# Business & Employment Attorneys

> Admin Email: admin@longevity.marketing


## Posts

### Labor Law Attorney, Rogge Dunn Explains Free Speech Protections For Government vs. Private Companies In One On One Interview

What Free Speech Rights Do Employees Really Have?In a CBS News Texas segment, labor law attorney Rogge Dunn explains the legal limits of free speech in the workplace, clarifying the differences between public and private sector employees. In the wake of controversial social media posts tied to recent events, Dunn outlines when speech is protected—and when it can cost someone their job.



View the full article here.




https://vimeo.com/1120945369?fl=pl&fe=sh

### Employment Attorney, Rogge Dunn Weighs In On Free Speech Laws

Can You Be Fired Over a Social Media Post?Dallas employment attorney Rogge Dunn weighs in on the limits of free speech protections in the workplace following controversial employee terminations over social media comments about Charlie Kirk’s death. Dunn explains the distinction between private and public sector employee rights and why private employees may have little legal recourse. He also cautions educators and government workers on how context and capacity affect First Amendment protections.



View full article here.




https://vimeo.com/1120980652?share=copy

### Court Grants Directed Verdict in Favor of RDG Client in Restrictive Covenant Lawsuit

Gregory M. Clift recently secured a directed verdict against Rhodes Team n/k/a PenFed Realty in its lawsuit against a former real estate agent claiming it was entitled to a "50% referral fee off the gross commission" if she "sign[ed] a listing or [made] a sale with ANY CLIENT FROM THE RHODES TEAM’S DATA BASE."  Despite repeated efforts to resolve the matter by explaining the restrictive covenant did not meet Texas law, the matter went to trial.



At trial PenFed’s witness, Nicholas Galloway, admitted the "database" was started before Mr. Clift’s client started with PenFed, contained "clients" whose names were obtained simply from them completing on-line forms with third parties, and that many of the "clients" in the database were unknown to Mr. Clift’s client.  On re-direct, Mr. Galloway then changed the company’s position of enforcing the overbroad restraint of trade to only those clients with which Mr. Clift’s client worked.  Without calling a single witness at trial (and not having his client attend) the court granted a directed verdict in favor of Mr. Clift’s client.



The win was so significant PenFed voluntarily dismissed a second lawsuit against another former real estate agent where it sought to enforce an almost identical restrictive covenant.



The win is another in the Firm’s practice of defending and enforcing restrictive covenants.  This win was especially significant as it defended two former employees from an attempt by a company to strong arm them into paying money to it that was not owed.

### Gregory M. Clift Secures Defense Win in Tennessee Products Liability Case

Gregory M. Clift recently secured a summary judgment in a products liability case brought in Tennessee.  The plaintiff claimed injuries from the clients’ pharmaceutical product.  She sued a number of companies and individuals associated with the companies.  After the close of discovery (where through Mr. Clift’s strategy costly depositions were avoided), the court granted summary judgment for all defendants.  The court found the individuals were not manufactures or sellers under the Tennessee Products Liability Act.  The court also found plaintiff was unable to establish the product was unreasonably dangerous and presented no evidence the product caused her complained-of ailments.



The win underscores the importance of cost-effective litigation management to achieve winning results for the Firm’s clients.  It further shows the Firm’s commitment to protecting its clients from allegations that may impact its clients’ reputations and bottom line negatively. 

### Patrick McShan Becomes Licensed FINRA Arbitrator

The Rogge Dunn Group is proud to announce that Patrick McShan, a seasoned trial lawyer and Partner at the firm, is now a licensed FINRA arbitrator. This designation reflects Patrick’s deep understanding of the complex legal issues that arise in the financial industry dispute resolution process and adds significant value to the firm’s robust litigation and arbitration practice.



Patrick brings over two decades of experience in complex business and employment litigation, including high-stakes disputes involving partnerships, shareholder rights, non-competes, fraud, intellectual property, construction, real estate, and professional negligence. His wide-ranging litigation experience spans both state and federal courts, as well as arbitration forums.



In addition to his litigation work, Patrick previously served as General Counsel for a private energy company, where he oversaw outside counsel, directed legal strategy, and managed multi-million dollar trials and arbitration hearings. This unique in-house experience gave Patrick valuable insight into the priorities and pressures facing business clients—insight that continues to shape his strategic approach to litigation and dispute resolution.



As a FINRA arbitrator, Patrick has completed specialized training that enhances the firm’s perspective on the FINRA arbitration process, providing clients with a strategic advantage when facing securities-related disputes. His dual experience as both advocate and neutral gives The Rogge Dunn Group added insight into how FINRA arbitrators evaluate complex issues, testimony, and evidence.



“Becoming a FINRA arbitrator further deepens my commitment to fair and efficient resolution of disputes,” said McShan. “It also provides a broader view of the process—one I look forward to applying on behalf of our clients.”

### Rogge Dunn quoted in: Waivers Likely Won't Provide Protection in Litigation Over Texas Flooding

Legal experts say Texas law prevents parents from waiving their children's injury claims, so liability waivers at Kerr County camps and businesses likely will not shield them from lawsuits over deaths in the Texas Hill Country flooding.



The legal principle, established in multiple Texas Court of Appeals cases, could leave businesses facing significant liability, even if customers signed standard waivers before participating inactivities or staying at facilities in the flood zone, said Rogge Dunn, a Dallas attorney with Rogge Dunn Group, PC, who specializes in liability waivers.



"Parents cannot release their kids' claims," Dunn said. "So in this case, if the children were killed or injured, they can sue, and even if their parents signed a release, it's no good." Lawsuits are anticipated as attorneys forecast an increase in litigation targeting businesses located in flood-prone areas along the Guadalupe River. This follows the Fourth of July early morning flash flood, which resulted in more than 100 deaths so far in Kerr County, including 27 at Camp Mystic, a girls' summer camp.



https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2025/07/16/waivers-likely-wont-provide-protection-in-litigation-over-texas-flooding/?slreturn=20250717152748



Read Full Article here.

### Former Copart HR exec alleges discrimination, harassment, and retaliation

A former human resources executive at Copart Inc. alleges she was harassed, discriminated against, and wrongfully fired. The company denies her claims.




https://vimeo.com/1095744541

### Rogge Dunn on CBS News Texas Live from Ukraine

Robbie Owens with CBS News Texas met with Rogge Dunn on Sunday to discuss his mission trip to Kyiv and gain an understanding first hand of his experience in Ukraine. 



Check out CBS News Texas Story Here.




https://vimeo.com/1083577188?share=copy

### RDG Dines with Purpose for Ukrainian Civilians

Rogge Dunn Group recently hosted an exclusive wine dinner with Gen. David Petraeus, raising $101,750 for Mental Help Global, a nonprofit delivering mental health support to Ukrainian civilians impacted by war.



The evening included a $50,000 donation from Rogge Dunn Group, underscoring the firm's commitment to humanitarian causes.



Rogge Dunn, driven by his passion for history and geopolitics, will travel to Kyiv this week for the Kyiv Security Forum, where Gen. Petraeus will speak on tech innovation and defending democracy.



Check out the full article by Texas Law Book or the PDF version.

### Rogge Dunn Files Lawsuit on Behalf of Former Corporate President Over Confidentiality Breach

Rogge Dunn Group is representing Ricky Riggs, former president of Future Infrastructure LLC, in a lawsuit alleging a confidentiality breach in which that the company unlawfully accessed and misused private, privileged information shared between Riggs and his attorney. The suit claims that Future Infrastructure’s leadership used third-party portals to obtain protected documents—outside the company’s server environment—and relied on this confidential information as the basis to terminate Riggs and pursue litigation against him. “This case will test the boundaries of employee privacy rights,” said Rogge Dunn. “Employers cannot weaponize privileged communications to retaliate against an employee.” The outcome could have significant implications for employee privacy protections in Texas and across the country.Read the press coverage over the alleged confidentiality breach lawsuit below:Business Wires Press Release here.Yahoo Finance Article here.

### Rogge Dunn Represents Former Copart Executive in Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

Rogge Dunn Group is representing Christine Arnold, former Global Vice President of Human Resources at Copart, Inc., in a lawsuit filed in Dallas County alleging gender discrimination, retaliation, and sexual harassment. The complaint details a pattern of misconduct and inequity at the Fortune 500 company, including exclusionary workplace practices, inappropriate behavior at company-sponsored events, and unequal compensation. After 17 years with Copart, Ms. Arnold was terminated following her repeated efforts to raise concerns internally. Rogge Dunn called the allegations of gender discrimination “deeply disturbing” and emphasized Ms. Arnold’s right to speak up for fairness and dignity in the workplace.Read the Press Coverage Below:Business Wires Press Release here.Law360 Article here and PDF here.Texas Lawbook Article here and PDF here.

### Rogge Dunn Named to Lawdragon’s 500 Leading Corporate Employment Lawyers for 2025.

Rogge Dunn, founding partner of Rogge Dunn Group, has been named to the 2025 edition of Lawdragon’s 500 Leading Corporate Employment Lawyers, a national guide that honors top-tier attorneys handling executive, employment, and workplace disputes.



Lawdragon’s rigorous selection process includes journalistic research, peer review, and evaluation of professional achievements. Honorees are recognized for their work in areas such as executive transitions, compensation disputes, labor matters, and complex employment litigation.



“Everyone deserves to be respected for the work they do,” said Mr. Dunn. “I’m grateful for the trust our clients place in us during some of the most challenging moments of their careers.”



Mr. Dunn is widely known for representing financial advisors, founders, and senior executives in disputes involving wrongful discharge, non-compete agreements, FINRA claims, and regulatory matters. He frequently goes toe-to-toe with Fortune 500 companies and has secured courtroom victories across the country.



Most recently, he is representing a national trucking company in a civil RICO action alleging systemic hidden fee practices by a logistics provider.



Read the full press release here.

### TRO Victory: Collin Quigley Secures Court Win for Physician Client

Partner and Labor & Employment Practice Area Leader Collin Quigley recently secured a significant legal victory by obtaining a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against Children’s Health on behalf of a physician client.



Children’s Health had unlawfully interfered with the doctor’s ability to continue practicing medicine by withholding essential verification of employment and hospital affiliation—documents required for obtaining hospital privileges and securing future positions. The Court determined that Children’s Health’s actions, including the imposition of unreasonable barriers and false implications of corrective action, caused serious and irreparable harm to the physician’s professional reputation and career prospects.



This TRO win underscores Collin Quigley’s commitment to protecting the rights and reputations of professionals facing unjust treatment in the workplace.



Click here to review the ruling!

### Rogge Dunn - Fox 4 News Resource

Weatherford ISD said it was left in the dark when it hired an educator who was under investigation for child abuse at school. While not involved in the case, Rogge Dunn stepped in to talk with Fox 4 News about the legal mandates regarding transparency and why these rules are in place to protect our students.



Check out the full article here.




https://vimeo.com/1070169473?share=copy

### Rogge Dunn Featured in Lawdragon: The Power of Persuasion in Trial Law

Rogge Dunn, founder of Rogge Dunn Group, has been featured in Lawdragon, where he discusses his unique approach to trial law, blending psychology, strategy, and storytelling to achieve success in the courtroom. With over 35 years of experience, Dunn has built a reputation for using the science of human behavior to persuade judges and juries—an expertise he sharpens through his monthly D CEO Magazine column on the psychology of persuasion.



Recognized among The Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers and The Lawdragon 500 Leading Civil Rights & Plaintiff Employment Lawyers, Dunn shares insights on his diverse practice, which spans financial industry disputes, employment litigation, business conflicts, and more. His experience handling cases in over 30 states nationwide has given him a unique edge, allowing him to anticipate both plaintiff and defense strategies.



Read the full Lawdragon interview here.

### Attorney Rogge Dunn on "Skip a Payment" Mortgage Refinancing Scheme with D Magazine

Over the past three years, low-interest rates led many homeowners to refinance their mortgages. In many cases, lenders have promoted the option of "skipping a payment" as an attractive benefit to homeowners. However, legal experts are warning that this so-called "benefit" could be part of an scheme to profit from unsuspecting borrowers.



Homeowners, particularly veterans, may be offered the ability to skip a payment or two during the refinancing process. However, they are often unaware of the long-term financial consequences. Lenders typically add the skipped payments back onto the loan, with interest, either at the end of the refinance process or at the loan's maturity, effectively increasing the overall loan balance.



Consumer lending attorneys are calling attention to these practices. These may violate both state and federal laws, including Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the United States’ Truth in Lending Act. These laws are designed to protect homeowners from deceptive financial practices.



One lender, Cardinal Financial Company, has been identified as employing these misleading tactics. Homeowners who feel they have been affected by these practices are encouraged to seek legal counsel to explore their rights and potential remedies under the law.



Read the full article here: https://www.dmagazine.com/sponsored/2022/06/hidden-illegal-fees-charged-by-lenders-who-are-refinancing-home-loans/ Contact Rogge Dunn and his team for assistance: https://roggedunngroup.com/contact

### Renowned Attorney Rogge Dunn Discusses Landmark RICO Lawsuit Against GlobalTranz on 2 Dawgs 1 Podcast

Renowned trial lawyer Rogge Dunn recently joined the "2 Dawgs 1 Podcast" to discuss his high-profile RICO lawsuit against logistics giant GlobalTranz. In this compelling episode, Rogge Dunn, whose legal victories for clients exceed $2 billion in net settlements and judgments, and his client, Dylan Admire, CEO of Freight Essentials, share the details of their David vs. Goliath legal battle that is set to reshape the freight logistics industry.



The Case Against GlobalTranz



Dylan Admire, a former top agent for GlobalTranz, built a $40 million annual business before his contract was allegedly being wrongfully terminated by the company in 2023. GlobalTranz’s actions, according to the lawsuit, included offering Admire’s key clients financial incentives to sever ties with Freight Essentials, engaging in unfair business practices, and withholding commissions.



Rogge Dunn shared how the case escalated into a civil RICO lawsuit—a rare and powerful legal action typically associated with uncovering systemic fraud and conspiracies. This groundbreaking lawsuit aims to address the abuses within the logistics industry, with Dunn emphasizing his commitment to holding major corporations accountable for unethical practices.



Why This Case Matters



“This case is not just about Dylan Admire or Freight Essentials,” Dunn explained. “It’s about protecting agents, consumers, and industry professionals from unfair practices. Our goal is to expose and eliminate bad actors in the logistics space.”



The discussion revealed eye-opening details, including allegations of:




Hidden charges that reduced agents’ rightful commissions.



Unethical account poaching from agents.



Systemic price discrepancies between what GlobalTranz claimed to pay carriers versus actual costs.




The lawsuit has already garnered significant attention, with over 100 agents reaching out to share similar grievances, suggesting a larger pattern of misconduct across the logistics industry.



Resilience in the Face of Adversity



Despite the challenges of legal battles and personal losses, Admire rebuilt his business in record time, creating a new $20 million logistics company within a year. “It’s about principles,” Admire said. “I couldn’t look at myself in the mirror or my daughter in the eyes if I let these injustices slide.”



Rogge Dunn echoed this sentiment, expressing his admiration for Admire’s resilience and determination to stand up for what’s right.



What’s Next?



As the lawsuit moves forward, Dunn and Admire are optimistic about their chances of success. The team is working with renowned expert witnesses to strengthen their case, while additional agents are considering joining the legal battle.



“This case has the potential to redefine the agent model in the logistics industry,” Dunn remarked. “We’re shining a light on systemic abuses, and we hope this inspires regulators and others to take action.”



Watch the Full Podcast Episode



To hear more about the lawsuit, including behind-the-scenes details and how it could impact the freight industry, watch the full episode of "2 Dawgs 1 Podcast" featuring Rogge Dunn and Dylan Admire.

### Rogge Dunn Named to D CEO Magazine's Dallas 500 for Fifth Consecutive Year

Rogge Dunn, founder of Rogge Dunn Group, has earned a prestigious spot in D CEO Magazine’s 2025 edition of The Dallas 500, recognizing him as one of North Texas’ most influential business leaders. This marks his fifth consecutive year on the list, which highlights the region’s top leaders who drive the local economy and community. Dunn expressed his honor in being recognized alongside such distinguished peers, emphasizing Dallas' role as home to some of the nation’s most respected leaders.



You can view the Dallas 500 list here.

### Rogge Dunn Named to D CEO Hall of Fame in Lawyer Category.

We are proud to announce that Rogge Dunn has been inducted into the Hall of Fame by D CEO. This prestigious recognition honors exceptional legal professionals who have made significant contributions to the legal field and their communities.



This recognition reflects not only Rogge's professional achievements but also their lasting impact on the legal landscape of Dallas. The Hall of Fame induction is a testament to the hard work, dedication, and integrity that defines Rogge's career.



You can see the digital issue of D CEO's Hall of Fame here.

### Rogge Dunn on Deferred Pay Battle Heats Up As Ex-Merrill Advisors Lob Fresh Claims

When financial advisors switch employers, they can leave behind hefty sums in the form of deferred compensation, which their former employers consider they forfeited when they changed companies. Rogge Dunn recently spoke with Andrew Welsch from Barrons on recent legal action against Merrill Lynch. “Merrill Lynch took millions of dollars my clients earned in commissions and locked them up in a deferred compensation plan containing a trapdoor,” Rogge Dunn, the lawyer representing the advisors at Dallas-based law firm Rogge Dunn Group, said in a statement.



You can read the full article here or view PDF article here.

### The Psychology of Persuasion with Rogge Dunn

Rogge Dunn, a seasoned trial attorney with over 35 years of experience, credits his success to his mastery of psychology, persuasion, and a deep passion for helping people. As the founder of The Rogge Dunn Group, a Dallas-based boutique law firm specializing in financial, business, and employment disputes, Dunn leverages his self-taught expertise in human behavior to excel in the courtroom. He combines psychological insights with compelling storytelling techniques to captivate judges and juries. Recognized by The Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers and The Lawdragon 500 Leading Civil Rights & Plaintiff Employment Lawyers guides, Dunn emphasizes that genuine care for clients is the cornerstone of his success.



You can read Rogge’s full interview with Lawdragon here.

### Celebrating Dallas: A Love Letter from Rogge Dunn

In celebration of D Magazine's 50th anniversary, Rogge Dunn, a second-generation Dallasite and sixth-generation Texan, penned a heartfelt love letter to the city he proudly calls home. The letter, featured in D Magazine's special edition this month, reflects on Dallas' growth, its vibrant culture, and the people who have shaped it into the dynamic metropolis it is today.



With deep ties to the community, Rogge Dunn and his wife, Cathy DeWitt Dunn, have been active in civic, charitable, and political causes, always championing the city’s success. In his letter, Rogge shares fond memories of growing up in Dallas—from walking to Degolyer Elementary School to attending historic Dallas Cowboys games at the Cotton Bowl. His reflections celebrate not only the city's past but also its promising future.



At Rogge Dunn Group, we are proud of our firm’s roots in Dallas and honored to have Rogge’s tribute to the city shared with such a respected publication.



You can read Rogge’s full letter to Dallas below, as featured in D Magazine.

### Dept. of Labor enacts new Fiduciary Rule for Retirement Accounts

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) promulgated the “Retirement Security Rule.” Its goal is to protect workers who are diligently saving for retirement. This new Fiduciary Rule broadens the definition of “fiduciary” in the context of retirement investment advice. The Retirement Security Rule takes effect on September 23, 2024.



Specifically, the Retirement Security Rule updates the almost 50-year-old definition of “investment advice fiduciary” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and the Internal Revenue Code. Any person who gives retirement investment advice or works with retirement savings options, such as 401(k) plans, IRAs, annuities, and other investments, is considered a “fiduciary” who must follow strict fiduciary requirements. A fiduciary must put the best interests of their clients above their own, give prudent advice, avoid misleading statements about conflicts of interest, fees, and investments, charge no more than what is reasonable for their services, and give the investor basic information regarding the advisor’s conflicts of interest.



The Retirement Security Rule is not the first attempt in recent years to expand advisors’ duties. In 2016, the DOL issued a similar rule during President Obama’s administration; and President Trump did likewise in 2020. However, a federal court voided Obama’s Fiduciary Rule. Many financial advisor law attorneys counseling financial advisors think the Retirement Security Rule will be vacated for the same reasons. Other financial industry attorneys believe the new rule is narrower and will be upheld by the courts. Given the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling that courts should no longer defer to the rule making promulgated by government agencies, a court may strike down the new rule.



The Retirement Security Rule focuses on investment advice given to employees and retirees who have assets in 401(k) plans and desire to roll those funds into IRAs, annuities, and other investments. When an employee changes jobs or retires, the Retirement Security Rule classifies more investment advisors as “fiduciaries” when they advise on retirement savings, particularly in the context of rollover recommendations.



The goal of the Retirement Security Rule is to ensure that consumers investing for their retirement receive unbiased advice based on clear, accurate, and truthful information that is in the investor’s best interest. The new rule also protects investors who purchase high-cost investment or insurance products recommended simply because they result in higher commissions to the advisor. Notably, the new rule covers advice given on a “one-time” basis--which has historically not been treated as fiduciary advice.



While the Retirement Security Rule is meant to substantially benefit retirement investors, that might not always be the case. For example, advisor fees will likely increase to address the greater risk of fiduciary liability and litigation, and investors might not have as much access to certain services and products. That being said, heightened regulation should not hurt any financial advisor who is already putting their clients’ needs first.



