In February 2009, a Travis County jury awarded a woman $900,000.00 after finding that she was fired from her job at Texas civil rights agency for complaining about discrimination against minorities at the agency, according to an article from an Austin, Texas newspaper.  See, Osborn, Claire, “Jury Awards Whistle-Blower $900,000,” Austin American-Statesman, 2/4/09, http://www.statesman.com .  As stated in the article, the jury arrived at the verdict after a six-day trial in a lawsuit which Merilou Morrison filed against the Texas Commission on Human rights and the Texas Workforce Commission (”TWC”).  The TWC Civil Rights Division enforces the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act; which has been codified into Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21.  Austin attorney Gary Bledsoe was quoted in the article as saying that “The agency that is supposed to enforce civil rights is being hit with basically a million dollar judgment for violating the very statutes they are required to enforce.”  According to the article, Morrison, who is white, was a 58 year-old investigator at the Texas Commission on Human Rights when she told agency commissioners in December 2002 that the agency’s former director was discriminating against black and Hispanic employees and applicants.  In this regard, an attorney representing Morrison in the lawsuit was quoted as saying that “Her allegations were that the agency was bringing in white employees from the outside who had no experience or interest in civil rights to be put in positions above qualified minority employees.” 

Whether unlawful retaliation for opposing or reporting employment discrimination occurs in Austin, New Braunfels, San Marcos or elsewhere, whistleblowers may contact an attorney or lawyer to determine if a whistleblower lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential unlawful employment practice claim.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported recently that a former Starbucks Corporation warehouse employee has sued the company, alleging that he was fired after 7 1/2 years for complaining about unsafe working conditions such as workers being overworked and, in at least one case, untrained at a green-coffee warehouse in Kent.  See, http://www.seatllepi.com/local/405136_starbucks14.html , 4/14/09.  According to the article, the plaintiff claims that he experienced retaliation after a February 2008 incident during which an uncertified forklift driver knocked a large door off of a piece of industrial equipment.  As stated in the article, the plaintiff contends that the company tried to cover up the incident and failed to respond to other safety concerns he raised.  The article notes as well that the plaintiff alleges he was fired after confronting his manager about the company’s handling of his safety concerns, so he later filed a discrimination complaint with the State Department of Labor and Industries.  According to Labor and Industries records referenced in the article, the company was fined $3,400 for violations found during an inspection which followed the forklift incident, and inspectors found that untrained workers were operating forklifts and aisles were not well marked.  For its own part, a company spokeswoman was quoted in the article as saying “We are confident the evidence will show that [the] termination was justified and appropriate.”

Whether whistleblower discrimination occurs in Beaumont, Houston or elsewhere, victims of alleged whistleblower retaliation may contact appropriate government agencies and consult a lawyer to determine if a whistleblower discrimination lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential whistleblower retaliation claim.

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 in the April 21, 2009 Houston Chronicle, a Houston man has been accused by company attorneys of faking a report that the Houston man contends he sent to company executives warning them of a dust hazard at a Georgia refinery days before a blast there killed fourteen (14) workers.  See, Associated Press, “Attorneys Say Whistle-blower Faked Warning of Explosion,” Houston Chronicle, 4/21/09, p. A4.  According to the article, attorneys defending the company in more than thirty (30) lawsuits filed a motion in court asking a judge to throw out the report and all testimony by the Houston man “because he knowingly provided false testimony.”  Id.  In addition, the article states that investigators determined that the plant explosion was caused by airborne particles of sugar dust which ignited like gunpowder, injuring dozens of workers and killing fourteen (14) workers in the February 7, 2008 incident.  Id.  The article further states that company attorneys said computer forensics experts hired by the company determined that the Houston man’s report, which he contends he forwarded to top company executives seventeen (17) days before the explosion, was actually generated three (3) days after the blast.  Id.  The accused whistleblower referred questions to his attorney after stating that the allegations are wrong.  Id.  For his own part, the attorney was quoted in the article as saying that “I can’t comment directly on the forensics until I see them … I have a lot of questions myself.”  Id.  An attorney representing families of eleven (11) victims suing the company defended the Houston man and was quoted in the article, describing him as “the hero of this case.”  Id.

