidation; reassignment affecting promotion prospects; and/or, reducing pay or hours.

According to the Department of Labor, complaints must be filed within 180 days after the alleged unfavorable personnel action occurs (that is, when the employee becomes aware of the retaliatory action).  In addition, the Department of Labor states that complaints an employee may file a complaint with OSHA.  In Texas, a regional office for OSHA in Dallas may be contacted at (972)850-4145.

Whether retaliation against employees in the consumer product industry occurs in Houston, Dallas or elsewhere, victims of unfavorable personnel actions arising out of protected activity may contact OSHA or an attorney to determine if a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential claim.

In an April 23, 2009 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) Press Release, the federal agency announced that a North Carolina based engineering and design company will pay $10,250 and furnish other relief to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit in which EEOC attorneys alleged that the company disciplined workers in a discriminatory manner based on gender when it fired a female employee after she returned from a leave of absence.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-23-09.html .  According to the EEOC Press Release, the lawsuit alleged that the company fired the female employee when she did not provide medical documentation for her leave of absence but had previously allowed a similarly situated male employee to take a leave of absence without providing any medical documentation and he was not fired. 

Sex discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  For further information about the EEOC, see www.eeoc.gov .

In an April 9, 2009 Press Release, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced that a Pennsylvania based manufacturer will pay $40,000 and furnish other relief to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by EEOC attorneys in which the federal agency alleged that the company refused to promote a black employee at its Virginia plant because of his race.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-9-09a.html .  According to the EEOC Press Release, the race discrimination lawsuit alleged, more specifically, that the company failed to promote a lead operator to the position of plant manager because he is African American even though he was fully qualified for the plant manager position.  In addition, the Press Release states that the company did not post the vacant position and instead promoted a white employee who the EEOC argues was less qualified and who had been with the company less than three (3) years.  As reported in the EEOC Press Release, the African American employee had been with the company since 1991. 

Race discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In addition, under Texas Labor Code Chapter 21, Section 21.051, an employer commits unlawful employment practices if because of, for example, race or color the employer: (1) fails or refuses to hire an individual, discharges an individual, or discriminates in any other manner against an individual in connection with compensation or the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment; or, (2) limits, segregates, or classifies an employee or applicant for employment in a manner that would deprive an individual of any employment opportunity or adversely affect in any other manner the status of the employee.

Whether employment related race discrimination occurs in Dallas, Houston or elsewhere, victims of workplace racial discrimination may contact the EEOC, and, in Texas, the Texas Workforce Commission, or an attorney to determine if a race discrimination lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential case.

Chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code addresses discrimination issues related to Texas worker compensation and, at Section 451.001, states that a person may not discharge or in any other manner discriminate against an employee because the employee has: (1) filed a worker’s compensation claim in good faith; (2) hired a lawyer to represent the employee in a claim; (3) instituted or caused to be instituted in good faith a proceeding under Subtitle A; or (4) testified or is about to testify in a proceeding under Subtitle A.  According to Chapter 451, Section 451.002, a person who violates Section 451.001 is liable for reasonable damages, including potentially mental anguish damages, incurred by the employee as a result of the violation.  Further, an employee discharged in violation of Section 451.001 is entitled to reinstatement in the former position of employment. 

Whether worker compensation discrimination occurs in Beaumont, Houston or elsewhere in Texas, victims of employment related worker compensation discrimination or retaliation may consult an attorney to determine if a worker compensation discrimination and retaliation lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential claim.

In an April 24, 2009 Press Release, the Department of Justice (”DOJ”) announced that a fifty-year-old truck driver from Maryland pleaded guilty to assault and violating the civil rights of an African American man he encountered while he delivered construction materials to the Pentagon.  According to the DOJ Press Release, the man admitted he made a noose and displayed the noose to the victim in an attempt to intimidate the victim who was a pipefitter also working at the Pentagon.  The Press Release stated as well that the United States also alleged that the man placed the noose around the victim’s neck, and pulled the victim into a large, metal storage container during the 2006 incident.  An attorney quoted in the DOJ Press Release was quoted as saying that “A noose is a very powerful symbol of hate and racially motivated violence [and the DOJ] is committed to ensuring that those who use racially motivated threats and violence in the workplace are prosecuted and brought to justice.” 

See, http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/April/09-crt-388.html .