Our financial advisor attorneys are well-equipped to help financial advisors, relationship managers, and investors navigate the issues involving the new Retirement Security Rule. If you have questions about this new regulation, contact one of our financial advisor lawyers today.

### Rogge Dunn Interviewed on KPRC2 Houston: Can employers force you to use PTO for time they were closed/without power due to Hurricane Beryl?

Rogge Dunn was recently interviewed during a KPRC2 Houston news segment on if employers can force you to use PTO for time they were closed/without power due to Hurricane Beryl? Click link below for recap of the interview and to watch a video of the news segment.



After Hurricane Beryl one viewer asked “Can employers force you to use paid time off for time they were closed and without power due to Hurricane Beryl?”



We took that question to employment attorney Rogge Dunn, with the Rogge Dunn Group.



“For exempt employees, so not hourly workers. Yes, employers can say that you have to use PTO. Sick leave. Whatever they call that PTO time. Even if the business was closed, they can force you to use PTO,” explains Dunn. “If the employer is open for any portion of a week, then the employer has to pay the exempt employees for the full week.”



Dunn highly recommends that people set up direct deposit so if a company is closed they can still send you a paycheck.



View full story here.

### Rogge Dunn Group Rated Among State’s Top Labor & Employment Law Firms

The Rogge Dunn Group, P.C., is pleased to announce it has been selected among the best labor and employment law firms in Dallas by readers of Texas Lawyer magazine.



Texas Lawyer readers are invited each year to cast their votes for Texas’ top law firms across a range of practice areas. The results of the 2024 "Best Of" edition reflect the exceptional reputation and trust that the Rogge Dunn Group has built within the legal community.



“It is an immense honor to be acknowledged by the readers of Texas Lawyer,” said Rogge Dunn, founder of the firm. “This recognition is a testament to the deep and meaningful client relationships that we have developed over the years. Our success reflects the trust and confidence our clients place in us.”



The trial boutique handles business, employment and FINRA matters, and its attorneys have won plaudits from The Best Lawyers in America, Super Lawyers, National Trial Lawyers and others.



In addition, the firm was ranked a Tier 1 Dallas/Fort Worth law firm by Best Law Firms for employment law in the 2024 guide. The ranking signifies the highest level of excellence and the firm’s outstanding performance and deep expertise in employment law.



To learn more about Texas Lawyer’s “Best Of” honor click here: law.com



Rogge Dunn Group has built a well-deserved reputation for aggressive litigation, outstanding results and attentive client service. Led by founding partner Rogge Dunn, the firm is well-known for successfully trying high-profile business and employment disputes. This trial experience fosters innovative strategies to obtain effective settlements and minimize litigation risks for corporate and individual clients. Based in Dallas, the firm tries cases in state and federal courts in Texas and throughout the United States. Learn more about the firm at www.roggedunngroup.com.



Contacts



BeLynn Hollers800.559.4534belynn@androvett.com

### Exclusive: Ex-head golf coach files age discrimination lawsuit against TCU

By STEVEN JOHNSONUpdated July 01, 2024 3:14 PM 



A disagreement that had been brewing for more than a year is now a lawsuit that extends far beyond age discrimination and includes an allegation of rape. 



On Monday, former TCU men’s golf coach Bill Montigel filed an age discrimination lawsuit against the university where he worked since the 1980s. The civil case was filed by Dallas-based attorney Rogge Dunn.  



The crux of the 30-page lawsuit is that Montigel’s contract was not renewed in the spring of 2023 because he was 68.  



Other allegations in the lawsuit include charges that TCU athletic director Jeremiah  Donati was retaliatory against Montigel, and endorsed “an ‘Animal House’ atmosphere.”  



The lawsuit alleges Donati’s department “does not care about discrimination or sexual harassment.” Examples of this include Montigel alleging that:  



“At the NCAA basketball tournament in Denver in March of 2023, a Frog Club fundraiser, was accused of raping a female co-worker who woke up in his hotel bed not knowing how she got there. She reported the incident to the Colorado Police. Both Donati and (TCU associate athletic director for special projects) Michael Levy were present at the Denver tournament when this improper sexual harassment occurred.”  



Donati did not respond to a request for comment about this suit.  



The spokesperson for the TCU athletic department did not respond to request for comment. 



According to people familiar with the alleged incident in March of 2023, a member of the  TCU athletics administration was accused of misconduct and was immediately fired. According to the Denver Police Department, there is no report involving any member of the TCU staff in that window when TCU played in the first round of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament.  



This the most damning allegation in the lawsuit. Other allegations include:  



▪ “A leader in the athletic department — who was married — engaged in sexual relations with the wife of a highly successful TCU coach, leading to that coach leaving TCU.”  



▪ “A senior athletic department official was caught in a press box in a compromising position with a female who was senior associate athletic director of student services.”  



▪ “At the Big 12 basketball tournament in March of 2023 in Kansas City, Missouri, a high-level member of Donati’s staff got falling down drunk, became belligerent with hotel staff because he lost his room key, and the hotel staff called security.  



“This person urinated in his pants, was completely out of it, and had to be carried back to his room. These on the job drunken episodes were not uncommon for that person. Donati was present at the Kansas City tournament and took no disciplinary action against that  person who reported directly to Donati.”  



Montigel was effectively told he would not be returning to TCU as men’s golf coach after the conclusion of the 2022-23 season. He spent the 2023-24 season as the associate head coach at the University of California-Davis.  



Montigel was 68 when he left TCU. At the time of his exit TCU was still one of the better  NCAA men’s golf programs.  



His exit from the athletic department coincided with the departures of other significant coaches, including football coach Gary Patterson, baseball coach Jim Schlossnagle, volleyball coach Jill Kramer and track and field coach Daryl Anderson.  



Montigel did not want to retire. The two sides discussed potential compensation packages but no agreement was reached.  



“I am pursuing the lawsuit on behalf of all older employees who have faced age discrimination in the workplace. I filed this lawsuit to hold TCU accountable for its actions,” Montigel said in a statement. “My passion is coaching students about golf and life. I have lots of gas left in my tank. 



“Donati assumed that just because I was 68 that I could no longer do my job — nothing could be further from the truth. It’s not easy to sue a school you love, but I want to shine a light on age discrimination and retaliation in TCU’s athletic department.”  



This story was originally published July 1, 2024, 2:46 PM. 







MAC ENGEL817-390-7760



Mac Engel is an award-winning columnist who has covered sports since the dawn of man;  Cowboys, TCU, Stars, Rangers, Mavericks, etc. Olympics. Movies. Concerts. Books. He  combines dry wit with 1st-person reporting to complement an annoying personality.

### Financial Advisor Says Fidelity Fired Him for Reporting Securities Violations

MAY 8, 2024 MICHELLE CASADY



After registered financial advisor Michael Maeker raised concerns that his employer, FidelityInvestments, was running afoul of securities laws by pressuring advisors to eschew fiduciaryresponsibilities and instead invest clients’ money to benefit the company’s bottom line, he wasfired.



Maeker alleges in a lawsuit filed in federal court in Dallas Monday that recorded conversations withhis branch manager and other Fidelity executives verify his claims that financial advisors wereroutinely pressured to act not in the best interest of their clients but of the company.



“Maeker formally blew the whistle and reported this unlawful practice to various individuals atFidelity through multiple channels,” the suit alleges. “Rather than disciplining the executives andmanagers who violated Reg BI (and other securities laws and regulations), Fidelity retaliatedagainst and terminated Maeker’s employment to send a message to its FAs to keep quiet.After Maeker filed his [Sarbanes-Oxley] complaint, Fidelity belatedly stopped violating Reg. BI. 9.Fidelity’s illegal retaliation against, and wrongful termination of, Maeker caused him millions indamages, emotional distress, and reputational harm.”



After 26 years working as a financial advisor with a “spotless” record, Fidelity’s terminationof Maeker made it “extremely difficult” to find employment in the industry.



He ended up taking a job in the Home Depot paint department to support his family.



Fidelity issued a statement to The Texas Lawbook denying the allegations and vowing to vigorouslydefend itself against Maeker’s claims.



“Mr. Maeker’s complaint was already reviewed and dismissed by an OSHA investigator whoconcluded, among other things, that Mr. Maeker would have been removed from his role due to hismisconduct regardless of his purported whistleblowing activity,” the statement reads. “In otherwords, Fidelity did not retaliate against him.”



According to the lawsuit, an investigator in the U.S. Department of Labor initially dismissed thecomplaint Maeker filed in October 2022. In September 2023 Maeker appealed that finding and afinal decision hadn’t been issued by the time the lawsuit was filed.



Rogge Dunn of Rogge Dunn Group, who represents Maeker, told The Lawbook on Wednesday thathis client wasn’t the only Fidelity financial advisor who was pressured to violate securities laws.“I expect other financial advisors to come forward and blow the whistle on Fidelity,” he said. “It took courage for Maeker to speak out and he has paid the ultimate price for doing the right thing.”Fidelity offers its clients three tiers of financial investment products, according to the complaint,referred to as Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3. Tier 1 investments generate the lowest revenues for Fidelity,Tier 2 generates the second highest revenues for Fidelity and Tier 3 products generate the highestrevenues for the company.



“Fidelity pressured its branch managers to pressure Fidelity’s financial advisors to persuadeinvestors to place their assets into Tier 3 investments that generated higher revenues for Fidelity,”the suit alleges. “A significant portion of Fidelity’s branch managers’ compensation was based onhow much investors’ assets were placed into financial products that generated higher revenues forFidelity. Further, Fidelity circulated charts ranking the branch managers in a region based on theamount of investors’ assets in Tier 3.”



Those branch managers would then pressure financial advisors to steer investments into Tier3, Maeker told the court. The lawsuit alleges that Fidelity’s Dallas branch manager, John Schiavone— who is not a defendant in the lawsuit — had “continuously pressured Maeker to push clients intounsuitable or ill-advised, high fee generating financial investments that would make Fidelity moremoney — regardless of investors’ best interest.”



The lawsuit also serves as a transcript for the conversations Maeker alleges he recorded thatsupport claims. In one, Shiavone chastises Maeker for having directed only $2.5 million of clientassets into Tier 3 and said he “would’ve thrown [Maeker] out.”



MR. MAEKER: “How — how would you throw me out?”



MR. SCHIAVONE: “I don’t know. I — I would figure out a way to. I don’t how that was ever allowed.”



Maeker detailed what he called a “carrot and stick approach” that was used to incentivize financialadvisors to push the Tier 3 products. For starters, financial advisors were paid 10 times thecommissions they received for placing assets in Tier 3 compared to Tier 1.



“Second, this economic incentive also included awarding FAs Fidelity stock, if they put up big Tier 3numbers,” according to the suit. “The sticks included never ending direct and indirect pressurethat an FA was hurting her/his career at Fidelity would suffer and could be fired if they did not get‘on board’ with pushing clients into Tier 3.”



Maeker alleges he told numerous people at Fidelity that he believed Schiavone was engaging inillegal conduct but nothing was done.



One Dec. 16, 2022, he was fired, purportedly for violating a written policy.



The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Ada Brown.



Maeker is also represented by Alec E. Pedigo of Rogge Dunn Group.



Fidelity’s counsel had not filed an appearance as of Wednesday.



The case number is 3:24-cv-01078.




©2024 The Texas Lawbook.Content of The Texas Lawbook is controlled and protected by specific licensing agreements with oursubscribers and under federal copyright laws. Any distribution of this content without the consent ofThe Texas Lawbook is prohibited.If you see any inaccuracy in any article in The Texas Lawbook, please contact us. Our goal is content that is 100% true and accurate. Thank you.

### Fidelity Pressured Brokers to Sell Customers on Costlier Investments, Ex-Advisor Claims

by Miriam Rozen May 8, 2024







A former Fidelity Investments advisor in Dallas filed this week a wrongful termination lawsuit accusing the brokerage of illegally retaliating against him for reporting anti-investor sales tactics. 



The plaintiff, Michael Maeker, was fired after reporting “strong evidence” showing that from 2019 to 2023, Fidelity prompted branch managers and advisors with compensation incentives and threats to their career if they did not move clients into higher-revenue generating investments, according to the complaint, which was filed May 6 in Dallas federal court. Fidelity’s actions violated state securities laws and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation Best Interest, which requires brokers to place client interests ahead of their own, Maeker alleges.



“Fidelity should be held accountable for its unlawful retaliation and illegal attempt to silence a whistleblower who was only trying to protect himself and fellow FAs and fulfill his obligations to protect investors’ best interests,” Maeker wrote in his complaint.



Maeker’s lawsuit includes alleged recordings of local managers’ instructions to guide large accounts to use so-called “Tier 3” investments, which were managed accounts that would produce more revenue for Fidelity than passive funds or self-directed options. It also claims that managers used “Hero” reports which ranked brokers and managers by the portion of “Tier 3” sales that they made. 



Advisors and managers earned greater pay and a larger share of bonuses the higher they ranked on the “Hero” reports, Maeker alleges. 



Those practices started in 2019 as low-cost index funds and lower commissions reduced revenue streams, Maeker alleges. His manager eschewed Maeker’s approach of abiding by clients’ best interest, Maeker alleges. “The model you described, kind of set it, forget about it, in funds. That was viable for us [Fidelity] for decades, and now we’re bleeding,” the manager told Maeker, according to the lawsuit.



A Fidelity spokesperson denied Maeker’s allegations. Fidelity “will defend itself vigorously,” she added in an emailed statement. 



“Mr. Maeker’s complaint was already reviewed and dismissed by an [Occupational & Safety Health Administration] investigator who concluded, among other things, that Mr. Maeker would have been removed from his role due to his misconduct regardless of his purported whistleblowing activity,” the spokesperson said. “In other words, Fidelity did not retaliate against him.”



Fidelity fired Maeker in December 2022 after he “misrepresented interactions with clients and improperly used planning tools without confirming with clients the accuracy of the information he input into the tools,” according to his BrokerCheck record. “Such actions inflated employee’s performance metrics,” Fidelity said in its allegations, which Maeker denied in a comment on his BrokerCheck record and in his lawsuit.



Maeker, who began his career at Merrill Lynch in 1996, had spent 24 years with Fidelity. He is now registered with Texas Capital Bank Private Wealth Advisors. His lawyer, Rogge Dunn, said that he was responsible for around $1 billion in assets and earned around $625,000 in revenue per year at the peak of his career, Dunn said.  



Maeker’s complaint does not set specific damages but alleged that the firing cost him millions in lost earnings. 



The “Hero” reports and related compensation practices persisted for five years but stopped in 2023 after Maeker sent multiple emails to Fidelity officials about his concerns—the same time the company initiated an investigation against him, Maeker’s lawsuit alleges.-Mason Braswell contributed to this story. 

### The Dept. of Education's New Title IX Rules

On April 19, 2024, the U.S. Department of Education issued its new rules overhauling Title IX. The new rules increase rights of sexual assault victims and LGBTQ and pregnant students.  The new rules are the most comprehensive reforms of Title IX since Title IX became law. Title IX attorneys recognize that these new rules make it much easier for someone claiming sexual harassment on campus to win their Title IX claim.



The new rules expand Title IX (1) to forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity; (2) to broaden the definition of sexual harassment to make it even easier to win a Tile IX claim; and (3) provide new procedural protections to victims alleging sexual harassment in schools. 



Title IX will now protect claims involving  “sexual orientation and gender identity.” and LGBTQ+ students in any school that receives federal funding. Pregnant students are also specifically protected by Title IX. 



It’s Now Easier to Prove Sexual Harassment



The rule expands what constitutes sexual harassment under Title IX.  Previously, Title IX defined sexual harassment as conduct that is “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive.”  The new sexual harassment definition includes any unwelcome sex-based conduct that is so “severe or pervasive” that it limits a student’s equal access to an education. Title IX attorneys recognize this means it will be easier for a school to find someone guilty of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct. 



New Procedural Rules Help Alleged Victims



Finally, under the new rules, schools are no longer required to hold live-hearings, which are now optional. Students will no longer have the right to cross-examine their accuser. Further, alleged victims have a new additional protection because schools must ban questions that are “unclear or harassing.” The new rules suggest that as an alternative to live-hearings, schools can interview students separately and allow each student to suggest questions to be posed to one another (instead of cross-examination). 



Due Process Protections for the Accused



Due process rules that remain include: the requirement that all students have equal access to present evidence and witnesses; all students be allowed to bring an advisor to campus hearings; and colleges must have an appeals process. Additionally, accused students generally cannot be disciplined until after they’re found liable for misconduct.  However, there is an exception for the  “emergency” removal of the alleged harasser from campus, if it’s a matter of campus safety.



The new rules go into effect on August 1, 2024. They apply to all colleges and elementary, middle, and high schools that receive federal money. 



If you have been accused of violating Title IX, or believe someone committed Title IX violations against you, contact one of our Title IX lawyers today.

### Dallas employment attorney says the noncompete ban will make it through legal challenges

By Nicole NielsenApril 24, 2024 / 4:53 PM CDT / CBS Texas




https://vimeo.com/940905738




DALLAS — Nearly one in five Americans are subject to a noncompeteclause at work, according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).



This means employees cannot leave their jobs to work for a competingemployer. The FTC voted 2-3 on Tuesday to approve a ban against newand existing noncompete policies, which will take effect in 120 days.The rule makes all noncompete clauses unenforceable, except for thoseat a senior executive level.



Dallas employment attorney Rogge Dunn said the ban is significantnews for employees who lose their leverage when having to sign anoncompete clause.



"Employees are ecstatic about this because it makes them moremarketable, and it forces their current company to pay them what they'reworth. Otherwise, they will go down the street to their competition forbetter pay," Dunn said.



The FTC said the new rule could increase wages by nearly $300 billionper year and boost career opportunities for about 30 million Americans.



However, the new rule faces challenges.



Within hours of the vote, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced itwould sue to block the ban on noncompete clauses.



In Dallas, G. Brint Ryan, CEO of a Global Tax Firm, filed a lawsuitTuesday in federal court for the Northern District of Texas against theban. CBS News Texas reached out for a statement Wednesday, in whichRyan described the new ban as "unlawful."



"There may be a world where the FTC kicks the can down the road andsays, let's wait to see how this works out in court first," Dunn said. Heexpects the ban to be heavily challenged in court, possibly delayingresults.



Dunn predicts employees will ultimately win this battle.



"If I had to predict, I think it will be upheld in court. Once it goes intoeffect, you will see the floodgates open. I think you will see tens ofthousands of employees move and say 'I dare you to sue me,'" Dunnsaid.



Nicole Nielsen








Nicole Nielsen joined the CBS 11 news team in June 2020. Born and raised in Keller, Nicole is a NorthTexas native who is thrilled to work for the station she grew up watching.

### Regional Spotlight Announcement

Rogge Dunn Group is pleased to announce it has been named to the Prestigious Chambers USA 2024 Regional Spotlight Texas for Labor & Employment, a listing of the best small and mid-sized law firms in Texas. Rogge Dunn Group is just one of 7 firms in Texas to make the elite listing and one of two firms in the DFW area. In all, only 157 firms across the state were highlighted in the 2024 Spotlight guide.




“The team at Rogge Dunn Group, from the lawyers to the staff, are dedicated to the work we do for our clients." says Rogge Dunn. "I am proud and honored by Chambers' recognition of our firm."



The firms selected for regional honors do “remarkable work which results in an impressive regional reputation,” according to Chambers.



Chambers USA, one of the world’s most prestigious and sought-after legal directories, developed the Regional Spotlight guide to identify and recognize “the leading small to medium-sized law firms offering a credible alternative to Big Law.”  Published by London-based Chambers and Partners, Chambers USA is highly regarded for its thorough legal guides. Recognition is based on thousands of attorney and client interviews designed to identify law firms and lawyers who demonstrate the top technical legal ability, professional conduct, client service, diligence, commitment, and other qualities most valued by clients.




CHAMBERS.COMRogge Dunn Group, PC. , Labor & Employment | Chambers USA: Regional Spotlight Profile

### Why Wall Street's biggest wealth managers could face an avalanche of lawsuits thanks to one judge's ruling

Hayley Cuccinello 







Wall Street advisors have sued over deferred compensation for years. One case has changed the game. Rachel Mendelson/Insider 




Wealth advisors save big on taxes with deferred compensation, but it comes with strings attached. 



They often forfeit this money if they leave for a rival too soon, but they can sue for their  due 



One lawsuit against Morgan Stanley has opened the floodgates to more legal battles on  Wall Street. 




For high-earners, putting aside some income is an attractive proposition. The money grows tax-free,  with interest, and can be collected in retirement at a lower tax rate. That's a typical setup for many financial advisors at Wall Street banks. The banks, in turn, make shareholders happy by reporting lower compensation costs since deferred compensation is marked as a liability. 



But there are serious strings attached. Advisors have to stay for several years to get this deferred compensation. At Morgan Stanley, advisors forfeit this pay if they leave for another employer before 



four years of service. If they meet that benchmark, they get 25% of their deferred compensation in stock, but they have to stay six years to get the remainder in cash. 



Advisors have sued to get their due for years. But lawyers for advisors told Business Insider that they believe these suits have reached a tipping point. In November, a federal judge gave a leg up to ex-advisors by agreeing with their argument that Morgan Stanley's deferred compensation plan is actually a retirement plan, which comes with stiff legal protections. This ruling was used by a lawyer on another case, Alan Rosca, to secure a $3 million judgment against Morgan Stanley on March 25. 