As reported by the Houston Chronicle on April 21, 2009, a Denver-based company and the colleges it operates in Texas agreed to pay $7 million to settle allegations that the colleges submitted false claims for federal student aid funds.  Associated Press, “Whistle-blower Suit Resolved,” Houston Chronicle, 4/21/09, p. B5.  According to the article, the Department of Justice claimed in a civil suit that the Texas schools operated by Alta Colleges Inc. obtained licensing from the Texas Workforce Commission by misrepresenting that they complied with job-placement reporting requirements and that their interior design programs met the standards for a professional license.  Id.  State licensing is a requirement for receiving federal student aid.  Id.  The article states further that Alta Colleges is the parent company of Westwood College, which operates seventeen (17) campuses in six states, including Texas campuses in Dallas, Fort Worth and Houston.  Id.  According to a letter cited in the article from a company CEO, the company contends that it acted lawfully but thought it necessary to settle with the government because of the time and expense associated with litigation.  Id.  However, the article states as well that the government’s lawsuit included the allegation that Alta Colleges violated Texas Workforce Commission requirements by falsely reporting that more than 90% of its students received jobs after graduation, when, “in truth, the figure was 54 percent, and only a third of the graduates were placed in jobs through the efforts of the school, according to the lawsuit.”  Id.  When it sued the company, the government intervened in a federal whistleblower lawsuit.  Id.  In conclusion, the article states that the plaintiffs who initiated the proceeding - all former employees of the college - will receive $1.9 million as part of the settlement.  Id.

The United States Department of Labor at http://www.osha.gov/dep/oia/whistleblower/index.html offers the public information about certain whistleblower protections.  In this regard, the Occupational Safety & Health Act (”OSHA”) is designed to regulate employment conditions relating to occupational safety and health and to achieve safer and more healthful workplaces throughout the nation.  The Act provides for a wide range of substantive and procedural rights for employees and representatives of employees and also recognizes that effective implementation of its goals depend in large measure upon the active and orderly participation of employees, individually and through their representatives, at every level of safety and health activity.  To help ensure that employees are, in fact, free to participate in safety and health activities, Section 11(c) of the Act prohibits any person from discharging or in any manner retaliating against any employee because the employee has exercised rights under the Act. The seventeen (17) statutes enforced by OSHA and the regulations governing their administration can be found by visiting the website.

As stated at the OSHA website, a person filing a complaint of discrimination or retaliation will be required to show that he or she engaged in a protected activity, the employer knew about that acitivity, the employer subjected him or her to an adverse employment action, and the protected activity contributed to the adverse action.

The website recommends that employees who believe they have been discriminated against by an employer as a result of the employee exercising safety and health rights should contact their local OSHA Office right away since most discrimination complaints of this type need to be reported within thirty (30) days.  According to the OSHA website, some other laws may different complaint filing deadlines, so OSHA recommends that employees check which deadline may apply to them.  There is, as reported in the website, a Regional OSHA Office in Dallas.  The Dallas Office phone number is listed as (972)850-4145.

Whether whistleblower discrimination or retaliation occurs in Dallas or elswhere, victims of whistleblower discrimination may contact an OSHA Office and an attorney to determine if a whistleblower lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential whistleblower claim.

On April 7, 2009, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (”OSHA”) announced in an OSHA News Release that it ordered an air cargo carrier to withdraw a lawsuit the company filed against nine (9) former employees and pay them more than $7.9 million in wages, damages and legal fees.  See, http://www.dol.gov .  According to the OSHA News Release, the air cargo company filed a defamation lawsuit against the former employees after some of the workers raised air carrier safety concerns with the company, OSHA and the Federal Aviation Administration (”FAA”), and the workers, all former flight crew members, subsequently filed a whistleblower complaint with OSHA.  As further described in the News Release, OSHA’s investigation reportedly found that the company’s lawsuit was filed in retaliation for the workers’ protected activities under the whistleblower provisions of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (”AIR21″).

In addition to AIR21, OSHA administers the whistleblower provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health (”OSH”) Act and other statutes protecting employees who report violations of various securities, trucking, airline, nuclear power, pipeline, environmental, rail, public transportation and consumer product safety laws.  More detailed information about employee whistleblower rights is, according to the OSHA News Release, available at http://www.osha.gov/dep/oia/whistleblower/index.html .  For more information about OSHA, one can visit www.osha.gov . 

At http://www.osha.gov/dep/oia/whistleblower/index.html , the Department of Labor (”DOL”) states that OSHA is designed to regulate employment conditions relating to occupational safety and health and to achieve safer and more healthful workplaces throughout the nation.  In this regard, the DOL states that a person filing a complaint of discrimination or retaliation will be required to show that he or she engaged in protected activity, the employer knew about that protected activity, the employer subjected him or her to an adverse employment action, and the protected activity contributed to the adverse action.

Whether employment related whistleblower retaliation or discrimination occurs in Beaumont, Dallas, Houston or elsewhere, victims of whistleblower retaliation discrimination may report the violation to the appropriate state or federal agency and consult an attorney to determine if a whistleblower lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential whistleblower claim.