In an April 17, 2009 Press Release, a Department of Justice attorney announced that a former Police Chief in Mendenhall, Mississippi was sentenced to 30 months in prison for using excessive force when he repeatedly stomped on the head of an arrestee.  See, http://www.uddoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/April/09-crt-365.html .  According to the Press Release, the former Police Chief admitted at his guilty plea hearing that he used excessive force in a 2005 incident after joining other law enforcement officials in the apprehension of a man who led police on a car chase.  At the end of the chase, the officer pulled the man from his car and repeatedly stomped on his head as the man lay face-down in the street.  As stated in the Press Release, a local hospital treated the man for injuries sustained in the assault.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced in an April 22, 2009 Press Release that a former Bexar County Sheriff’s Office deputy pleaded guilty to a civil rights charge in federal court in San Antonio Texas for using excessive force against a prisoner while working as a detention officer at the Bexar County jail, and, according to documents cited in the Press Release, the former deputy acknowledged he used more force than necessary in a 2006 incident.  See, http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/April/09-crt-380.html .  As stated in the Press Release, a prisoner received head injuries that necessitated medical treatment resulting from the assault.  By pleading guilty, the former deputy acknowledged that he deprived the prisoner of his constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty without due process, which includes the right to be free from the use of excessive force by a law enforcement officer.  The Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division was quoted in the Press Release as saying that “Law enforcement officers take an oath to uphold the law, not to violate it, as this officer did when he abused his authority over a man in his custody.” 

Whether excessive force or abuse by law enforcement occurs in San Antonio or elsewhere, victims of police misconduct or abuse may make formal complaints to the Justice Department and consult an attorney to determine if a civil rights lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the potential case.

Under Chapter 22 of the Texas Labor Code, Texas law provides protections prohibiting employer discrimination againt employees who leave the workplace in certain emergency situations.  More specifically, Texas Labor Code Section 22.002 states than an employer may not discharge or in any other manner discriminate against an employee who leaves the employee’s place of employment to participate in a general public evacuation ordered under an emergency evacuation order.  According to Texas Labor Code Section 22.001(2), emergency evacuation order means an official statement issued by the governing body of this state or a political subdivision of this state to recommend the evacuation of all or part of the population of an area stricken or threatened with a disaster.  In addition, Texas Labor Code Section 22.00(1) defines disaster to mean the occurrence or imminent threat of widespread or severe damage from a natural or man-made cause, including, for example, fire, flood, wind, storm, wave action or other public calamity.  As stated in Texas Labor Code Section 22.003, an employer who violates Section 22.002 is liable for any loss of wages and employer-provided benefits incurred by the employee and the person discharged is entitled to reinstatement in the same or an equivalent position of employment with commensurate pay.  However, Texas Labor Code Section 22.004 states that Section 22.002 does not apply to people employed as emergency services personnel if  the employer provides adequate emergency shelter for those people.  Section 22.002 also does not apply to a person who is necessary to provide for the safety and well-being of the general public, including a person necessary for the restoration of vital services. 

Whether employment discrimination for participating in an emergency evacuation occurs in Beaumont, Galveston, Houston or elsewhere in Texas, victims of emergency evacuation discrimination may consult an attorney to determine if an emergency evacuation discrimination lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the particular potential claim.

On April 16, 2009, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced that the federal agency settled a harassment lawsuit against a national department store on behalf of ten (10) former employees.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-16-09a.html .  According to the Press Release, the EEOC had charged that the department store manager harassed Hispanic and Black employees based on their national origin, race and color, and retaliated against those who complained about the harassment.  The EEOC Press Release stated further that an alterations department manager complained that she “hate[d] Hispanics,” and that Hispanics were “lazy” and “ignorant” and that Hispanic tailors were chastised by the same alterations manager for speaking to each other in Spanish.  In addition, the Press Release referred to allegations that the same manager made other derogatory remarks such as “I don’t like blacks” and “you’re black, you stink.”  Moreover, the EEOC reported in the Press Release that the employees complained to the company about the harassment, but the harassment did not stop, and the alterations manager retaliated against those who complained by continuing the racially offensive comments, unfairly berating employees and citing them for alleged performance problems.

Whether racial and national origin discrimination in the workplace occurs in San Antonio, San Marcos or elsewhere, victims of employment related racial and national origin discrimination may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a racial and national origin lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential case.