Morgan Stanley faces at least 15 similar arbitrations and is fighting back. Rosca's award cannot be appealed, but the ruling that facilitated it is part of an ongoing suit. 



The bank filed an emergency motion on April 2 urging the judge to reconsider or clarify his opinion.  Plaintiff attorneys are already using the ruling in advertisements to lure more ex-advisors to sue,  according to the motion. 



"Morgan Stanley has long offered deferred compensation to financial advisors to reward them for loyalty and good guardianship," a spokesperson told BI in a written statement. "This is not a retirement plan, as prior arbitration panels have rightly decided, and we think the panel reached the wrong result. We will continue to aggressively defend against meritless attacks suggesting otherwise." 



These suits have become more contentious as hundreds of advisors break away from major Wall  Street banks and brokerages to set up their own investment advisory shops, according to Rosca.  These independent and hybrid advisories are expected to control 31.4% of the industry's share of assets by 2027, while Wall Street wirehouses will lose 6.4%, per market researcher Cerulli. 



"These companies, they're trying to come up with compensation packages that will slow the bleeding," said Cleveland-based Rosca, who has more than 20 similar cases in the works. 



Lawyer Rogge Dunn believes these suits are picking up steam as the Biden Administration has challenged noncompetes; the Federal Trade Commission is expected to finalize its proposed ban this year. Deferred compensation plans are not noncompete agreements. But they are golden handcuffs designed to discourage financial advisors from leaving, according to Dunn, and the attack on noncompetes has inspired some to challenge their ex-employers. 



"FAs are being more attuned to their rights when they leave," said the Dallas-based lawyer who has won four similar judgments against Goldman Sachs. 







Morgan Stanley faces at least 15 similar arbitrations over deferred compensation. Spencer Platt/Getty  Images 



The pending Morgan Stanley suit has uniquely high stakes 



Advisors are typically required by their employment contracts to take their lawsuits to arbitration, not court. These arbitrations are handled by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), Wall  Street's self-regulator. They don't establish legal precedents, and FINRA arbitrators do not have to follow the law when making decisions. But Rosca still believes the judgment bodes well for similar suits.



"It's not mandatory precedent, but we think it's certainly persuasive precedent for other FINRA panels of arbitrators who are looking at this," he said. "We think those panels will find this award useful  because it's the same plan that applies to all those advisors." 



The $3 million verdict is couch change for Morgan Stanley, but it's a symptom of a larger problem on  the wealth manager's hands: the pending case that helped it. 



In November, Morgan Stanley successfully fought off a class action attempt by 12 ex-Morgan Stanley advisors. A federal judge in New York agreed with the bank that the case, Shafer v. Morgan Stanley,  belonged in arbitration per the plaintiffs' employment agreements. 



This would have been a victory for the bank, preventing potentially thousands of ex-employees from suing collectively. 



However, the judge also wrote in his ruling that he agreed with the plaintiffs' premise: that Morgan  Stanley's deferred compensation plan qualified as a retirement plan. Judge Paul Gardephe made several justifications, including that the deferred compensation comes out of advisors' commissions so it does not qualify as a bonus as Morgan Stanley had argued. 



Morgan Stanley disagreed with the opinion and filed its first motion to clarify or reconsider it in  December. Attorneys for the bank argued that it was "unnecessary" and "improper" for the court to  weigh in on the merits of the plaintiffs' case. The opinion was given without Morgan Stanley  presenting its entire defense as the hearing was only meant to determine whether the suit would go  to court or arbitration, they argued.







Morgan Stanley is betting on AI to free up advisors' time to be 'more human.' Nearly 100% of advisor teams use it, and here's how. 



"The documents that govern this compensation program, the purpose of the program, the way it is  explained to employees, and the conditions precedent to payment under the program, along with  multiple other factors, are just a few of the many issues the arbitrators will have to examine on a fully  developed factual record," wrote the bank's lawyers Meaghan VerGow and Pamela Miller of  O'Melveny in a memo supporting the motion. 



They argued that the plaintiffs would use it to their favor without reconsideration of the opinion, and  so would "countless other plaintiffs yet to be recruited." 



"The Court should make clear that its order does not supersede or cabin the findings that the arbitrators may render on a fully developed record, and permit the arbitrators to reach their own conclusions about such a record, as the parties agreed," the memo reads. 



Their concerns are likely justified, given the outcome of Rosca's suit. Lawyers told Business Insider that the award and the ruling in Shafer v. Morgan Stanley will likely inspire more ex-advisors to sue. 



"FINRA rulings are public, so people pay attention. People ride a bandwagon," said Dunn. "If lawyers  or FAs hear about successfully defeating a deferred comp, then they're more likely to roll the dice —  not even rolling the dice, to pursue their rights."



It will likely take 9 to 12 months for the Shafer case to reach and complete arbitration, according to Jack Edwards, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers. 



Edwards is cautiously optimistic, acknowledging that each case has different arbitrators. Earlier last year, Morgan Stanley was triumphant in two arbitrations that cited retirement law violations, among a slew of other allegations. 



These suits could have a ripple effect across the Street 



Former Morgan Stanley advisors call his firm daily to inquire about arbitration, said Edwards, a litigator for Ajamie LLP. The suit has ramifications across Wall Street, as financial institutions typically have similar deferred compensation plans, he said. 



"I think generally it's the same thing. They take part of your commissions, they defer it into the future  to keep you around to punish you if you leave and to deter you from actually leaving because they  know that typically the customers are loyal to the individual financial advisor, not necessarily where  they work," said the Houston-based lawyer. 



Phil Waxelbaum, a recruiter and former JPMorgan managing director, disagreed with the award and the ruling. 



"The advisor's position is 'They took my money.' Well, they announced to you that this is the way the pay was going to work in the forward calendar year. They've announced it multiple times,'" he said.  "You can't come out of the box after you've accepted an employment agreement and then say, 'I  don't really like this employment agreement.'" 



The number of ex-advisors suing — Rosca stated he represents more than 100 others — is a drop in  the bucket, Waxelbaum noted. But if it becomes enough of a hassle, Morgan Stanley might reconsider  how it compensates advisors. 



"They have to make a decision about how many of these cases they might have to defend," he said.  "The easy way out on this is for them to say, 'Okay, we gave it our best shot. We're not going to do it  anymore.'"



What is more likely is a change in the details. Edwards won a $79 million settlement against Wells  Fargo for a class action suit with similar claims. The bank now has class-action waivers in its employment contracts, he said. 



Dunn was skeptical that Morgan Stanley or any Wall Street employer would back away from deferred compensation. 



"I think that would cause a stampede away," he said. 



And despite the positive momentum for advisors, it is still an uphill battle. Most advisors are wary of  scaring off their new employers, the cost of litigation, and how long these suits can take. 



"It's not easy financially, and it's not easy emotionally," he said. "And guess what? The big companies  know that."

### FDA Concedes COVID Shots Trigger Baby Seizures, Re-Recommends Them Anyway

The United States Food and Drug Administration — sacred member of the Holy Trinity at the Pinnacle of The Science™ next to the NIH and CDC — dropped, quietly, a recent bombshell report on the effects of COVID-19 shots on babies as young as two years old.



Via U.S. FDA (emphasis added):



In this self-controlled case series that included participants aged 2-5 years from three commercial insurance databases, the incidence rate ratio of febrile seizures was significantly elevated in the 0-1 days following mRNA-1273 administration. Absolute risk was small…The incidence of febrile seizures was elevated immediately following vaccination with the monovalent mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 2-5 years.



Despite these findings, in the same document, the FDA goes out of its way to reiterate its commitment to baby injections because the “safety profile” “remains favorable”: 



Based on the current body of evidence, the safety profile of monovalent mRNA vaccines remains favorable for use in young children.



This recommendation comes in spite of the fact, established now without dispute for years, that children are at a statistically non-existent risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19.



Via BBC, way back in August 2021:




Researchers estimate that 25 deaths in a population of some 12 million children in England gives a broad, overall mortality rate of 2 per million children.



As a percentage, two deaths per million children comes in at a 0.0002% death rate.



Yet the injection agenda continues unabated, with full immunity granted to the manufacturers of these products, so parents of babies who seize and possibly die have no legal recourse as they would in literally any other context.



Via CNBC:




If you experience severe side effects after getting a Covid vaccine, lawyers tell CNBC there is basically no one to blame in a U.S. court of law. 



The federal government has granted companies like Pfizer and Moderna immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.



"It is very rare for a blanket immunity law to be passed," said Rogge Dunn, a Dallas labor and employment attorney. "Pharmaceutical companies typically aren't offered much liability protection under the law."




Carte blanche immunity to multinational corporations to trigger unlimited baby seizures is how we best Respect the Science™.
https://pjmedia.com/benbartee/2024/03/27/fda-concedes-covid-shots-trigger-baby-seizures-re-recommends-them-anyway-n4927676

### Executive Travel: Deer Valley in Park City, Utah

This luxury ski resort in the Wasatch Range of the Rocky Mountains is a favorite getaway for Dallas attorney Rogge Dunn.



It’s always risky to book an early-season ski trip; you never know what conditions you’ll encounter. But the stars were aligned during a December getaway to Deer Valley in Park City, Utah, with plenty of fresh snow falling in the days leading up to our arrival. 



Just a quick 40 minutes from Salt Lake City International, Deer Valley makes skiers a priority; it limits the number of lift tickets sold each day and is one of just three venues in North America that doesn’t allow snowboarders.



We spent the first couple of nights at Goldener Hirsch in the resort’s Silver Lake Village. Frequently lauded as one of the country’s best boutique ski hotels, a 2020 expansion added 40 condominiums to the inn’s 18 rooms and suites. A year later, Auberge Resorts Collection was selected to manage the property. (Click here for an in-depth recap, including details about Goldener Hirsch’s modern Bavarian restaurant.)



For the next few days, we moved to the nearby St. Regis Deer Valley, an ultra-luxe hotel that opened in 2009 with 181 rooms. The resort is known for its inventive special touches, including a one-of-a-kind funicular, whose Swiss cable cars travel 500 vertical feet in 90 seconds, connecting residences, La Stellina restaurant, and a Topgolf swing suite with the hotel proper. 



Our visit coincided with the holidays, and the resort was festive and glowing. A highlight was a life-size gingerbread house crafted by the St. Regis pastry team. Along with a 3-foot-tall toy soldier made of fondant, it also featured seasonal drinks—including gourmet hot chocolate, complete with an expansive toppings bar.



Perks at St. Regis include its famed butler service, full-service spa (the “boost and brightening facial” is divine), slope-side pool and hot tubs, in-house Saks Fifth Avenue store, and a ski valet team that will even help you put on your boots. The experiences stand out, too. My boyfriend and I learned how to saber a bottle of Veuve Cliquot and to make the resort’s 7452 Mary. (Every St. Regis resort has a signature Bloody Mary that’s inspired by its locale.)



We spent an evening in Park City’s quaint downtown and had a terrific meal at Riverhorse on Main, where the offerings include a Trio of Wild Game featuring buffalo, venison, and elk, served with truffle twice-baked potatoes, asparagus, and huckleberry).



But you won’t need to stray from the St. Regis campus for a delicious meal. Along with the fresh and flavorful Italian fare at the funicular-served La Stellina, options include above-standard treats at St. Regis Bar (where you can view the locally inspired “Into the Mine” mural by Phillip Buller), French food at Brasserie 7452 (try the Croque Madame or the French onion soup), and traditional American cuisine at RIME (seafood and steaks are standouts). 



It was at RIME where I indulged in a decadent breakfast of Utah Toast—brioche with toasted nuts, honey-peach-apricot compote, and alpine whiskey mascarpone. It was the perfect foundation before heading out the door for another glorious day on the slopes. 



Nothing Tops Hitting the Slopes



Dallas attorney Rogge Dunn went to the 2002 Olympics in Park City and fell in love with the region. He had recently taken up skiing and decided to buy a second home at Deer Valley to pursue his new passion. “It’s great to go there for the holidays and have a white Christmas,” Dunn says. “It’s also a magnet for the kids to come hang out with mom and dad.”



When it comes to local fare, he recommends Boneyard Saloon and Wine Bar (“by far the best pizza in town”) and The Mariposa (“best lobster bisque I’ve ever had”). Dunn’s vacation home has ski-in, ski-out access. He prefers the slopes at Deer Valley or the nearby Alta Ski Resort for one simple reason: “No boarders,” he explains.  

### The Importance Of Giving Back To Community: What Drives Rogge Dunn Group To Improve And Provide Professional Services

By Declan Lafray



Formed by law representative specialists and experienced attorneys, the Rogge Dunn Group (RDG) has been fighting significant battles for its clients in court. The founding members all have decades of experience, providing the firm with the necessary tools to assist in legal help across various areas of expertise, from partnership and other business disputes to employment and FINRA matters, pending in court and arbitration. The office where Rogge Dunn Group operates is equipped with cutting-edge technology, a professional video conference room, and many spaces for clients to relax. All the developments, technological marvels, and a passionate staff are a certain recipe for success.



The top-notch advice and assistance of the Rogge Dunn Group have helped multiple clients through the hurdles of trials and lawsuits, earning RDG a first-rate reputation, recognition, and many awards. However, these aren't the rewards that drive RDG to carry on helping people. Rogge Dunn, one of the founders, emphasizes the importance of giving back to the community, charity work, and selfless acts, "When I was growing up, we struggled with money. Nothing was ever handed to me, and all the successes I have now were achieved through hard work and perseverance. I understand how it is to feel powerless and unable to afford help. That's why I spend so much time engaging in charities and pro-bono work."



Among RDG's charitable endeavors, helping build a home for a single parent with two children stands out. Other than financial help, members of the Rogge Dunn Group supplied sweat and elbow grease, physically contributing to the cause. Additionally, RDG sponsored the "Honoring Our Nation's Heroes" event in Dallas and funded the restoration of Santa Anna's battle flag, preserving important pieces of Texas' history for the Dallas Historical Society.



Especially committed to improving the lives of children, the Rogge Dunn Group purchased a T-Rex dinosaur model used in Jurassic Park and donated it to the Perot Museum of Nature and Science which is children-forward. "I know I can't save the entire world, but if I can change one person's world, that's gratifying. Some cases speak to my heart, and I have a genuine desire to help these people," added Rogge.



Rogge Dunn Group's pro-bono work includes, but isn't limited to, legal assistance for Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), for the Frontiers of Flight Museum, the Perot Museum of Nature and Science, and the Dallas Historical Society. As a 6th generation Texan and a 3rd generation Dallasite, Rogge Dunn has an unwavering passion for local history and is committed to helping his community in any way possible.



When it comes to choosing pro-bono work and charities, Rogge Dunn often helps teachers and school workers. "My mother was valedictorian at her high school and Phi Beta Kappa at SMU. Afterward, the only job she could get was teaching at the DISD. I think that's why I have such a soft spot for teachers, their cases hit home. One of my most memorable cases included a teacher who took a class of students to the Dallas Museum of Art, where they saw a naked statue. Some parents complained and the teacher was unjustifiably suspended. Helping that teacher was one of my most memorable pro-bono cases," shares Rogge.



Rogge Dunn is a renowned lawyer who also represents Fortune 500 companies. However, he considers himself a people person and often accepts cases for low-earning people in need. One of his most impressive cases was representing a nurse making less than $40,000 a year, who was harassed and discriminated against by her boss. The outcome was positive, the nurse won over $1M.



There's more than knowledge and experience behind the success of the Rogge Dunn Group. This trial boutique of passionate lawyers and attorneys gives back to the community. Through charities, pro-bono work, donations, and sponsoring important events, RDG contributed to improving the world we all live in.



"I know I could retire now but the work I do brings me more joy than retirement ever could. I think it's important to engage pro bono and help individuals. While we represent numerous companies in matters involving $50 million plus matters, you lose touch with the right reasons for being a lawyer if you don't also represent executives, entrepreneurs, and people from all walks of life. Being an attorney is a career I absolutely love, but my real passion is helping people. That's what drives me to be a better person every day," manifests Rogge.

### Loandepot, Cardinal Sued Over Alleged Deceptive Practices

By Brad FinkelsteinA pair of lawsuits have been filed in a Dallas County, Texas court separately alleging thatLoandepot and Cardinal Financial violated the state's deceptive practices law when advisingborrowers to miss payments on recently refinanced or modified mortgages.



These were filed by attorney Rogge Dunn, and each are seeking certification as class actionsuits.



"The false and misleading advice given by Defendant to Plaintiffs induced Plaintiffs to enter ormodify transactions with Defendant," both filings claimed.



The primary count in both filings involves allegations of violating the Deception Trade PracticesAct.



"By failing to disclose to consumers…the consequences of delaying, deferring and/or skippingmortgage payments in connection with the TransacBons, You engaged in unconscionableactions and/or a course of action" that violated the DTPA, both legal filings read.



If anything, at one point in 2020, Cardinal did send a warning to borrowers about theconsequences of missing payments through the forbearance process, Dunn said. But in themortgages involving the plaintiffs in this case, Bernard Guinard and Joel Luna, as well as thepotential members of the class, Cardinal did not provide this information.



"If Cardinal thought it was important to be transparent and upfront with consumers, back inApril of 2020, why don't they send this article to every consumer every time somebody wants toskip a couple payments?" Dunn asked rhetorically during an interview. "Cardinal can't say it's nolonger important to warn consumers that are thinking about skipping payments."



Loandepot never provided this warning to borrowers, he added. The plaintiffs in this action areAngela Colonna, Stephen Colonna and Avinash Daga



"The other issue is failure to disclose, 'hey, even though you're skipping payments, you're goingto have to pay interest and that interest accrues, so it may not be in your economic interest toskip payments,'" Dunn said, creating the impression for some of the consumers that this courseof action was a "no brainer."



Both Loandepot and Cardinal do not comment on ongoing litigation, both companies said in anemailed reply.



In May, Cardinal settled a lawsuit alleging it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for$7.2 million.



Meanwhile, Loandepot was sued in November by West Virginia consumers who alleged itviolated the state's consumer protection laws regarding fees charged when a borrower paid bytelephone. That suit is also seeking class action status. 



Loandepot's former chief operating officer Tammy Richards also filed a suit against the company over its underwriting and marketing practices, and has filed a counterclaim against her.

### HONORING OUR NATION’S HEROES



### The Importance of Being Earnest

FINANCIAL ADVISORS, C-level execs, and entrepreneurs make daily sales pitches. Whether you’re trying to persuade a prospect to trust you with their assets, motivate an employee, or win an argument with family or friends, persuasion skills are essential. This article details a proven persuasion technique.



It’s easier to persuade people if you and your argument appear genuine. Consider Coca Cola’s famous ad “Coke is the real thing.” Successful marketing portrays products and services as the “genuine article,” “the real deal,” and “authentic.” Given society’s demand for transparency and accountability, and social media watchdogs, authenticity is critical. A study found 90% of consumers are looking for authenticity. If you appear genuine and honest, investors will trust you with their assets. Accenture defines trust as “a consistent experience of competence, integrity, honesty, transparency, commitment, purpose, and familiarity.”



Frontify, the Swiss brand management firm, advised companies that marketing must address the fact that “Millennials are relentless and obsessive in their quest for authenticity. They want real and organic, not perfect and packaged.” When people lose trust in a company or financial advisor, they certainly won’t be persuaded by them. A 2018 Accenture study determined that “54% of the companies on the Accenture strategy competitive agility index experienced a material drop in trust and lost $180 billion in revenues.”



If you doubt the persuasive power of authenticity, study the Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard trial. Both parties were represented by high-powered lawyers and jury psychologists. Typically, I tell my clients going to a FINRA arbitration or trial to dress and act like they are going to church. They should not stand- out, they should blend in with what the average person looks like. No cuff links, expensive jewelry, flashy clothes, or crazy hair styles. When you get to either







edge, you’re more likely to offend some jurors and arbitrators. People are more likely to be persuaded by people who look, act, and talk like them.



The Depp trial proved that sometimes authenticity overrides the conventional wisdom that witnesses at an arbitration or trial should look like “the average Joe.” Heard followed the traditional trial advice and dressed conservatively, with her hair pinned up like an old school marm. Given Heard’s stylish appearance in the past and her provocative look as Aquawoman, when she showed up in the courtroom looking like a school-teacher and pretended to be scared when Johnny Depp walked by her in the courtroom, the jury viewed Heard’s dress and demeanor as fake and the opposite of genuine. Imagine how fake a New York lawyer with a heavy Yankee accent would look if they appeared in front of a FINRA panel in Mississippi wearing cowboy boots.



Depp, on the other hand, wore dark glasses, an earring, Italian designer suits with black shirts, and loud ties. Depp’s appearance persuaded the jury and the public he was authentic and they were seeing “the real Johnny Depp.” That lead them to trust Depp and believe his testimony.



Depp won and won big: $15+ million verdict and the PR and social media war. #justiceforjohnnydepp had 20 billion views while #IStandWithAmberHeard had 8 million views. And, the studio decided to use Emilia Clarke instead of Heard as Aquawoman in the movie sequel.



The Takeaway: if you lie to an arbitrator or a jury, even a small lie, your credibility is destroyed and then they won’t believe anything you say. That’s why it’s so important when you are in front of a FINRA panel and when you are trying to persuade people, that you are authentic and not perceived as pretending to be somebody you’re not.

### Key Industry Developments in March

IN MARCH we saw FAs being fired over and an enforcement emphasis on personal cell phones and PDAs used for calls and texts involving business matters. And, as always, FAs were disciplined for violating Reg BI.



NOTEWORTHY FINRA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND FA FIRINGS



Deloitte Corporate Finance LLC was fined $200,000 for failing to retain business-related iMessages (i.e., iPhone-to- iPhone text messages) on Firm-owned phones. The Firm allowed employees to use text messages for work-related purposes on Firm-owned iPhones, yet it did not implement sufficient policies to ensure that iMessages would be archived.



This enforcement action is emblematic of why most firms prohibit FAs from using their personal cell phones and PDAs to conduct any business.



FINRA requires firms to archive and monitor all communications with clients. It’s more difficult and expensive for firms’ compliance departments to monitor and archive messages advisors send using their personal devices. That’s why most firms provide business cell phones (e.g., Merrill Lynch’s “red phones”) and prohibit use of personal cell phones for business. It’s an important reminder that FAs should not use their personal electronic devices to conduct business or communicate with their clients regarding transactions or their portfolios. This issue is high on FINRA’s enforcement list.



Just one recent example is a Raymond James broker in Miami who FINRA suspended over his WhatsApp use. This is another lesson of what happens when FAs use non-firm approved devices and communication channels. This time it was the WhatsApp app. The FA received a 30-day suspension and $10,000 fine for using WhatsApp to communicate with clients. The FA exchanged hundreds of text messages with firm customers about business-related topics, including investment recommendations, client orders, and market conditions. RayJay did not approve WhatsApp for client communications and, as such, records of these client interactions were not archived as FINRA requires.



In March 2023, FINRA suspended an FA who was previously fired from UBS for 45 days and fined him $7,500 for using his personal cell phone to communicate with clients. FINRA also issued a 30day suspension and $5,000 fine against another fired UBS FA because he used WhatsApp to communicate with a client without informing UBS.



Raymond James fired FA Roman Meye- shans, an MD who was a Financial Times top 400 broker with 21 years of experience because he violated Firm policies regarding texting clients. Note that the fired FA also deleted some messages prior to an unannounced branch audit. Never forget that usually the cover-up is worse than the crime.



If you don’t think FAs unauthorized use of communication methods not approved by your firm is top of the mind with your firm, consider that the SEC and the Commodities Future Trading Commission have already issued over $1 billion in fines against financial institutions for failing to capture their employees electronic messaging. See Advisor Hub article March 28, 2023.



FINRA REGULATORY NOTICES



FINRA Regulatory Notice 23-06 (3/28/23) concerns practices and policies addressing the risks of fraudulent transfers of accounts through ACATs. Recently, ACAT fraud has increased, including bad actors fraudulently transferring customer ac- counts through ACAT. This Notice gives an overview of some indicators of ACAT fraud and various practices Firms should implement to address this problem.



FINRA Regulatory Notice 23-04 (3/14/23) provides guidance regarding the Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank failures. This Notice addresses bank deposits, balances in customer and PAB reserve bank accounts, and withdrawal of funds from accounts held at SVP and Signature.



FAS SUSPENDED FOR REG BI VIOLATIONS



Two significant suspensions in March involved Reg BI violations concerning senior/elderly clients. As I’ve warned repeatedly, Reg BI is alive and well and it’s at the top of FINRA’s list to monitor and investigate. In March, FINRA’s Director of National Cause and Financial Crimes Program said FINRA’s goal by the end of 2023 is to investigate 1,000 broker-dealers to ensure they are complying with Reg BI. See Advisor Hub Article March 16, 2023.



When you’re dealing with senior clients your Reg BI and fiduciary duties are heightened. Further, many states with significant senior populations, like Florida, have enacted laws designedto protect seniors. Those state laws put additional obligations and risk on advisors.



Edward Short was fined $5,000, suspended for seven months, and ordered to pay $116,859 in restitution. That FA violated Reg BI by making recommendations in a senior client’s account that were excessive, unsuitable, and not in the customer’s best interest. Todd Cirella was fined $5,000, suspended for three months, and ordered to pay $27,566 in restitution. That FA violated Reg BI by recommending trading in a senior client’s account that was excessive, unsuitable, and not in the customer’s best interest.



While there was no evidence the FA used the study materials or electronic device to cheat, the fact that those materials were in the room despite instructions prohibiting him from having them in his possession led to a massive penalty. Specifically, FINRA suspended him for 18 months and fined him $5,000.



The takeaway is that any issues or violations involving honesty, integrity, or cheating generally leads to substantial enforcement penalties from FINRA.



FINRA’S PROPOSED NEW HOME OFFICE SUPERVISION RULES NOT ADOPTED



FINRA has sought to reclassify FAs’ home offices as “remote supervisory locations.” Currently firms must examine those home offices once a year. FINRA sought to reduce firm’s examinations from once a year to once every three years.



That proposal would save firms substantial time and money as more and more FAs work remotely. Many commentators believed that if the one year FINRA examination rule is not changed to three years, more firms will prohibit FAs from working remotely and require them to work exclusively in the firm’s brick and mortar facilities.

### Social Media Scrutiny Continue Education Testing Tip and More

SOCIAL MEDIA’S influence on consumers and investors continues to expand even though social gatherings have picked up as the pandemic has receded. Prospecting for clients through social media is an effective augmentation to using traditional methods of sources of influence, charity events, and other civic gatherings.



SOCIAL MEDIA SCRUTINY



Many investors now research financial advisors online and through LinkedIn and various other social media platforms. Recognizing this trend in investor preference, in September of 2021 FINRA began a dedicated program to investigate firm’s policies and procedures to ensure financial advisors did not violate FINRA rules regarding acquisition of new clients through social media.



In February FINRA issued an update on its targeted examination of FAs’use of social media and social media influencers as a tool for client acquisition. While FINRA’s “sweep” is targeted towards firms, FAs need to be mindful that FINRA’s investigation of a firm can uncover improper use of social media by individual FAs – which can cost them their jobs and severely tarnish their U-5s. It’s a good reminder that FAs should know and follow their firm’s social media policy. In February FINRA announced a $5,000 fine and 10 day suspension of an FA who made posts on a social media page that violated FINRA’s rules regard- ing communications with the public.



The broker’s post made positive statements about the returns realized in an investment club and hedge fund, but did not discuss any of the risks associated with these investments. The FA also made posts about the benefits of options transactions but did not warn that options investments is not suitable for all investors.



The FA ran afoul of FINRA rules because he went beyond general descriptions of the benefits of options and described in detail specific transactions prior to disclosing or delivering documents disclosing the risk of options. The FA also got in trouble because he did not obtain advance approval from FINRA’s advertisement and regulation department at least ten days prior to making those posts.



The takeaway is that social media is a valuable prospecting tool that is here to stay. Before making posts discussing investments, those posts should be cleared with FINRA’s advertising department to protect the advisor as well as the firm that employs them.



BE CAREFUL WHEN PRESENTING PPMS



FINRA fined an FA $7,500 and suspended him for one month because he solicited prospective investors into a private placement before the FA had a substantial relationship with the prospective investors. The FA made a mistake because neither he nor his firm had any substantive relationship with any of the prospective investors and the FA did not obtain investor questionnaires prior to the time the investors invested in the private offering.



CONTINUING EDUCATION TESTING TIP



FINRA came down hard on an FA who took the Series 7 examination remotely. The rules required all test takers to store all personal items including study materials and electronic devices outside of the testing location. During the exam, the FA had personal items in the test room including study materials and an electronic tablet.



While there was no evidence the FA used the study materials or electronic device to cheat, the fact that those materials were in the room despite instructions prohibiting him from having them in his possession led to a massive penalty. Specifically, FINRA suspended him for 18 months and fined him $5,000.



The takeaway is that any issues or violations involving honesty, integrity, or cheating generally leads to substantial enforcement penalties from FINRA.

### Several Developments in January are of Interest to Financial Advisors

First and foremost the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) took the first step in implementing a rule that would outlaw non-competes. If the rule goes into effect it will make transitioning firms for FAs much easier.



FTC’S PROPOSED RULE BANNING NON-COMPETES



For decades, non-compete agreements have been hotly contested. Employers argue that non-competes are necessary to protect trade secrets and good will the firm created with customers, whereas employees insist that non-competes limit compensation and unfairly restrict healthy competition.



Historically, the extent to which a non-compete agreement is enforceable has been decided by state legislatures, courts, and arbitrators. However, in July of 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order “encouraging” the FTC to exercise its statutory rulemaking authority to “curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility.”



I have closely followed and helped clients navigate non-compete and non-so-licit issues in the aftermath of President Biden’s Executive Order. I analyzed Biden’s Executive Order in the September, 2021 Advisor Hub Magazine article.



As I predicted then, the FTC has proposed a rule that would ban the use of non-compete agreements in the workplace – with practically no exceptions. On January 5, 2023, the FTC issued a “notice of proposed rulemaking.” That is the first step in the rule becoming



the law. The proposed FTC rule would prohibit employers from entering intoa non-compete agreement or representing that an employee is subject to a non-compete agreement without having a good faith basis to do so. The FTC’s proposed rule does more than prohibit the use of non-compete clauses in future employment agreements. It also voids existing non-compete agreements.



The proposed rule would also apply to independent contractors and any other individual who works for a company. Thus, the rule would protect FAs working for RIAs, not just FAs at traditional Wall Street wirehouses and investment banks.



While traditionally RIAs have been less likely to require non-competes and non-solicits in recent years RIAs have been following the lead of FINRA regulated firms and imposing non-competes and non-solicits on FAs.



I predict the FTC issues the proposed rule. If so, it will most certainly be challenged in court. A court may strike down the rule, if it determines the FTC lacked statutory authority to promulgate the rule.



REG BI ENFORCEMENT



In January, FINRA announced action against a small Long Island firm with only five FAs for a Reg BI violation. FINRA noted that the firm did not reference Reg BI in its compliance manual until almost 18 months after the rule took effect and it failed to deliver the customer relationship summary conflict disclosure to clients and prospects. FINRA fined the firm $35,000 and issued a formal censure. The fact that FINRA issued discipline against such a small firm shows FINRA’s laser focus on ensuring FAs and firms comply with Reg BI.



OUTSIDE BUSINESS ACTIVITY DEVELOPMENT



For years FAs have been getting into trouble with their firms and/or FINRA regarding OBAs. This is an activity FINRA closely monitors. In January, FINRA took action against one careless FA, fining her $3,500 and suspending her for 60 days simply because she waited several months after joining her firm to disclose and request approval to engage in her OBAs. The takeaway is when you start with a new firm or when you want to start an OBA you must first notify your firm and seek permission. As with most compliance issues, that notification should always be in writing so you can prove you adhered to firm policy and FINRA rules.



BORROWING MONEY FROM CLIENTS



Most FAs know that borrowing from clients is a big no-no. A recent FINRA sanction shows that FINRA has zero tolerance for borrowing from clients. The FA only borrowed money from very wealthy and financially sophisticated clients with whom he had been close friends for decades, some since child- hood. The FA repaid all of the loans in a timely fashion. Nevertheless, the FA was fined $20,000 and suspended for 4 months.FINRA.

### Rogge’s Roundup: Several developments in January are of interest to financial advisors — February 16, 2023

FTC’s Proposed Rule Banning Non-Competes



First and foremost the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) took the first step in implementing a rule that would outlaw non-competes. If the rule goes into effect it will make transitioning firms for FAs much easier.



For decades, non-compete agreements have been hotly contested.  Employers argue that non-competes are necessary to protect trade secrets and good will the firm created with customers, whereas employees insist that non-competes limit compensation and unfairly restrict healthy competition.



Historically, the extent to which a non-compete agreement is enforceable has been decided by state legislatures, courts, and arbitrators. However, in July of 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order “encouraging” the FTC to exercise its statutory rulemaking authority to “curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility.”



I have closely followed and helped clients navigate non-compete and non-solicit issues in the aftermath of President Biden’s Executive Order. I analyzed Biden’s Executive Order in the September, 2021 Advisor Hub Magazine article.



As I predicted then, the FTC has proposed a rule that would ban the use of non-compete agreements in the workplace—with practically no exceptions. On January 5, 2023, the FTC issued a “notice of proposed rulemaking.” That is the first step in the rule becoming the law. The proposed FTC rule would prohibit employers from entering into a non-compete agreement or representing that an employee is subject to a non-compete agreement without having a good faith basis to do so. The FTC’s proposed rule does more than prohibit the use of non-compete clauses in future employment agreements. It also voids existing non-compete agreements. The proposed rule would also apply to independent contractors and any other individual who works for a company. Thus, the rule would protect FAs working for RIAs, not just FAs at traditional Wall Street wirehouses and investment banks.



While traditionally RIAs have been less likely to require non-competes and non-solicits in recent years RIAs have been following the lead of FINRA regulated firms and imposing non-competes and non-solicits on FAs.



I predict the FTC issues the proposed rule. If so, it will most certainly be challenged in court. A court may strike down the rule, if it determines the FTC lacked statutory authority to promulgate the rule.



Reg BI Enforcement



In January, FINRA announced action against a small Long Island firm with only five FAs for a Reg BI violation. FINRA noted that the firm did not reference Reg BI in its compliance manual until almost 18 months after the rule took effect and it failed to deliver the customer relationship summary conflict disclosure to clients and prospects. FINRA fined the firm $35,000 and issued a formal censure. The fact that FINRA issued discipline against such a small firm shows FINRA’s laser focus on ensuring FAs and firms comply with Reg BI.



Outside Business Activity Developments



For years FAs have been getting into trouble with their firms and/or FINRA regarding OBAs.  This is an activity FINRA closely monitors. In January, FINRA took action against one careless FA, fining her $3,500 and suspending her for 60 days simply because she waited several months after joining her firm to disclose and request approval to engage in her OBAs. The takeaway is when you start with a new firm or when you want to start an OBA you must first notify your firm and seek permission. As with most compliance issues, that notification should always be in writing so you can prove you adhered to firm policy and FINRA rules.



Borrowing Money from Clients



Most FAs know that borrowing from clients is a big no-no. A recent FINRA sanction shows that FINRA has zero tolerance for borrowing from clients. The FA only borrowed money from very wealthy and financially sophisticated clients with whom he had been close friends for decades, some since childhood. The FA repaid all of the loans in a timely fashion. Nevertheless, the FA was fined $20,000 and suspended for 4 months.

### Rogge’s Roundup: Social Media Scrutiny, Continuing Education Testing Tip and more – March 15, 2023

Social Media Scrutiny



Social media’s influence on consumers and investors continues to expand even though social gatherings have picked up as the pandemic has receded. Prospecting for clients through social media is an effective augmentation to using traditional methods of sources of influence, charity events, and other civic gatherings. Many investors now research financial advisors on-line and through LinkedIn and various other social media platforms. Recognizing this trend in investor preference, in September of 2021 FINRA began a dedicated program to investigate firm’s policies and procedures to ensure financial advisors did not violate FINRA rules regarding acquisition of new clients through social media.



In February FINRA issued an update on its targeted examination of FAs’ use of social media and social media influencers as a tool for client acquisition. While FINRA’s “sweep” is targeted towards firms, FAs need to be mindful that FINRA’s investigation of a firm can uncover improper use of social media by individual FAs–which can cost them their jobs and severely tarnish their U-5s. It’s a good reminder that FAs should know and follow their firm’s social media policy.



In February FINRA announced a $5,000 fine and 10 day suspension of an FA who made posts on a social media page that violated FINRA’s rules regarding communications with the public.



The broker’s post made positive statements about the returns realized in an investment club and hedge fund, but did not discuss any of the risks associated with these investments. The FA also made posts about the benefits of options transactions but did not warn that options investments is not suitable for all investors. The FA ran afoul of FINRA rules because he went beyond general descriptions of the benefits of options and described in detail specific transactions prior to disclosing or delivering documents disclosing the risk of options. The FA also got in trouble because he did not obtain advance approval from FINRA’s advertisement and regulation department at least ten days prior to making those posts.



The take-away is that social media is a valuable prospecting tool that is here to stay. Before making posts discussing investments, those posts should be cleared with FINRA’s advertising department to protect the advisor as well as the firm that employs them.



Be Careful When Presenting PPMs



FINRA fined an FA $7,500 and suspended him for one month because he solicited prospective investors into a private placement before the FA had a substantial relationship with the prospective investors. The FA made a mistake because neither he nor his firm had any substantive relationship with any of the prospective investors and the FA did not obtain investor questionnaires prior to the time the investors invested in the private offering.



Continuing Education Testing Tip



FINRA came down hard on an FA who took the Series 7 examination remotely. The rules required all test takers to store all personal items including study materials and electronic devices outside of the testing location. During the exam, the FA had personal items in the test room including study materials and an electronic tablet.  While there was no evidence the FA used the study materials or electronic device to cheat, the fact that those materials were in the room despite instructions prohibiting him from having them in his possession led to a massive penalty. Specifically, FINRA suspended him for 18 months and fined him $5,000.



The take-away is that any issues or violations involving honesty, integrity, or cheating generally leads to substantial enforcement penalties from FINRA.

### Rogge’s Roundup – Key Industry Developments in March

In March we saw FAs being fired over and an enforcement emphasis on personal cell phones and PDAs used for calls and texts involving business matters. And, as always, FAs were disciplined for violating Reg BI. 



Noteworthy FINRA Enforcement Actions and FA Firings



Deloitte Corporate Finance LLC  was fined $200,000 for failing to retain business-related iMessages (i.e., iPhone-to-iPhone text messages) on Firm-owned phones. The Firm allowed employees to use text messages for work-related purposes on Firm-owned iPhones, yet it did not implement sufficient policies to ensure that iMessages would be archived. This enforcement action is emblematic of why most firms prohibit FAs from using their personal cell phones and PDAs to conduct any business.  



FINRA requires firms to archive and monitor all communications with clients. It’s more difficult and expensive for firms’ compliance departments to monitor and archive messages advisors send using their personal devices. That’s why most firms provide business cell phones (e.g., Merrill Lynch’s “red phones”) and prohibit use of personal cell phones for business. It’s an important reminder that FAs should not use their personal electronic devices to conduct business or communicate with their clients regarding transactions or their portfolios. This issue is high on FINRA’s enforcement list.  



Just one recent example is a Raymond James broker in Miami who FINRA suspended over his WhatsApp use. This is another lesson of what happens when FAs use non-firm approved devices and communication channels. This time it was the WhatsApp app. The FA received a 30-day suspension and $10,000 fine for using WhatsApp to communicate with clients. The FA exchanged hundreds of text messages with firm customers about business-related topics, including investment recommendations, client orders, and market conditions. RayJay did not approve WhatsApp for client communications and, as such, records of these client interactions were not archived as FINRA requires. 



In March 2023, FINRA suspended an FA who was previously fired from UBS for 45 days and fined him $7,500 for using his personal cell phone to communicate with clients. FINRA also issued a 30 day suspension and $5,000 fine against another fired UBS FA because he used WhatsApp to communicate with a client without informing UBS. 



Raymond James fired FA Roman Meyeshans, an MD who was a Financial Times top 400 broker with 21 years of experience because he violated Firm policies regarding texting clients. Note that the fired FA also deleted some messages prior to an unannounced branch audit. Never forget that usually the cover-up is worse than the crime.



If you don’t think FAs unauthorized use of communication methods not approved by your firm is top of the mind with your firm, consider that the SEC and the Commodities Future Trading Commission have already issued over $1 billion in fines against financial institutions for failing to capture their employees electronic messaging. See Advisor Hub article March 28, 2023.



FINRA Regulatory Notices



FINRA Regulatory Notice 23-06 (3/28/23) concerns practices and policies addressing the risks of fraudulent transfers of accounts through ACATs. Recently, ACAT fraud has increased, including bad actors fraudulently transferring customer accounts through ACAT. This Notice gives an overview of some indicators of ACAT fraud and various practices Firms should implement to address this problem.



FINRA Regulatory Notice 23-04 (3/14/23) provides guidance regarding the Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank failures. This Notice addresses bank deposits, balances in customer and PAB reserve bank accounts, and withdrawal of funds from accounts held at SVP and Signature. 



FAs Suspended for Reg BI Violations



Two significant suspensions in March involved Reg BI violations concerning senior/elderly clients. As I’ve warned repeatedly, Reg BI is alive and well and it’s at the top of FINRA’s list to monitor and investigate. In March, FINRA’s Director of National Cause and Financial Crimes Program said FINRA’s goal by the end of 2023 is to investigate 1,000 broker-dealers to ensure they are complying with Reg BI. See Advisor Hub Article March 16, 2023. 



When you’re dealing with senior clients your Reg BI and fiduciary duties are heightened. Further, many states with significant senior populations, like Florida, have enacted laws designed to protect seniors.  Those state laws put additional obligations and risks on advisors. 



Edward Short was fined $5,000, suspended for seven months, and ordered to pay $116,859 in restitution. That FA violated Reg BI by making recommendations in a senior client’s account that were excessive, unsuitable, and not in the customer’s best interest. Todd Cirella was fined $5,000, suspended for three months, and ordered to pay $27,566 in restitution. That FA violated Reg BI by recommending trading in a senior client’s account that was excessive, unsuitable, and not in the customer’s best interest. 



FINRA’s Proposed New Home Office Supervision Rules Not Adopted



FINRA has sought to reclassify FAs’ home offices as “remote supervisory locations.” Currently firms must examine those home offices once a year. FINRA sought to reduce firm’s examinations from once a year to once every three years.  That proposal would save firms substantial time and money as more and more FAs work remotely. Many commentators believed that if the one year FINRA examination rule is not changed to three years, more firms will prohibit FAs from working remotely and require them to work exclusively in the firm’s brick and mortar facilities.  



Rogge Dunn assists financial advisors and firms with the transitioning teams, non-competes, non-solicit issues. He helps FAs recover forfeited deferred compensation and defend against promissory notes.  Dunn assists FAs with U-5 expungement and compliance issues with their firms and with FINRA.



Dunn has obtained numerous multi-million dollar arbitration awards on behalf of FAs and executives involving wrongful forfeiture of deferred comp and wrongful discharge. Dunn handles these issues nationwide.

### Rogge Dunn Group Relaxes, Ramps Up Team Building During Cancun Weekend

With a goal of providing a well-deserved break as well as practical tools to foster teamwork, Rogge Dunn of the Dallas Rogge Dunn Group PC hosted 40 firm attorneys, staff and their significant others on an extended weekend trip to Cancun on April 20-23.



In addition to relaxation and tours of the region’s sights, the weekend involved extensive workshops with executive coach and motivational speaker Dan Mueller. Dan guided the group through tests and discussions to reveal individual personalities and how each participant prefers to learn, process information, and interact with others, with a goal of enhanced communication and better understanding of each other.

### $1.75 million settlement finalized in lawsuit against Collin DA, top county officials

Top Collin County officials and six former and current employees finalized a settlement Monday for $1.75 million over alleged sexual harassment and retaliation in the district attorney’s office, according to attorneys.



The federal lawsuit accused District Attorney Greg Willis of repeatedly making untoward comments, and inappropriately touching and propositioning employees. The suit accused Willis’ No. 2, First Assistant District Attorney Bill Wirskye, of targeting women and fostering a toxic workplace.



Other officials — including County Judge Chris Hill and commissioners Darrell Hale, Susan Fletcher, Cheryl Williams and Duncan Webb — were accused of covering up the systemic misconduct.



The 75-page suit was filed in October by the district attorney’s chief and deputy chief investigators, a prosecutor and three former employees.



“These individuals care very deeply for each other’s well-being,” their attorney Jeffrey Simon said in a written statement. “That support gave them the courage to stand up for themselves, their rights, and those of their colleagues.”



The agreement was not immediately available in public records.



The current and former employees will share the settlement equally, which will be paid through the county’s insurance, Simon’s statement said. County commissioners agreed to sign off on a settlement Monday, according to a county spokesman and the Commissioners Court’s agenda.

### Stifel’s Raiding Suit Against RIA Adds to Pile of High-Stakes Claims

Stifel Financial, in hot pursuit of a team of nearly three dozen ex-employees who left to launch their own registered investment advisor firm in Indianapolis, has brought a lawsuit in federal court claiming that the exodus was tantamount to a "illicit" coup and emptied an entire office.



On Feb. 28, St. Louis–based Stifel filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against Sapient Capital, alleging that the newly formed RIA conducted a “raid of Stifel’s employees and business” and engaged in “false advertising” indicating that Stifel’s Indianapolis NW office, also known as The KCP Group, had become Sapient Capital and that Sapient Capital controlled the clients and their assets. The office opened in 2005, and Stifel in recent months had entered into a new 10-year lease for the space, according to the lawsuit.



Stifel noted in the claim that, as of Feb. 16, the Indianapolis NW office had more than 30 employees, about 7,500 clients’ accounts and about $10 billion in client assets. Stifel said in the claim that on Feb. 17 the office’s three managing directors — Jamie Knall, Thomas Pence and Jeffrey Cohen — as well as its chief operating officer, Andrew LeBlanc, staged a “coup” that saw the departure of more than 30 employees and indicated that Sapient — which is majority-owned by Knall, Pence and Cohen — was the new owner of Stifel’s business.



The filing did not specify a dollar amount for damages being sought by Stifel.



A spokesperson for Sapient Capital told FA-IQ via email that on Feb. 17, the KCP Group “ended its 17-year relationship with Stifel” and launched the RIA firm Sapient Capital, in part to build a “platform of alternative investments.”



“With respect to any legal actions by Stifel, we are disappointed that the company chose this route, particularly in light of the company’s prior public statements concerning the Broker Protocol and criticism of other firms ‘using the courts to prevent client choice.’ We believe any such claims are meritless and we plan to vigorously defend against them,” the spokesperson said.



The spokesperson did not respond, as of this publication's deadline, to a request for Sapient's response to Stifel's claim that it represented itself to clients as the new owner of Stifel's business.



A spokesperson for Stifel, which is a signatory to the protocol, declined to comment on the lawsuit.



Stifel’s suit is the latest entry into a growing ledger of raiding claims filed between wirehouses, broker-dealers and RIAs that can sometimes result in high-dollar remedies ordered for the aggrieved.



In February, Wells Fargo was awarded nearly $20 million by a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel in a claim against Raymond James and a former Wells Fargo advisor for carrying out a “coordinated raid” at Wells Fargo’s branch office in Mountain Home, Arkansas. Raymond James has since filed a petition to vacate the award, as reported.



Separately, in February last year, JPMorgan settled on undisclosed terms a lawsuit against Chicago-based RIA Cresset Asset Management for allegedly poaching several advisors, as reported. JPMorgan had accused Cresset of regularly plucking from its private banker ranks resulting in a "loss of tens of millions of dollars in client assets and substantial revenue.”



Another Finra arbitration panel in January last year ordered Benjamin F. Edwards & Co. to pay more than $18 million to Stephens over allegations of poaching. Stephens had claimed BFE poached four of six brokers at its Jonestown, Arkansas office over an 11-month span starting in 2016.



What constitutes a raid often hinges on factors ranging from geographic region to the number of employees involved, according to industry lawyers not involved in the Stifel case.



The departure of the majority of employees in an economic unit is “one of the central tenets of a raid,” and the unit would have to be “somewhat effectively put out of competitive business,” according to Brian Neville, a partner at New York–based law firm Lax & Neville.



Neville noted that in the Stifel case, it wouldn’t be a raid “if everyone in that branch had made independent decisions that they didn’t like working there and they all went to 30 different firms.”



While the employees in the Stifel case going to the same firm “is a huge distinguishing factor,” it still might not constitute a raid, according to Neville.



“Typically, in a raiding case you have a firm that targets that economic unit. Using the example of the Raymond James case, the allegation there was that Raymond James targeted an office and put it out of business. Here, in pretty stark contrast, there were a bunch of people at an office and they decided to leave — they’re employees at will, they’re free to leave,” Neville said.



Location is another determining factor in raiding cases, according to Robert Herskovits, managing member at New York–based law firm Herskovits PLLC.



“I suspect that the cases that are going to be successful are ones in which it’s probably a smaller region by population,” Herskovits said, noting the location of the office in the Wells Fargo and Raymond James case in the southern Ozark Mountains.



Instances in which people have “orchestrated a move” or when “an entire office, a business line or something close to it” has been poached are other determining factors in successful raiding cases.



“Stifel isn’t a small broker-dealer, but 30+ people from one region — that’s going to hurt Stifel,” Herskovits said.



Raiding cases can also hinge upon the conduct of the individuals leaving, particularly whether they contact clients before they leave or take client information with them, according to Rogge Dunn, a Dallas-based lawyer at his eponymous firm Rogge Dunn Group.



“If they don’t leave professionally, it makes it much easier to win one of these lawsuits,” he said.



A case might also swing in favor of the firm a team has left if there’s a pattern in which departing teams go, according to Dunn.



“If new-co has raided old-co multiple times recently, then arbitrators are more receptive to saying, ‘This is a lift out where new-co has gotten information about what old-co is paying people and they’ve made a concerted effort to raid top employees.’ If it’s a one-off, then it’s tougher to win,” he said.



Firms may also file lawsuits against departing teams simply to discourage other teams from following and other firms from raiding, according to Dunn.



“Oftentimes old-co goes after departing employees to enforce noncompetes or non-solicits as a deterrent effect. If one of your biggest teams leaves with impunity, everyone else looks around and thinks, ‘If the A-team can leave and they’re not going to do anything about it, they’re sure not going to come after me,’” he said.



“By the same token, other firms look around and think, ‘Old-co didn’t take action, so there isn’t any consequence if I raid,’” he added.

### Rogge’s Roundup: Several developments in January are of interest to financial advisors - February 16, 2023

Rogge Dunn represents wirehouses, FAs, RIAs and entrepreneurs in financial industry and private equity matters. He handles regulatory issues, wrongful discharge, moving teams, non-competes, partnership dissolutions and prom note defense. Each month, Rogge’s Roundup will provide insights regarding legal and regulatory matters of importance to our industry.



FTC’s Proposed Rule Banning Non-Competes



First and foremost the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) took the first step in implementing arule that would outlaw non-competes. If the rule goes into effect it will make transitioningfirms for FAs much easier.



For decades, non-compete agreements have been hotly contested. Employers argue that noncompetes are necessary to protect trade secrets and good will the firm created with customers,whereas employees insist that non-competes limit compensation and unfairly restrict healthycompetition.



Historically, the extent to which a non-compete agreement is enforceable has been decided bystate legislatures, courts, and arbitrators. However, in July of 2021, President Biden issued anExecutive Order “encouraging” the FTC to exercise its statutory rulemaking authority to“curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other agreements that may unfairly limitworker mobility.”



I have closely followed and helped clients navigate non-compete and non-solicit issues in theaftermath of President Biden’s Executive Order. I analyzed Biden’s Executive Order in theSeptember, 2021 Advisor Hub Magazine article.



As I predicted then, the FTC has proposed a rule that would ban the use of non-competeagreements in the workplace—with practically no exceptions. On January 5, 2023, the FTCissued a “notice of proposed rulemaking.” That is the first step in the rule becoming thelaw. The proposed FTC rule would prohibit employers from entering into a non-competeagreement or representing that an employee is subject to a non-compete agreement withouthaving a good faith basis to do so. The FTC’s proposed rule does more than prohibit the use ofnon-compete clauses in future employment agreements. It also voids existing non-competeagreements. The proposed rule would also apply to independent contractors and any otherindividual who works for a company. Thus, the rule would protect FAs working for RIAs, notjust FAs at traditional Wall Street wirehouses and investment banks.



While traditionally RIAs have been less likely to require non-competes and non-solicits inrecent years RIAs have been following the lead of FINRA regulated firms and imposing noncompetes and non-solicits on FAs.



I predict the FTC issues the proposed rule. If so, it will most certainly be challenged in court. Acourt may strike down the rule, if it determines the FTC lacked statutory authority topromulgate the rule.



Reg BI Enforcement



In January, FINRA announced action against a small Long Island firm with only five FAs for aReg BI violation. FINRA noted that the firm did not reference Reg BI in its compliance manualuntil almost 18 months after the rule took effect and it failed to deliver the customerrelationship summary conflict disclosure to clients and prospects. FINRA fined the firm$35,000 and issued a formal censure. The fact that FINRA issued discipline against such a smallfirm shows FINRA’s laser focus on ensuring FAs and firms comply with Reg BI.



Outside Business Activity Developments



For years FAs have been getting into trouble with their firms and/or FINRA regardingOBAs. This is an activity FINRA closely monitors. In January, FINRA took action against onecareless FA, fining her $3,500 and suspending her for 60 days simply because she waited severalmonths after joining her firm to disclose and request approval to engage in her OBAs. Thetakeaway is when you start with a new firm or when you want to start an OBA you must firstnotify your firm and seek permission. As with most compliance issues, that notification shouldalways be in writing so you can prove you adhered to firm policy and FINRA rules.



Borrowing Money from Clients



Most FAs know that borrowing from clients is a big no-no. A recent FINRA sanction shows thatFINRA has zero tolerance for borrowing from clients. The FA only borrowed money from verywealthy and financially sophisticated clients with whom he had been close friends for decades,some since childhood. The FA repaid all of the loans in a timely fashion. Nevertheless, the FAwas fined $20,000 and suspended for 4 months.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in Dallas Morning News Article on Dallas-Based HMS CEO Accused of Sexual Assault

Jane Doe #2 says Home Marketing Services chief executive Bob Lovell put his hands under her shirt when she made a delivery.



A second woman has filed a lawsuit claiming improper sexual conduct in the workplace by Dallas-based Home Marketing Services CEO Bob Lovell, who is known for his TV ads with the tagline “bless your heart.”



The complaint, filed in Dallas County court Monday by “Jane Doe #2,” alleges that Lovell sexually assaulted her by fondling her breasts in March 2021 after she delivered the custom clothes he had ordered from her.



“Lovell’s false public persona hides the darker truth of his grooming and manipulating of female employees,” the lawsuit said.



The Dallas Morning News was not able to reach Lovell, who founded HMS, which helps people buy and sell homes. His attorney, Larry Friedman, said Lovell unequivocally denies the allegations.



“It’s terrible to be the victim of sexual harassment,” he said. “It’s equally as bad to be wrongfully accused of it. That’s the case here.”



Friedman said the fact that the accuser won’t use her real name and that she waited two years to file any type of complaint show that it isn’t a credible claim.



Similar to the story in the first complaint filed in December 2021, Jane Doe #2 accuses Lovell of making comments about an unsatisfactory sexual relationship with his wife, according to the lawsuit.



Lovell then offered her a job and put his hand underneath her blouse to fondle her breasts, the suit alleges. The woman asked him to stop and said, “You seem like the kind of person who thinks they can get away with such things,” according to the lawsuit. Lovell responded, “Yes, I know who I can touch and get away with it,” according to the lawsuit.



“Lovell’s public persona in his ‘bless your heart’ commercials portray him as a kind, gentle, caring grandfather,” the lawsuit said. “The truth is he is nothing but a dirty old man who preys on women and young female employees.”



The complaint also broadly alleges that Lovell frequently sexually harasses female employees and pressures women to submit to his sexual demands.



Rogge Dunn of the Rogge Dunn Group in Dallas is the attorney for both women, who are each seeking more than $1 million in damages. Dunn said he’s confident there are other victims, and he hopes they will come forward after reading about Jane Doe #2.



“It’s not an easy thing for victims to come forward,” Dunn said. “The reason Weinstein and Cosby get away with stuff like this is that people are afraid to come forward.”



The previous complaint was filed in December 2021 by an unidentified woman who said she gave in to Lovell’s demands for oral sex in the office because he withheld customer leads from her if she didn’t comply and she feared losing her job. When she stood up to him and refused his request, he canceled her daughter’s health insurance coverage through the company, according to the lawsuit.



In court filings, Lovell denied all allegations made against him and his company by Jane Doe #1.



In January 2022, Lovell asked the judge overseeing the case to request Jane Doe #1 to reveal her identity. In February 2022, Lovell countersued Jane Doe #1. In the suit, HMS says she breached her employment contract and owed $55,000 that was given to her as advance pay.



Jane Doe #1′s case against Lovell and HMS is set to be heard in April.

### Fort Worth Star-Telegram Exposes Sexual Abuses by North Texas Mental Health Administrator Detailed in Lawsuit Filed by Rogge Dunn Group

A news article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram provides new details about sexual abuse allegations at Pecan Valley Centers for Behavioral & Developmental Healthcare, including new details in a lawsuit filed by the Rogge Dunn Group. 



According to the negligence lawsuit, the facility’s management ignored years of sexual assaults and molestation by administrator Aaron Spoede. At the time of his arrest, a Pecan Valley-owned mobile phone was found to have numerous videos of Spoede engaging in sexual acts with multiple unidentified women, including the plaintiff in the lawsuit. 



“It’s a tragedy that Pecan Valley management could have and should have prevented years of molestation against multiple, vulnerable young people,” Mr. Dunn told the Star-Telegram. “By failing to enforce its own policies and exercise reasonable care, this company gave a sexual predator the controlled environment, equipment and opportunities that made these despicable acts possible.” 



To read the full article, click here. 

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in Financial Advisor on Credit Suisse Mishandling Discharge

Because of the way a firm handled his discharge back in October 2015, Credit Sussie will pay a former broker about $3.4 million. The Finra arbitration award found the total stems from compensatory damages plus interest, attorneys' fees, the voiding of promissory notes, and hearing costs.



Barnes’ attorney, Rogge Dunn of Rogge Dunn Group in Dallas, said the award was particularly gratifying because it included the $20,000 in sanctions and dismissed Credit Suisse’s counterclaim that Barnes owed the outstanding balance of a promissory note.



“The takeaway to Wall Street firms is that Finra arbitrators are not afraid to hold firms accountable and award big numbers when they mistreat advisors, including voiding a promissory note,” he said. “To totally throw out a prom note is rare.”



Read the full article here.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in Dallas Morning News Article Following Roe V. Wade Being Overturned

With Roe V. Wade being recently overturned, Rogge is getting many calls from people asking what they can do to support their female workers who want to get an abortion.



Dunn is advising his clients to seek advice from different types of professionals, including employee benefits lawyers, criminal lawyers and accountants. 



“There’s nothing that stops [the legislature] from saying, ‘In addition, you can’t fund or finance an abortion out of state, and it’s criminal to do that,’” Dunn said.



Read the full article here.

### Employee Discrimination in the Workplace

Steps to take when facing harassment and unfair treatment.



You could be the victim of employee discrimination if you receive less favorable treatment thanothers in your workplace because of a legally protected characteristic, such as your skin color orreligion. Discrimination also occurs when everyone receives the same treatment, but certainpolicies have a disparate negative impact on members of a protected class, race, or ethnicity. Ifyou're affected by unfair treatment or policies at your place of employment, discrimination inthe workplace lawyers can help you determine whether you have a case.



Types of Workplace Discrimination



The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission protects workers against a fewdifferent types of discrimination:



Disparate (unfair) treatment because of a protected characteristic, which may includeage over 40, disability, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancystatus, sex, religion, color, or raceHarassment based one of these protected characteristics that creates a hostile workenvironment, whether the person perpetrating the harassment is another employee, asupervisor, or someone else at your workplace like a vendor, customer, or contractorQuestions about personal information, such as medical or genetic detailsRefusal to approve reasonable accommodation you have requested because of adisability or religion, such as a schedule changeRetaliation against you after you made a complaint about harassment or discriminationat work or helped with this type of investigation



Discrimination in the workplace lawyers note that some types of harassment are obvious, suchas the ongoing use of inappropriate sexual or racial language. However, it can be difficult todetect more subtle discriminatory actions. For example, a supervisor could quietly remove youfrom projects and pass you over for interesting opportunities.



Actions to Take in the Face of Discrimination



Although you might feel powerless when harassment affects your ability to do your job,discrimination in the workplace lawyers help people like you find justice. When discriminationoccurs, record the circumstances in writing with complete details, including the date and time.You can email yourself an electronic copy to create a dated record. If possible, take videos andphotos that document evidence of the harassment. Keep everything in a safe place, and be sureto make copies.



Before filing a lawsuit, you should follow your company's internal procedures for making acomplaint. As discrimination in the workplace lawyers, we advise that skipping this step couldjeopardize your case. However, consulting Dallas employment attorneys throughout theprocess will provide the guidance you need to move forward with confidence.



The Rogge Dunn Group is the home of your trusted employment attorney in Dallas. Learn moreabout our reputation as knowledgeable discrimination in the workplace lawyers who can helpyou with cases involving illegal employee harassment.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in Yahoo Article on Tesla Racial Bias Case

Rogge Dunn Group's Rogge Dunn was quoted in a Yahoo article covering at least 90 race-based employee arbitration complaints filed against Tesla since 2016. It alleges that hundreds of Black workers in its manufacturing facilities received lower wages and fewer promotions compared to their non-Black colleagues, and that they were denied training and retaliated against for complaining.



“Whenever you're dealing with the government, they really don't have a financial bottom line to consider,” employment litigation attorney Rogge Dunn told Yahoo Finance.



While governments do have budgets, Dunn said, they can fight a case for years, keeping Tesla's dirty laundry in the public eye and keeping the company's tab running to retain pricey defense lawyers.



"So the problem is that when you're negotiating with a government entity...it's more of a political decision [for the government] and a matter of principle," he said. "That's what makes it difficult."



Read the full Yahoo Article here.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in AdvisorHub Article on Stephens, Inc Arbitration Case

Rogge Dunn Group's Rogge Dunn was quoted in an AdvisorHub article covering the arbitration case between Stephens, Inc. and their direct competitor Benjamin F. Edwards & Company. In 2017, Stephens, Inc. filed a statement of claim outlining that they believed four ex-Stephens advisors had been recruited by Ben Edwards by improper means. In total, Stephens, Inc. was awarded $18.2 million in compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees. 



A spokesperson for Ben Edwards said that they would be taking this matter to court in an attempt to overrule the arbitrators ruling. 



However, Dunn added that it would be an "uphill battle to overturn an award as courts rarely overrule arbitrator decisions." 



Dunn also expanded on why arbitration is chosen over court in the first place. "The whole purpose of arbitration is speed, efficiency, cost savings, economic resolution, and finality,” Dunn said. “It’s supposed to be a different animal.”



Read the full AdvisorHub Article here.

### RDG WINS JURY VERDICT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEE AWARD ($1.9M) FOR CEO CLIENT

Scott Crane v. Rave Restaurant Group, Inc., 4:20-cv-00013-ALM (E.D. Tex. 2021)



RDG won $1.9 million recovery after a jury trial in October 2021. RDG is thrilled to deliver results for the client, who is a highly-regarded and experienced CEO.



At the end of 2021, Texas courts opened back up for jury trials. An RDG trial team, led by Partner Greg McAllister, was ready. Their client, Scott Crane, was also ready in his suit against his former employer, Rave Restaurant Group. Rave is a public company that controls more than 275 Pizza Inn and Pie Five restaurants. Rave and its Chairman enticed Mr. Crane to join Rave as CEO with promises of stock and other benefits if certain performance benchmarks were met. When Mr. Crane not only met those benchmarks, but exceeded them, Rave pulled the rug out from underneath him, ignominiously terminating Mr. Crane without cause, all in an attempt to deprive him of what he earned – his shares in Rave.



After a week-long trial, the jury awarded a $924,000 damages verdict and the Court later awarded Mr. Crane an additional $963,758 for interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs.  RDG represented Mr. Crane from his initial demand through trial. Contact one of our employment attorneys today for breach of contract matters.

### Bullying in the Workplace

Over the last decade, Americans have increasingly focused on preventing bullying in schools and the workplace.   For the most part, there seems to be a consensus that anti-bullying campaigns have led to a decrease in bullying.  However, these studies’ metrics can often be skewed by underreporting, differences in defining bullying, differences in policing bullies, and other factors.  These differences have led to some legislative involvement. Employment attorneys, including Dallas employment attorneys,  are at the forefront of this effort.



Are there any federal laws that directly relate to ‘bullying’?  No, but that does not mean that bullies get to roam free.  The US government’s website on bullying directly recognizes that ‘bullying’ is really harassment as recognized under Title VII, and that civilians can bring claims against bullying under theories of race, sex, gender, national origin, disability, and age discrimination.  Under these theories, employment attorneys have filed claims seeking to prevent and remedy bullying and harassment in the workplace.  However, the general consensus among employment attorneys, is that more needs to be done to assist the victims of bullying and harassment.  In some cases, bullies may even be subject to criminal penalties.  Most states and the federal government have ‘bullying’ laws in the form of anti-harassment and anti-discrimination laws.  However, these laws do not cover all categories of bullying and harassment.  It is important to seek the advice of an employment discrimination attorney to determine if certain types of bullying and harassment are illegal under applicable laws. 



Title VII is the premier harassment law.  It spans everything from race and national origin to sex and most bullying that impacts the LGBTQ+ communities in the workplace.  Title VII protects employees from being harassed, from being retaliated against for reporting harassment, and even protects them from raising the rights of others by reporting a coworker who is harassing another.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) investigates claims of harassment at work and offers a legally cognizable protection to workers when they communicate with the EEOC.  Employment attorneys, including Dallas employment attorneys, can assist in the evaluation of claims of harassment in the workplace. 



So, if there is no federal anti-bullying law, and there are only the anti-discrimination laws under Title VII, is there no remedy for an employee being bullied for a reason other than those protected by Title VII?  Not necessarily.  About half of the states have enacted an anti-bullying law for the workplace.  Some, like Massachusetts, use very broad language, such as prohibiting all “abusive conduct,” to capture and prevent as wide a range of bullying acts as possible.



Even without state laws, there is nothing that prevents companies from having their own internal anti-bullying rules and many employers now have those protections.  If an employer so chooses, they can enact internal regulations which prevent bullying in any form.  So long as those rules to do not abridge someone’s right to be free from discrimination under Title VII, there is nothing to really preclude an employer from protecting employees from other employees bullying or misconduct.



Bullying is not only a hurtful practice against individuals, but it can be indicative of a larger issue. Bullying can also have a negative impact on employee morale and productivity.  In some instances, routines of bullying can expose underlying discriminatory animus that may not have always been prevalent or obvious.  Take, for example, an issue where two white workers constantly make fun of their coworkers for their food.  Say those coworkers always bring bananas for lunch and the two white workers make monkey noises whenever they see the coworkers.  In some instances, such as with other white employees, this may not be ‘illegal,’ but if the coworkers are all Black, that action by the two white workers might not be mindless teasing, but rather could stem from a long, extremely disrespectful discriminatory history which, in this context, would implicate racial harassment under Title VII.



When bullies in the workplace single out race, gender, or another protected trait, there is clear liability under Title VII.  But even when that bullying may not directly seem related to the protected trait, the bullying may still create liability for the employer under Title VII.  All bullying is reprehensible, and the mere fact that a person may not be protected under Title VII for malicious conduct does not mean that bullying is permissible.  If bullying becomes so egregious that an employee is forced to quit, even absent Title VII protection, they may be able to bring other types of claims, such as a tort claim.  Employment attorneys will be able to assess what other claims might be available to employees who have been bullied.



If you are being bullied or harassed at work, you have a right to speak up.  Contact one of our employment attorneys today.

### Unfair Pay and Compensation in the MLB

Recently, Major League Baseball initiated its fourth ever ‘lockout.’ A MLB lockout essentially means that players cannot play, practice, use team facilities, or otherwise officially act as baseball players. It is not, however, a routine break from the game. What the lockout is, according to the MLB Players Association, is the owner’s choice, plain and simple, specifically calculated to pressure players into relinquishing rights and benefits. The MLB lockout came at the expiration of the MLB’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) with the Players Association. The CBA sets the terms of everything from rules of play to salary caps to meal money allowance during away games. Players are, however, employees and, with the assistance of employment and sports attorneys, have the right to contest what they consider to be unfair treatment, including unfair pay and compensation. 



While many criticize the players for fighting for more money, even though they are already millionaires, the reality of MLB salaries is much bleaker for most players. In fact, while the MLB just had its 17th consecutive season of record-breaking revenue, the average salary for players has in recent years been steadily decreasing. Some players continue to make enormous salaries, 14 players actually make more money, individually, than the Pittsburg Pirates pay their entire team, which largely drives the perception that the Players Association is acting on behalf of player’s greed. Despite these outliers, the data is clear: players are making less, as owners make more, which is the reason for this MLB lockout.



The MLB has a long, unique history in labor law.  For one, the MLB is the only professional sport that enjoys an antitrust exemption – quite literally, because the 1922 Supreme Court liked baseball so much, they enshrined it the only sports antitrust exemption in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs. The CBA, however, is now the controlling ‘law’ governing contracts in baseball, which is why both sides are fighting over it with employment attorneys.



The players want greater financial protections and are negotiating leverage and protection, which caused this MLB lockout.  For one, they want the ability to begin salary arbitration after 2 years instead of 3. Typically, employees do not want to engage in arbitration, as it unfairly benefits employers, but, because of the antitrust exemption, the MLB has been able to cap all player’s salaries for the first 3 years they are in the Majors. After 3 years, they can arbitrate for more; this is one of the reasons why the most recent CBA expired, because the Players Association thought this 3-year restriction was unfair. Sports and employment attorneys play a key role in advocating for a reduction in the 3-year restriction, as well as other issues important to players.



Another issue the players are fighting is ‘tanking.’ MLB teams in recent years have been ‘rebuilding’ by losing games in an effort to secure better draft positions after the season ends. The players contend that this leads to lower salaries. Fans are disheartened to see their teams play so pitifully. And, the end result is that the players see their paychecks reduced so that owners can bring in younger talent, pay them the minimum MLB salary, and then do it all again in three years. 



While baseball has unique language and history in labor and antitrust law, this MLB lockout really amounts to a typical strike: players will not play, owners will not pay. While many fans are upset that their favorite players may not be playing at the start of the season, the likelihood that the lockout persists until opening day is minimal. Regardless, the players are exercising their right to fair pay, and while it is much more profitable than most occupations, there is still unfair pay disparities for young players who are not superstars. The Players Association is not fighting to get Mike Trout $500 million as opposed to his already $426.5 million contract, they are fighting to ensure that all players can receive fair and equitable compensation while trying to increase the potential of those players to advocate for more money in the future. Employment attorneys, including Dallas employment attorneys, play key roles in this fight.



All employees deserve fair pay. If your employer has not been paying you fairly, contact one of our employment attorneys today.

### Trans Athletes

These are challenging times for attorneys advocating for the rights of LGBTQ athletes. The 2020 Olympic games, hosted by Japan, were the only Olympic games postponed for reasons other than war. Notably, the Olympics were pushed back because of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Though the Olympics are intended to be an international event to celebrate unity and understanding, the 2020 games encountered a sharp political divide for certain athletes, specifically transgender athletes. As controversies arise for professional athletes, LGBTQ attorneys will continue to face challenges for LGBTQ athletes, whether for compensation, promotion, advertising, or contractual issues, and our LGBTQ attorneys are prepared to address and redress the changes that arise with LGBTQ athletes.



Attorneys advocating for LGBTQ rights have had some success in recent years. While transgender athletes have been allowed to compete in the Olympics before 2020, the 2020 games were met with an uproar both in support and opposition to athletes like Laurel Hubbard and Quinn. The International Olympic Committee has, since 2003, been easing the restrictions on transgender athletes and, on November 16, 2021, seemed poised to lift any remaining broad restrictions on competition. The most recent Committee report seems to do away with all “medically unnecessary” restraints on transgender athletes, such as mandatory genital surgery and testosterone level restrictions. However, the Committee report is not legally binding, and the Olympics dangle in a complex web of state and international laws. The report is the primary focus for states entering the games, and it does provide a framework for transgender athlete admission. The report does give deference to a sport’s controlling body to “determine how an athlete may be at a disproportionate advantage against their peers, taking into consideration the nature of each sport.”



Regardless, LGBTQ attorneys are championing the report for its inclusivity. Furthermore, they note that the previous barriers to permitting transgender athletes from competing were archaic and embarrassing, either subjecting them to harassing tests or mandating medical operations. While the Olympics are moving towards fewer barriers for entry of transgender athletes, not every governing body is in alignment. Texas, Alabama, North Carolina, Kentucky, Idaho, and Florida all require that athletes compete against only those that share their biological sex. Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Kansas, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin allow school districts to make their own decisions on the matter. The United States has a patchwork of laws in this area, but the Olympic Committee’s report may influence the future of how certain States view transgender athletes.



Over the last several decades, LGBTQ attorneys representing individuals have made much headway. American courts have routinely held that transgender employees are covered under Title VII. In fact, to some extent, and under a “gender non-conforming theory,” federal law recognized protection for transgender individuals well before the Supreme Court ruled that federal law protected discrimination based on sexual orientation. Though American courts likely have no jurisdiction over the International Olympic Committee, they do have jurisdiction over affairs related to domestic issues, including the employment of trans athletes. The extent to which courts will continue to protect transgender rights from “discrimination on the basis of sex” as they relate to the sport are yet to be seen, but the language of the Courts seems posed to extend that protection when a challenge arises.



The law and social attitude towards transgender rights are changing rapidly. If you or anyone you know has employment issues involving gender identification, contact one of our LGBTQ attorneys today.

### Reverse Racism in the Workplace

Title VII is the premier employment law that protects minorities from discrimination in the workplace. For decades, the statute has vindicated Black employees, women, foreigners, and more recently, members of the LGBTQ+ community after they were harassed at work. Unlike 42 U.S.C. §1981, which says that all Americans have the same right to make and enforce contracts as white citizens, Title VII has no direct recognition of any particular “race, color, religion, sex and national origin,” which the statute protects, leading to some instances of ‘reverse racism in the workplace.’



Though Courts have not had many opportunities to hear these new ‘reverse racism’ cases, Title VII does protect more historically privileged groups such as white people from race discrimination and males from sex discrimination. In addition, Title VII makes no prerequisite for a Plaintiff; if you are discriminated against for any reason relating to race, color, religion, sex and national origin, no matter who you are, Title VII protects you. Most recently, a North Carolina jury granted a $10-million-dollar award to a white male executive who was fired in what some refer to as ‘reverse racism discrimination.’ If you feel that you are in a similar situation and being discriminated against in the workplace, it’s important to contact one of our Dallas employment lawyers.



Essentially, the white executive was terminated, he alleges, because the company was trying to oust white people from positions of power in the company, an example of reverse racism in the workplace. The company defends by saying that it was making active efforts to promote diversity and inclusion. Some companies, such as federal contractors, may be required to conform to affirmative action plans that they voluntarily put in place, but this does not apply to most companies.



Some praise affirmative action as an important piece of remedying racial and gender injustice and are condemned by others as inherently racist and sexist. Many recognize a social difference between a company saying ‘we will not hire white people’ and ‘we need to promote diversity and inclusion by advancing minorities.’ Such distinctions can prevent instances of reverse racism in the workplace. The law, however, does not necessarily see the difference insofar as someone’s mistreatment and adverse employment action dependent on race or gender is a violation of Title VII. However, this does not dispute that Title VII’s spirit was, and still is, to equal the playing field between white and non-white employees and between men and women.



There are two main types of discrimination Title VII recognizes: disparate impact and disparate treatment. Disparate impact is when a seemingly race-neutral rule at a company has a ‘disparate impact’ on a single race; i.e., if Black employees are routinely prevented from being promoted because they did not attend a certain college known to be overwhelmingly white. Disparate treatment is the more paradigmatic discriminatory action; i.e., a manager tells a Black woman that he will not promote her specifically because he dislikes Black people.  



Affirmative action, referred to as ‘reverse racism’ by opponents, is often criticized as causing a disparate impact against white people. The action above indicating ‘reverse racism in the workplace’, rendering the $10 million judgment, could have been claimed to either create a disparate treatment or a disparate impact, and that distinction often relies heavily on the facts of the case. It is possible, however, that both are occurring, that practices put in place are facially neutral but create a discriminatory practice. The employer may have put that in place with an intent to discretely discriminate while harboring their own ill will.



Regardless, no one is beyond Title VII’s reach. 



Employers cannot discriminate against any employee, and every employee should feel protected by the law. If you feel that you are experiencing reverse racism in the workplace or are being discriminated against, contact one of our Dallas employment lawyers today.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in Dallas Morning News Article on Testing Unvaccinated Employees Under New Vaccine Mandate

Rogge Dunn Group's Rogge Dunn was quoted in a Dallas Morning News article on November 4th concerning how testing unvaccinated employees for COVID-19 will work under Biden's vaccine mandate. 



New government rules requiring COVID-19 vaccination or weekly testing are raising a critical question for employers trying to implement the directive: are there going to be enough tests to go around? 



The OSHA documents released Thursday total nearly 500 pages so legal experts and employers will need time to digest the details. That includes a provision requiring unvaccinated employees to cover the cost of their own regular testing. But under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers would still have to compensate employees for the time it takes to get tested, Dallas employment attorney Rogge Dunn said.



Employers can either keep workers remote to avoid the OSHA mandate, bring testing onsite and carry the potential liability of a worker’s comp claim if something goes wrong, or risk productivity loss to offsite testing, Dunn said.



“If you have a lot of employees that are going once a week [offsite] to be tested, I think the law is going to be that you’re going to have to pay them for that time,” Dunn said.



Read the full article below:



How will testing unvaccinated employees work under Biden's vaccine mandate?



To learn more about attorney Rogge Dunn and his legal experience, click here.

### Sex Discrimination at Work

The live theatre industry, referred to simply as “Broadway,” is often regarded as a progressive, inclusive space whereby actors and audiences can both escape reality for a new, imagined world on stage. However, theatres and acting troupes are riddled with the same employment issues, such as sex discrimination at work or harassment, as other entities and employers. It is well documented, though not often discussed as a front-page article, that Broadway has had a serious race and sex discrimination problem for decades, and these issues persist through today.



Recently, a non-binary actor from the play Hamilton filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) charge against the show for gender discrimination. The actor, Suni Reid (they/them), filed a complaint alleging that they had been discriminated against after requesting access to a gender-neutral dressing room. Reid had been with Hamilton since 2017 and had performed in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles, where the request was made, and the charge filed. 



Reid claims that the showrunners and producers retaliated against them when they asked for the gender-neutral dressing room in September. Reid further alleges that this was not necessarily a surprise and that the cast and crew had been intentionally misgendering them and had even physically threatened them. These assaults on Reid’s gender, they claim, were not by mistake; the misgendering was done “at times in a pointedly hostile or callous manner.” These instances of sex discrimination at work are not uncommon – if you feel that you are experiencing discrimination in the workplace, please contact one of our Dallas employment lawyers.



Transgender access to certain spaces has been a political discussion for quite some time now. Despite the ongoing discussions on social media and in Congress, Courts are well resolved to treat gender discrimination as a violation of federal law regardless of what gender identification. Specifically, sex discrimination at work and discriminating against someone’s gender is a violation of Title VII.



Title VII enumerates only “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” as protected categories, but Courts, such as Videckis v. Pepperdine University, 150 F. Supp. 3d 1151 (C.D. Cal. 2015), have taken special notice of the preceding phrase “on the basis of” to include gender under the category of ‘sex.’ The Courts reason it as such: when someone has a gender that does not conform to the typical attributes associated with their biological sex (i.e., a male who identifies as she/her), then any discrimination against that non-conforming gender is discrimination on the basis of sex. So, regardless of the contentious beliefs around transgender persons’ access to certain spaces, Courts seem poised to rule in favor of transgender rights, protecting people from sex discrimination at work.



There is, of course, the necessity to prove the allegations. If a plaintiff can show some kind of discriminatory animus and can show a causal link between a protected activity (i.e., requesting a gender-neutral dressing room) and a negative employment action (i.e., being put on leave or fired), then they ‘shift’ the burden of proof onto the employer to prove that they did not discriminate on the basis of sex. Hamilton denies any wrongdoing and alleges that the show has been nothing but supportive of Reid; Reid denies this and, thus, a Court will have to decide whether Reid has sufficiently created enough proof to shift the burden onto Hamilton to disprove the allegations affirmatively.



Courts vindicate gender discrimination as discrimination on the basis of sex. Transgender people are, therefore, able to pursue their claims in Court under Title VII. Contact one of our Dallas employment lawyers today if you feel you have experienced sex discrimination at work or have been harassed on the basis of sex. 

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in WFAA Article on Texas Universities Vaccine Requirements

Rogge Dunn Group's Rogge Dunn was quoted in a WFAA article on October 31st concerning the billions of dollars in funding for Texas universities riding on whether schools should require COVID-19 vaccination for employees.



In early September, President Biden created a COVID-19 vaccine requirement for federal employees and contractors with a deadline of Dec. 8 to become fully vaccinated. Like airline and defense companies, universities have federal contracts worth billions of dollars. Texas universities are deciding whether they need to comply with federal law after Gov. Abbot banned COVID-19 vaccine requirements. 



Dunn was able to speak on the challenges this has created for Texas universities. 



"There's conflicting advice. There's legal grey areas and there's a lot of money at stake," Dunn says. "You're spending attorney's fees, you're spending administrative time and you're bringing to the forefront and if you're wrong, you're going to get whacked." 



Dunn says universities will likely need to follow the federal guidance or file a suit. 



Read the full article below:



Texas Universities Have Billions at Stake in Deciding whether to Require COVID-19 Vaccines for Employees



To learn more about attorney Rogge Dunn and his legal experience, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in D Magazine Article on Conflicting Vaccines Rules

Rogge Dunn Group's Rogge Dunn was quoted in a D Magazine article on October 20th concerning the conflicting vaccine regulations in the state of Texas. 



The confusion and conflict for employers comes after Texas Governor Greg Abbott's Executive Order banning private entities from mandating vaccines for their employees. Employers are now having to decide whether they will abide by the Governor's order or President Joe Biden's order that all companies with over 100 employees should require vaccines. 



Dunn was able to speak on the challenges this creates for companies as they continue to operate.



“You can have a bad law that companies disagree with, but it’s easier to deal with a law you don’t like that you understand than uncertainty,” Dunn says. “With all the legal challenges going on, one day you implement a policy and then three days later, or three weeks later, a court overrules that, and then you’re back to square one. A week later, it may change again.”



Read the full article below:



Conflicting Vaccine Rules Have Companies ‘Pulling Their Hair Out’Download



To learn more about attorney Rogge Dunn and his legal experience, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in FOX4 Article About Southwest Airlines Employees Protesting the Vaccine Mandate

Rogge Dunn Group's Rogge Dunn was quoted in a Fox4 article concerning Southwest Airlines employees protesting the company's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, outside of their Dallas, TX headquarters. 



The pilot's association filed a lawsuit in August of this year, arguing that "the airline is required to maintain the same working conditions, rates of pay and rules while the union is negotiating a new contract." This led to a response from the airline stating, "if the airline is forced to retract its health policies, it would put Southwest customers and employees at risk and cost the airline its federal contracts." 



Although Rogge Dunn is not involved in this case he was able to provide the following insight. 



"The fact that a couple or a few employees don't want to get vaccinated when you balance that against other employees and customers and individuals who could get exposed to the COVID because it's spread by unvaccinated people, that when you're balancing those equities," he said. "It's way in favor of mandatory vaccination."



Read the full article below:



Southwest Airlines employees protest vaccine mandate at Dallas headquartersDownload



To learn more about attorney Rogge Dunn and his legal experience, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in Law360 Article About Employers Heeding Vaccine Mandate Ban

Rogge Dunn Group's Rogge Dunn was quoted in a Law360 article on October 12th concerning Texas Governor Greg Abbott's executive order. This executive order prohibits "employers in the state from requiring employees to be inoculated if they object to the vaccine on a religious basis, for medical reasons or for 'any reason of personal conscience,'" stated the article. 



Although most businesses are likely to comply with this new order, Dunn said "some businesses may choose to test Abbott's authority and violate the executive order by keeping in place vaccination policies that require all employees to comply or that place employees who request religious and medical exemptions on unpaid leave." 



This executive order is expected to be challenged in court just as the statewide ban on mask mandates is currently being challenged in court.



Read the full article below:



Law360 Employers Advised to Heed Texas Vax Mandate Ban, For NowDownload



To learn more about attorney Rogge Dunn and his legal experience, click here.

### Pregnancy Discrimination

When you’re discriminated against for being pregnant, you’re also being discriminated against because of your gender. It’s important to contact a Dallas employment attorney if you are experiencing pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. Pregnancy does not and should not have an impact on your work product; thus, Congress had to instate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) as a 1978 amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make this explicit. The purpose of the amendment was to combat those who wished to discriminate against women by veiling it as discrimination of a temporary status: pregnancy. In all, the PDA is an incredibly important piece of the law for preventing pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. Discriminating based on pregnancy is sex discrimination which fits into the language of Title VII but, thankfully, is made explicit by this amendment.



One case that shows why the PDA is so important is Geduldig v. Aiello. 417 U.S. 484 (1974). That case held that a state law barring pregnancy-related benefits for common work disability was constitutional. The Court rationalized that pregnancy was an objective characteristic distinct from sex and, thus, distinct from sex discrimination. Id. at 496 n.20. This case was followed by General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert held in 1976 that pregnancy discrimination was still not covered by Title VII sex discrimination. 429 U.S. 125 (1976). These two cases are clearly no longer good law and have become a focal point for describing why some laws need to be explicit to prevent pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. Failures by the Supreme Court, such as in Gilbert and Geduldig, show why the PDA was a necessary, explicit amendment to Title VII. 



Pre-Pregnancy



Pregnancy discrimination at work has been considered illegal by most people for quite a long time. There are, however, no specific laws or true texts restricting employers from asking whether someone intends to become pregnant, but an employer cannot discriminate based on the intent to be pregnant. The EEOC has stated that “an employer is also prohibited from discriminating against an employee because she has stated that she intends to become pregnant.”1  This does not, however, cover asking about intent to become pregnant. EEOC advises employers against this practice because it may show an intent to discriminate against those that become pregnant. If you are struggling with pregnancy discrimination at work, make sure to read the rest of this blog series and contact one of our employment lawyers in Dallas.



Congress instated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) as a 1978 amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make this explicit. The purpose of the amendment was to combat those who wished to discriminate against women by veiling it as discrimination of a temporary status: pregnancy. In all, the PDA is an incredibly important piece of the law.  Discriminating based on pregnancy is sex discrimination which fits into the language of Title VII but, thankfully, is made explicit by this amendment.



The PDA prevents discrimination “on the basis of pregnancy” and discriminating against the intention to be pregnant is, clearly, on the basis of pregnancy. As cases like Maldonado v. U.S. Bank and Griffin v. Sisters of Saint Francis, Inc. show, the PDA was designed to protect women based on their capacity to become pregnant which, therefore, covers a woman’s intention to become pregnant.  See 186 F.3d 759 (7th Circ., 1999) and 489 F.3d 838 (7th Circ., 2007).



A number of federal courts that have been asked this question to have answered in the plaintiff-affirmative: yes, employees are protected from discrimination if they intend to be pregnant. Women who are asked about their pregnancy-related intentions are not required to answer. It’s important to talk to one of our employment lawyers in Dallas to make sure you know your rights when it comes to pregnancy discrimination at work. The ‘intent to become pregnant’ is a bit of a grey area when it comes to pregnancy discrimination and the PDA. In the Northern District of Indiana, plaintiff Rochelle D. Batchelor brought a claim on the grounds that she was discriminated against, and fired, because of her intent to ‘start a family.’ While the Court recognized that she would be part of a protected class based on that statement, it also found that her actions directly relating to the course of her employment, notably her personal use of corporate funds, was why the Court ruled in favor of the defendants. Batchelor v. Merck & Co., Inc., 651 F.Supp.2d 818, 829-35 (N.D. Ind. 2008). 



The Supreme Court has also commented on the matter; in International Union, United Auto., Aerospace and Agr. Implement Workers of America, UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991), the Court noted that the defendant’s policy of discriminating against or singling out people who are capable of bearing children was sex discrimination. Essentially, this Court held that a company policy against the creation of children (both men and women are capable) is different than a policy against bearing a child (only a woman is capable), the latter of which can only relate to pregnancy discrimination at work.  Id. at 187-88. The Court’s final ruling on the matter was that it would do no more than what the PDA has laid out, notably that the PDA prohibits discrimination based on a woman’s ability to be pregnant. Id. at 211. So, in some ways, the Supreme Court left open whether intent to be pregnant was different than ability to be pregnant because the Court there read that the discrimination occurred because the company policy did not also apply to male ability to produce children. See Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 332 (1993) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (further explaining how the Court in Johnson Controls came down with its decision and explaining the reasoning behind that Court’s use of the PDA).



Texas State Courts are in support of protecting intending mothers employed by qualifying employers. A case decided in February 2021 addressed the exact issue of ‘whether women who intend to be pregnant are protected from discrimination,’ and that Court answered in the affirmative. South Texas College v. Arriola, 13-19-00222-CV, 2021 WL 497237 at *4, Tex. Court of Appeals (Feb. 11, 2021). Because Texas had no law directly on the question, the Court noted “we find persuasive the rationale of those [federal] courts that have interpreted the PDA as prohibiting discrimination against women who have expressed an intent to become pregnant.”  Id. (citing Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d 438, 446 (Tex. 2004)).  What this ruling did, in effect, was add this interpretation of pregnancy discrimination at work onto the pre-existing Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”) which mirrors the federal Title VII law and its interpretations.  Since the PDA was an amendment to Title VII it also influences the TCHRA, and, thus, was applicable in this ruling.



During Pregnancy and Pregnancy-Related Conditions



The federal law that prohibits pregnancy discrimination or the PDA, which relies on Title VII’s anti sex discrimination language, affords protection against a number of pregnancy-workplace related issues like harassment, discrimination, and temporary disability. Women are protected from pregnancy harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth. The standard for the harassment mimics that of workplace sexual harassment employers cannot allow severe or pervasive harassment based on pregnancy.  As such, similar rules about speaking out against and formally complaining about the harassment are useful to win a claim of pregnancy discrimination. Women, and sometimes men, can also be afforded medical leave on disability grounds. If a woman experiences any of the impairments from pregnancy as recognized under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the PDA then applies ADA standards to that woman’s condition.  The standard is that an employer must make reasonable accommodations, absent undue hardship, for that pregnancy impairment and cannot discriminate based on the disability stemming from the pregnancy.  The PDA and the ADA, like Title VII, are federal laws that apply to only those employers with 15 or more employees.



Pregnancy discrimination is in a bit of a unique category of discrimination in that the perpetrator may be genuinely benevolent, but unaware that the benevolence does not justify discrimination.  Take, for example, a woman with a high-risk pregnancy who works in a somewhat physically demanding workplace that is an assisted living home that supports people with mental disabilities who, at times, will become aggressive towards caregivers. The managers at this workplace decide that the woman with the high-risk pregnancy should not work during the last month or two of her pregnancy and puts her on unpaid, job secured leave in a similar fashion to what the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) would require. One last fact: consider that the managers have a genuine concern that if the woman continues to work at this home during the final months of her high-risk pregnancy, there is a very real chance that she could lose her baby, but that there is no concern that she can do her job well. Corrine Carter claimed pregnancy discrimination on this fact pattern and won the case in 2017.  In Carter v. A&E Supported Living, Inc., the Court held that the manager’s actions were prima facie evidence of pregnancy discrimination.  That Court also explicitly noted that “benevolent concern for the health and safety of Carter and her unborn child does not excuse the discriminatory nature of [A&E’s] actions.” Carter v. A&E Supported Living, Inc., 16-00574-N, 2017 WL 5894540 (Nov. 9, 2017).



If a pregnant employee wants to seek reasonable accommodations, they and the employer must then engage in what is known as the interactive process. The interactive process relies on the requirements laid out in the ADA to prevent pregnancy discrimination.  Pregnancy is not, however, a disability in and of itself because it alone is not an impairment; however, complications and impediments that arise from pregnancy are able to be classified as a temporary disability for purposes of the ADA. If there are complications or other issues that lead to a pregnant woman needing reasonable disability accommodations then that woman should make a request for those accommodations. Employers are then obligated to oblige those accommodations so long as they are reasonable and do not create undue hardship and the employer offers accommodations to other employees with temporary disabilities. 



Employment lawyers understand how these laws have changed over time. One of the best examples on how this issue has changed over time is Young v. United Parcel Service.  575 U.S. 206 (2015). Young was a UPS worker who could no longer lift over 20 pounds due to her pregnancy and even though UPS would not accommodate this lower lifting capability; the Court remanded on the basis that the law has evolved to the point where yes, a plaintiff can bring a disparate treatment claim under the PDA.



Today there are a number of avenues for women to gain reasonable accommodations relating to disabilities and other issues that may impede their working life, which is why it is important to contact employment lawyers about your rights. The most prominent law is the ADA, but there are other methods as well. Take lactation as an example; it is not covered as a disability under the ADA but the Affordable Care Act amended section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act to ensure that employers offer a break and a private place (not a bathroom) for working mothers that need to express milk during the workday. There are also a number of other state laws recognizing that pregnant women and recent mothers still have needs not covered by the ADA. The FMLA, however, does consider pregnancy to be a Serious Medical Condition and, thus, makes 12 weeks unpaid leave available to eligible pregnant women.



Employment lawyers understand how the PDA and the ADA can work together on issues, but they can also be used separately for the same cause of action. Take two examples; in the first a boss fires an employee who has recently revealed she is pregnant and in the second a boss fires an employee already known to be pregnant because she cannot do something without a reasonable accommodation by the employer.  The first scenario relies on the PDA but cannot use the ADA and the second relies on the ADA but does not implicate the PDA.  In many ways, the two work to close any discrimination loopholes left open by the timing of the pregnancy discrimination.



The ADA does not recognize pregnancy as a disability but does recognize things like anemia, sciatica, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, morning sickness, swelling in the legs, and depression, amongst other impairments, as temporary disabilities. As such, pregnant employees will be entitled to all the protections and rights as other employees would under the ADA. Its important to consult employment lawyers about these rights. Women are entitled to reasonable accommodation, absent undue hardship on the employer, for any impairments related to their pregnancy. So, for a woman with morning sickness an employer may be able to reasonably accommodate that disability by changing their working hours. An employer may also modify workplace policies such as allowing a pregnant woman to sit frequently or carry a water bottle even though non-disabled employees are not allowed to do or have those things.  Even redistributing various work-related responsibilities, such as heavy lifting or being exposed to possibly toxic materials, can be covered as a reasonable accommodation without actually modifying someone’s employment terms. 



Miscarriages can also be covered under the ADA so long as it substantially limits a major life activity. Many miscarriages, however, do not meet this definition unless they are particularly severe or have long-lasting effects. They are, however, a pregnancy-related condition and, therefore, can qualify under the PDA if an employer were to discriminate against a woman who had a miscarriage. Depression and other medical conditions stemming from a miscarriage may bring in the ADA or the FMLA and may grant any number of remedies such as reasonable accommodations or unpaid, job-protected leave under the FMLA. So, while the text of the PDA is largely wrapped up in the actual pregnancy, the end of pregnancy is also protected. To properly understand these protections, it can help to consult employment lawyers. Miscarriages have already been addressed, but there are a number of cases, including in the 5th Circuit, which argued that abortions are a medical ‘condition’ relating to pregnancy and, thus, covered by the PDA.  Even in instances of successful pregnancy and childbirth some women suffer from postpartum depression. Postpartum depression is a protected category under both the ADA and the PDA, employers cannot discriminate against women suffering from it and must reasonably accommodate them. In some cases, women may even qualify under the FMLA if the depression is serious enough and if their FMLA time has not already expired due to other leaves during the course of pregnancy and childbirth.



Men are, unsurprisingly, ineligible for protection under the PDA. However, if a man were to have a very sick or otherwise incapacitated pregnant partner/wife, they may be eligible for 12 weeks unpaid leave because of the FMLA. Men (and, assumingly, other spouses) may take leave to care for a pregnant woman before and immediately after she gives birth. While some state laws may offer greater opportunities for those partners to take leave, the FMLA permits leave only when the pregnant woman has Serious Health Concerns. These serious concerns, as relating to pregnancy, mostly focus on ‘severe’ pregnancy symptoms that cause overnight hospitalization or continuing treatment. So, extreme morning sickness, for example, could be a Serious Health Concern that may qualify a partner for FMLA unpaid leave. After pregnancy, fathers can more easily be granted FMLA leave.



Post Pregnancy and Adoption



Parental leave refers to both parents’ ability to take time off work to care for a new child, paternity leave refers to the father’s ability to do so, and maternity leave refers to a mother’s ability to do so. It is important to note, however, from the outset that these laws, the FMLA, PDA, etc., were all designed for a cisgender, heterosexual couple – a man and a woman. The focus of this discussion will use the terms to identify each party in a heterosexual couple not to exclude LGBTQ+ but only for ease of discussion in the hopes that the terms father and mother could be just, eventually, read as parent 1 and parent 2. Regardless of gender status or sexuality, navigating the statutes around pregnancy law, even without the complexity of having different requirements at the state and federal level, is difficult, which is why it is so important to contact one of our Dallas employment attorneys.



The FMLA covers both mothers and fathers to be eligible for 12 weeks unpaid leave available at any point until 1 year after the birth or adoption of a child. Often, parents can run short-term disability, vacation, and sick time concurrently during FMLA leave to ensure that there is still some income during what could be a 12-week monetary drought. However, though the FMLA does not require it, some companies offer paid maternity and, sometimes, paternity leave. Studies show that less than half of all US businesses engage in that practice, limiting pregnancy rights in the workplace. A growing number of States, including Connecticut, Washington D.C., Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon (coming soon), Rhode Island, and Washington, do require employers to offer some form of paid parental leave either for both parents or only mothers.



Women have different sets of pregnancy rights in the workplace during pregnancy and immediately after giving birth.  The former is protected as ‘pregnancy discrimination’ under the PDA which protects against discrimination based on pregnancy in any and every aspect of employment. Maternity rights are slightly than discrimination protections in that the applicable law comes from the FMLA, and that law provides that women are granted job protected leave for 12 months after giving birth or adopting. So, pregnancy laws are largely based on protecting against discrimination whereas maternity/paternity laws focus on granting additional rights rather than per se protections, which one of our Dallas employment attorneys can explain.   



The FMLA is the base line for all qualifying employees, and to be eligible employees must (1) work for a covered employer, (2) work 1,250 hours during the 12 months prior to the start of leave, (3) work at a location where 50 or more employees work at that location or within 75 miles of it, and (4) have worked for the employer for 12 months with no requirement they are consecutive. So, state laws would then stack on top of these requirements as additional protections and rights but are not necessarily reliant on them. Take New York, for example. In New York all employees are eligible for paid parental leave so long as they have worked for an employer for 26 consecutive weeks. That’s it; no hour requirements, no number of employees, just work 26 consecutive weeks. New York does have the right, however, to change the terms of payouts when certain officials declare that the economy is failing or otherwise performing in a negative fashion. Regardless, the New York Paid Family Leave Benefit Law was one of the first to take on paid parental leave and it shows how States may choose to offer greater protections and pregnancy rights in the workplace than the FMLA. 



Rights to Return to Work



There are three main return to work rights under the FMLA: a right to return the same or an equivalent job, a right to be free from discrimination from that pregnancy and from that associated leave, and the right to return to an altered schedule of intermittent or part-time work.  In all, people on paternal leave must be treated exactly the same as other people returning from a leave based on a temporary disability. Even seemingly well-intentioned practices to protect pregnancy rights in the workplace, like not sending a recent mother on a 15-hour bus ride for work where she has no access to privacy for lactation, are still discriminatory and, ultimately, have a negative impact on that mother’s ability to advance her career because of a stigma around the pregnancy. So, women who have recently given birth have the right to all the responsibilities of their job so long as they can still meet the requirements and capabilities of the position.



Three Laws Recap and their Timing



The PDA can be used before, during, and after pregnancy to prevent discrimination based on the pregnancy or any conditions associated with it. It’s important to understand these rights, which is why our Dallas employment attorneys have already posted three blogs describing your rights before, during, and after pregnancy. In all, there is a complex web of federal, state, and local law protecting pregnancy rights. The FMLA can be used during or after a pregnancy and grants a total of 12 weeks unpaid, job secured leave; both parents are eligible for both times but non-pregnant partners may only use FMLA leave during a pregnancy if the pregnant woman is severely injured or incapacitated by the pregnancy. The ADA can be used during and after pregnancy to help prevent discrimination based on the ailments associated with pregnancy and also to ensure that women are reasonably accommodated at their workplace for those ailments. If your family has recently welcomed a new addition and you feel you are being mistreated at work because of it, contact one of our Dallas employment attorneys today to understand your pregnancy rights in the workplace.

### Post-pregnancy and Adoption

One cannot discriminate against pregnant people without discriminating based on sex.  However, Congress had to instate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) as a 1978 amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make this explicit. The purpose of the amendment was to combat those who wished to discriminate against women by veiling it as discrimination of a temporary status: pregnancy. In all, the PDA is an incredibly important piece of the law. Discriminating based on pregnancy is sex discrimination which fits into the language of Title VII but, thankfully, is made explicit by this amendment. It’s important to contact one of our Dallas employment attorneys to understand your pregnancy rights in the workplace.  



One case that shows why the PDA is so important is Geduldig v. Aiello. 417 U.S. 484 (1974).  That case held that a state law barring pregnancy related benefits for common work-disability was constitutional. The court rationalized that pregnancy was an objective characteristic that was distinct from sex and, thus, distinct from sex discrimination. Id. at 496 n.20. This case was followed by General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, which held in 1976 that pregnancy discrimination was still not covered by Title VII sex discrimination. 429 U.S. 125 (1976). These two cases are clearly no longer good law and have become a focal point for describing why some laws need to be explicit to prevent discrimination. Failures by the Supreme Court, such as in Gilbert and Geduldig, show why the PDA was a necessary, explicit amendment to Title VII, so that women can understand their pregnancy rights in the workplace.







Post-Pregnancy and Adoption



Parental leave refers to both parents’ ability to take time off work to care for a new child, paternity leave refers to the father’s ability to do so, and maternity leave refers to a mother’s ability to do so. It is important to note, however, from the outset that these laws, the FMLA, PDA, etc., were all designed for a cisgender, heterosexual couple – a man and a woman. The focus of this discussion will use the terms to identify each party in a heterosexual couple not to exclude LGBTQ+ but only for ease of discussion in the hopes that the terms father and mother could be just, eventually, read as parent 1 and parent 2. Regardless of gender status or sexuality, navigating the statutes around pregnancy law, even without the complexity of having different requirements at the state and federal level, is difficult, which is why it is so important to contact one of our Dallas employment attorneys.



The FMLA covers both mothers and fathers to be eligible for 12 weeks unpaid leave available at any point until 1 year after the birth or adoption of a child. Often, parents can run short-term disability, vacation, and sick time concurrently during FMLA leave to ensure that there is still some income during what could be a 12-week monetary drought. However, though the FMLA does not require it, some companies offer paid maternity and, sometimes, paternity leave. Studies show that less than half of all US businesses engage in that practice, limiting pregnancy rights in the workplace. A growing number of States, including Connecticut, Washington D.C., Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon (coming soon), Rhode Island, and Washington, do require employers to offer some form of paid parental leave either for both parents or only mothers.



Women have different sets of pregnancy rights in the workplace during pregnancy and immediately after giving birth.  The former is protected as ‘pregnancy discrimination’ under the PDA which protects against discrimination based on pregnancy in any and every aspect of employment. Maternity rights are slightly than discrimination protections in that the applicable law comes from the FMLA, and that law provides that women are granted job protected leave for 12 months after giving birth or adopting. So, pregnancy laws are largely based on protecting against discrimination whereas maternity/paternity laws focus on granting additional rights rather than per se protections, which one of our Dallas employment attorneys can explain.   



The FMLA is the base line for all qualifying employees, and to be eligible employees must (1) work for a covered employer, (2) work 1,250 hours during the 12 months prior to the start of leave, (3) work at a location where 50 or more employees work at that location or within 75 miles of it, and (4) have worked for the employer for 12 months with no requirement they are consecutive. So, state laws would then stack on top of these requirements as additional protections and rights but are not necessarily reliant on them. Take New York, for example. In New York all employees are eligible for paid parental leave so long as they have worked for an employer for 26 consecutive weeks. That’s it; no hour requirements, no number of employees, just work 26 consecutive weeks. New York does have the right, however, to change the terms of payouts when certain officials declare that the economy is failing or otherwise performing in a negative fashion. Regardless, the New York Paid Family Leave Benefit Law was one of the first to take on paid parental leave and it shows how States may choose to offer greater protections and pregnancy rights in the workplace than the FMLA. 



Rights to Return to Work



There are three main return to work rights under the FMLA: a right to return the same or an equivalent job, a right to be free from discrimination from that pregnancy and from that associated leave, and the right to return to an altered schedule of intermittent or part-time work.  In all, people on paternal leave must be treated exactly the same as other people returning from a leave based on a temporary disability. Even seemingly well-intentioned practices to protect pregnancy rights in the workplace, like not sending a recent mother on a 15-hour bus ride for work where she has no access to privacy for lactation, are still discriminatory and, ultimately, have a negative impact on that mother’s ability to advance her career because of a stigma around the pregnancy. So, women who have recently given birth have the right to all the responsibilities of their job so long as they can still meet the requirements and capabilities of the position.



Three Laws Recap and their Timing



The PDA can be used before, during, and after pregnancy to prevent discrimination based on the pregnancy or any conditions associated with it. It’s important to understand these rights, which is why our Dallas employment attorneys have already posted two blogs describing your rights before and during pregnancy. In all, there is a complex web of federal, state, and local law protecting pregnancy rights. The FMLA can be used during or after a pregnancy and grants a total of 12 weeks unpaid, job secured leave; both parents are eligible for both times but non-pregnant partners may only use FMLA leave during a pregnancy if the pregnant woman is severely injured or incapacitated by the pregnancy. The ADA can be used during and after pregnancy to help prevent discrimination based on the ailments associated with pregnancy and also to ensure that women are reasonably accommodated at their workplace for those ailments. If your family has recently welcomed a new addition and you feel you are being mistreated at work because of it, contact one of our Dallas employment attorneys today to understand your pregnancy rights in the workplace.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in CBS11 Article Over North Texas Company Mandates Driving Up Vaccination Rates

Rogge Dunn Group's Rogge Dunn was quoted in a CBS11 article on October 5th over the growing vaccination rates in north Texas due to company mandates.



Many hospitals, airlines, and other companies have discovered that mandates are an effective way to drive up their vaccination rates. 



Conversely, companies that have offered incentives rather than mandating the vaccine are not seeing the same success rate. 



“Some companies that have used incentives don’t have as high a vaccination rate, so you can argue whether or not that carrot approach has been successful,” said Dunn.



Dunn went on to explain that companies can lawfully terminate their employees for not adhering to vaccine mandates if they offer exemptions for sincerely held religious beliefs and medical conditions. 




Read the full article here




To learn more about attorney Rogge Dunn and his legal experience, click here.

### During Pregnancy and Pregnancy-Related Conditions

The federal law that prohibits pregnancy discrimination or the PDA, which relies on Title VII’s anti sex discrimination language, affords protection against a number of pregnancy-workplace related issues like harassment, discrimination, and temporary disability. Women are protected from pregnancy harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth. The standard for the harassment mimics that of workplace sexual harassment employers cannot allow severe or pervasive harassment based on pregnancy.  As such, similar rules about speaking out against and formally complaining about the harassment are useful to win a claim of pregnancy discrimination. Women, and sometimes men, can also be afforded medical leave on disability grounds. If a woman experiences any of the impairments from pregnancy as recognized under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the PDA then applies ADA standards to that woman’s condition.  The standard is that an employer must make reasonable accommodations, absent undue hardship, for that pregnancy impairment and cannot discriminate based on the disability stemming from the pregnancy.  The PDA and the ADA, like Title VII, are federal laws that apply to only those employers with 15 or more employees.







Pregnancy discrimination is in a bit of a unique category of discrimination in that the perpetrator may be genuinely benevolent, but unaware that the benevolence does not justify discrimination.  Take, for example, a woman with a high-risk pregnancy who works in a somewhat physically demanding workplace that is an assisted living home that supports people with mental disabilities who, at times, will become aggressive towards caregivers. The managers at this workplace decide that the woman with the high-risk pregnancy should not work during the last month or two of her pregnancy and puts her on unpaid, job secured leave in a similar fashion to what the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) would require. One last fact: consider that the managers have a genuine concern that if the woman continues to work at this home during the final months of her high-risk pregnancy, there is a very real chance that she could lose her baby, but that there is no concern that she can do her job well. Corrine Carter claimed pregnancy discrimination on this fact pattern and won the case in 2017.  In Carter v. A&E Supported Living, Inc., the Court held that the manager’s actions were prima facie evidence of pregnancy discrimination.  That Court also explicitly noted that “benevolent concern for the health and safety of Carter and her unborn child does not excuse the discriminatory nature of [A&E’s] actions.” Carter v. A&E Supported Living, Inc., 16-00574-N, 2017 WL 5894540 (Nov. 9, 2017).



If a pregnant employee wants to seek reasonable accommodations, they and the employer must then engage in what is known as the interactive process. The interactive process relies on the requirements laid out in the ADA to prevent pregnancy discrimination.  Pregnancy is not, however, a disability in and of itself because it alone is not an impairment; however, complications and impediments that arise from pregnancy are able to be classified as a temporary disability for purposes of the ADA. If there are complications or other issues that lead to a pregnant woman needing reasonable disability accommodations then that woman should make a request for those accommodations. Employers are then obligated to oblige those accommodations so long as they are reasonable and do not create undue hardship and the employer offers accommodations to other employees with temporary disabilities. 



Employment lawyers understand how these laws have changed over time. One of the best examples on how this issue has changed over time is Young v. United Parcel Service.  575 U.S. 206 (2015). Young was a UPS worker who could no longer lift over 20 pounds due to her pregnancy and even though UPS would not accommodate this lower lifting capability; the Court remanded on the basis that the law has evolved to the point where yes, a plaintiff can bring a disparate treatment claim under the PDA.



Today there are a number of avenues for women to gain reasonable accommodations relating to disabilities and other issues that may impede their working life, which is why it is important to contact employment lawyers about your rights. The most prominent law is the ADA, but there are other methods as well. Take lactation as an example; it is not covered as a disability under the ADA but the Affordable Care Act amended section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act to ensure that employers offer a break and a private place (not a bathroom) for working mothers that need to express milk during the workday. There are also a number of other state laws recognizing that pregnant women and recent mothers still have needs not covered by the ADA. The FMLA, however, does consider pregnancy to be a Serious Medical Condition and, thus, makes 12 weeks unpaid leave available to eligible pregnant women.



Employment lawyers understand how the PDA and the ADA can work together on issues, but they can also be used separately for the same cause of action. Take two examples; in the first a boss fires an employee who has recently revealed she is pregnant and in the second a boss fires an employee already known to be pregnant because she cannot do something without a reasonable accommodation by the employer.  The first scenario relies on the PDA but cannot use the ADA and the second relies on the ADA but does not implicate the PDA.  In many ways, the two work to close any discrimination loopholes left open by the timing of the pregnancy discrimination.



The ADA does not recognize pregnancy as a disability but does recognize things like anemia, sciatica, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, morning sickness, swelling in the legs, and depression, amongst other impairments, as temporary disabilities. As such, pregnant employees will be entitled to all the protections and rights as other employees would under the ADA. Its important to consult employment lawyers about these rights. Women are entitled to reasonable accommodation, absent undue hardship on the employer, for any impairments related to their pregnancy. So, for a woman with morning sickness an employer may be able to reasonably accommodate that disability by changing their working hours. An employer may also modify workplace policies such as allowing a pregnant woman to sit frequently or carry a water bottle even though non-disabled employees are not allowed to do or have those things.  Even redistributing various work-related responsibilities, such as heavy lifting or being exposed to possibly toxic materials, can be covered as a reasonable accommodation without actually modifying someone’s employment terms. 



Miscarriages can also be covered under the ADA so long as it substantially limits a major life activity. Many miscarriages, however, do not meet this definition unless they are particularly severe or have long-lasting effects. They are, however, a pregnancy-related condition and, therefore, can qualify under the PDA if an employer were to discriminate against a woman who had a miscarriage. Depression and other medical conditions stemming from a miscarriage may bring in the ADA or the FMLA and may grant any number of remedies such as reasonable accommodations or unpaid, job-protected leave under the FMLA. So, while the text of the PDA is largely wrapped up in the actual pregnancy, the end of pregnancy is also protected. To properly understand these protections, it can help to consult employment lawyers. Miscarriages have already been addressed, but there are a number of cases, including in the 5th Circuit, which argued that abortions are a medical ‘condition’ relating to pregnancy and, thus, covered by the PDA.  Even in instances of successful pregnancy and childbirth some women suffer from postpartum depression. Postpartum depression is a protected category under both the ADA and the PDA, employers cannot discriminate against women suffering from it and must reasonably accommodate them. In some cases, women may even qualify under the FMLA if the depression is serious enough and if their FMLA time has not already expired due to other leaves during the course of pregnancy and childbirth.



Men are, unsurprisingly, ineligible for protection under the PDA. However, if a man were to have a very sick or otherwise incapacitated pregnant partner/wife, they may be eligible for 12 weeks unpaid leave because of the FMLA. Men (and, assumingly, other spouses) may take leave to care for a pregnant woman before and immediately after she gives birth. While some state laws may offer greater opportunities for those partners to take leave, the FMLA permits leave only when the pregnant woman has Serious Health Concerns. These serious concerns, as relating to pregnancy, mostly focus on ‘severe’ pregnancy symptoms that cause overnight hospitalization or continuing treatment. So, extreme morning sickness, for example, could be a Serious Health Concern that may qualify a partner for FMLA unpaid leave. After pregnancy, fathers can more easily be granted FMLA leave.



Three Laws Recap and their Timing



Employment lawyers understand the sweeping nature of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The PDA can be used before, during, and after pregnancy to prevent discrimination based on the pregnancy or any conditions associated with it. We have already posted a blog on pre-pregnancy rights here, and we will be posting another on post-pregnancy rights in the near future. The FMLA and the ADA largely mirror a parent’s rights during pregnancy and after. The FMLA can be used during or after a pregnancy and grants a total of 12 weeks unpaid, job secured leave; both parents are eligible for both times but non-pregnant partners may only use FMLA leave during a pregnancy if the pregnant woman is severely injured or incapacitated by the pregnancy.  The ADA can be used during and after pregnancy to help prevent discrimination based on the ailments associated with pregnancy and also to ensure that women are reasonably accommodated at their workplace for those ailments. If you are pregnant, or your partner has some pregnancy related condition that requires your attention, you may be covered under one of these laws; speak to one of our employment lawyers today if you feel that your rights are being threatened because of a pregnancy or are experiencing pregnancy discrimination.

### Pre-pregnancy

Pregnancy discrimination at work has been considered illegal by most people for quite a long time. There are, however, no specific laws or true texts restricting employers from asking whether someone intends to become pregnant, but an employer cannot discriminate based on the intent to be pregnant. The EEOC has stated that “an employer is also prohibited from discriminating against an employee because she has stated that she intends to become pregnant.”1  This does not, however, cover asking about intent to become pregnant. EEOC advises employers against this practice because it may show an intent to discriminate against those that become pregnant. If you are struggling with pregnancy discrimination at work, make sure to read the rest of this blog series and contact one of our employment lawyers in Dallas.



Congress instated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) as a 1978 amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make this explicit. The purpose of the amendment was to combat those who wished to discriminate against women by veiling it as discrimination of a temporary status: pregnancy. In all, the PDA is an incredibly important piece of the law.  Discriminating based on pregnancy is sex discrimination which fits into the language of Title VII but, thankfully, is made explicit by this amendment.







The PDA prevents discrimination “on the basis of pregnancy” and discriminating against the intention to be pregnant is, clearly, on the basis of pregnancy. As cases like Maldonado v. U.S. Bank and Griffin v. Sisters of Saint Francis, Inc. show, the PDA was designed to protect women based on their capacity to become pregnant which, therefore, covers a woman’s intention to become pregnant.  See 186 F.3d 759 (7th Circ., 1999) and 489 F.3d 838 (7th Circ., 2007).



A number of federal courts that have been asked this question to have answered in the plaintiff-affirmative: yes, employees are protected from discrimination if they intend to be pregnant. Women who are asked about their pregnancy-related intentions are not required to answer. It’s important to talk to one of our employment lawyers in Dallas to make sure you know your rights when it comes to pregnancy discrimination at work. The ‘intent to become pregnant’ is a bit of a grey area when it comes to pregnancy discrimination and the PDA. In the Northern District of Indiana, plaintiff Rochelle D. Batchelor brought a claim on the grounds that she was discriminated against, and fired, because of her intent to ‘start a family.’ While the Court recognized that she would be part of a protected class based on that statement, it also found that her actions directly relating to the course of her employment, notably her personal use of corporate funds, was why the Court ruled in favor of the defendants. Batchelor v. Merck & Co., Inc., 651 F.Supp.2d 818, 829-35 (N.D. Ind. 2008). 



The Supreme Court has also commented on the matter; in International Union, United Auto., Aerospace and Agr. Implement Workers of America, UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991), the Court noted that the defendant’s policy of discriminating against or singling out people who are capable of bearing children was sex discrimination. Essentially, this Court held that a company policy against the creation of children (both men and women are capable) is different than a policy against bearing a child (only a woman is capable), the latter of which can only relate to pregnancy discrimination at work.  Id. at 187-88. The Court’s final ruling on the matter was that it would do no more than what the PDA has laid out, notably that the PDA prohibits discrimination based on a woman’s ability to be pregnant. Id. at 211. So, in some ways, the Supreme Court left open whether intent to be pregnant was different than ability to be pregnant because the Court there read that the discrimination occurred because the company policy did not also apply to male ability to produce children. See Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 332 (1993) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (further explaining how the Court in Johnson Controls came down with its decision and explaining the reasoning behind that Court’s use of the PDA).



Texas State Courts are in support of protecting intending mothers employed by qualifying employers. A case decided in February 2021 addressed the exact issue of ‘whether women who intend to be pregnant are protected from discrimination,’ and that Court answered in the affirmative. South Texas College v. Arriola, 13-19-00222-CV, 2021 WL 497237 at *4, Tex. Court of Appeals (Feb. 11, 2021). Because Texas had no law directly on the question, the Court noted “we find persuasive the rationale of those [federal] courts that have interpreted the PDA as prohibiting discrimination against women who have expressed an intent to become pregnant.”  Id. (citing Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d 438, 446 (Tex. 2004)).  What this ruling did, in effect, was add this interpretation of pregnancy discrimination at work onto the pre-existing Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”) which mirrors the federal Title VII law and its interpretations.  Since the PDA was an amendment to Title VII it also influences the TCHRA, and, thus, was applicable in this ruling.



The PDA can be used before, during, and after pregnancy to prevent discrimination based on the pregnancy or any conditions associated with it. We will have future blogs discussing the latter time periods and pregnancy discrimination at work in greater detail. For now, it is important to preview another important pregnancy-related law: the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).  FMLA can be used during or after a pregnancy and grants a total of 12 weeks unpaid, job secured leave; parents are eligible for both times but non-pregnant partners may only use FMLA leave during a pregnancy if the pregnant woman is severely injured or incapacitated by the pregnancy. The FMLA and other important laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, will be featured and explained in future blogs, but if your employer is threatening the state of employment based on your future plans to start a family, contact one of our employment lawyers in Dallas today. Women shouldn’t have to deal with pregnancy discrimination at work. Make sure to read the rest of this series on pregnancy discrimination to make sure you are protected.

### Protecting Against Pregnancy Discrimination

When you’re discriminated against for being pregnant, you’re also being discriminated against because of your gender. It’s important to contact a Dallas employment attorney if you are experiencing pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. Pregnancy does not and should not have an impact on your work product; thus, Congress had to instate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) as a 1978 amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make this explicit. The purpose of the amendment was to combat those who wished to discriminate against women by veiling it as discrimination of a temporary status: pregnancy. In all, the PDA is an incredibly important piece of the law for preventing pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. Discriminating based on pregnancy is sex discrimination which fits into the language of Title VII but, thankfully, is made explicit by this amendment.







One case that shows why the PDA is so important is Geduldig v. Aiello. 417 U.S. 484 (1974). That case held that a state law barring pregnancy-related benefits for common work disability was constitutional. The Court rationalized that pregnancy was an objective characteristic distinct from sex and, thus, distinct from sex discrimination. Id. at 496 n.20. This case was followed by General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert held in 1976 that pregnancy discrimination was still not covered by Title VII sex discrimination. 429 U.S. 125 (1976). These two cases are clearly no longer good law and have become a focal point for describing why some laws need to be explicit to prevent pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. Failures by the Supreme Court, such as in Gilbert and Geduldig, show why the PDA was a necessary, explicit amendment to Title VII. 



We have prepared a three-part series on pregnancy discrimination: Pre, During, and Post Pregnancy. We will post these blogs over the next two weeks. If you believe you have been the victim of pregnancy discrimination or some other form of gender discrimination, please contact a Dallas employment attorney. 

### Labor Day

Labor Day is a federal holiday in the United States, celebrated annually on the first Monday in September, to honor American laborers. The holiday has become a means to recognize those who fought for a safer work environment during, and immediately following, the waning years of the Industrial Revolution (c. 1760 - 1840). Labor Day falls on a Monday, and so, many Americans enjoy a long, three-day weekend known as Labor Day Weekend.



As the trade union and the labor sector grew in the 19th Century, trade unionists proposed that a day be set aside to celebrate labor and hard work. “Labor Day” was promoted by the Central Labor Union (an early trade union that later broke up into various locales) which organized the first parade in New York City in 1882. In 1887, Oregon was the first State to make it an official public holiday. By the time it became a federal holiday in 1894, thirty states in the United States had already been celebrating a State sanctioned ‘Labor Day’.



When President Grover Cleveland first created the federal Labor Day, the declaration only made it a holiday for federal workers and employees. This persisted into to the late 1930s, but unions encouraged all workers to strike in an effort to ensure they got the day off they deserved. All States, the District of Columbia, and the United States’ territories had subsequently made Labor Day a statutory holiday by World War II.







Throughout the 19th and early 20th Centuries, it was common for employees to work twelve hours per day, seven days per week in dangerous environments while receiving inadequate wages. There were no child labor laws, and a lack of any substantive employee protection laws meant corporations didn’t allow people to take weekends or holidays off. Laborers found themselves working in harsh conditions, such as operating woefully unsafe heavy machinery that pierced workers ears or severed their limbs, without any reprieve because they feared their employers would retaliate against them if they spoke out against the conditions.



Children often began working in these conditions at the age of five. The kindergarten-aged children could often be found in mills, factories, and mines making earnings which paled in comparison to their adult counterparts’ incomes. Immigrants would be overwhelmed in perilous situations with inadequate access to fresh water, putrid sanitation facilities, and a general lack of basic necessities to sustain a livable working condition.



Manufacturing replaced agriculture over the course of the 18th and 19th Centuries, which expanded the need for employment (as opposed to being a self-employed farmer) and, more importantly, the need for labor unions into the late 19th Century. Workers would orchestrate rallies and demonstrations to defy their employers, and advocate against poor working conditions and minimal pay to force employers to renegotiate their employees’ salaries and hours. These eventually evolved into what is now known as the union strike. These demonstrations, however, would later turn deadly. The notorious Haymaker Riot of 1886 in Chicago contributed to the deaths of several policemen and civilians. This incensed a wave of riots costing the lives of numerous people.



Labor Day is an opportunity for Americans to recognize the hard work and sacrifice of previous generations who have greatly contributed to our country and continued prosperity. Without their resolute, unwavering work ethic and determination, employees today would not have near as many protections as they do. Nevertheless, in spite of employees’ dedication and hard work and the evolving protections available for employees, employees can still find themselves in difficult and challenging situations in the workplace. If you have, or are currently encountering challenges in the workplace, please contact an employment attorney.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in KXAN Article Over City of Austin Not Requiring Vaccination Proof for Employees

Rogge Dunn Group's Rogge Dunn was quoted in a KXAN article on July 28th concerning the City of Austin's decision to not require proof of vaccinations for employees despite Mayor Adler's request.  



Texas' Governor, Greg Abbott, has stated in the past that he will not reinstate a mask mandate, nor will vaccinations ever be made mandatory in the state of Texas. However, employers can require vaccinations. 



"Under the law, an employer can force an employee to get vaccinated, and if they don't take it, fire them," said Dunn.



With COVID-19 cases rising in the state of Texas, Texas Medical Association COVID-19 Task Force Member Dr. Ogechika Alozie, thinks employers should have a larger role in the vaccine mandate conversation by making a clear decision on if they will be requiring employees to be vaccinated or not.



Download Full Article Here



To learn more about attorney Rogge Dunn and his legal experience, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in WFAA article concerning Baylor Scott & White requiring vaccinations by Oct.1

Rogge Dunn Group's Rogge Dunn was quoted in a WFAA article on July 28th concerning a new mandate from Baylor Scott & White, stating that all employees, providers and volunteers must receive both doses of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the single dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine by Oct. 1. This mandate also extends to vendors, students and contract staff as well. 



This comes in the wake of Dallas County returning to the "extreme caution" level of its COVID-19 risk scale.



Rogge Dunn explained that OSHA requires employers to make a workplace safe for their employees.



"If the employer isn't requiring mandatory vaccinations, they better be observing social distancing, requiring masks, plastic dividers and those types of things because if they don't, and one employee picks up the phone and calls OSHA, OSHA can be out there investigating and fining that employer," said Dunn.



Baylor Scott & White is not the first Texas hospital system to require employees to be vaccinated. Several months ago Houston Methodist was facing a lawsuit from its own employees for requiring the same thing. That lawsuit was lost and since then the CDC has updated it's guidelines to  recommending that vaccinated individuals begin wearing their masks indoors again. 



Download Full Article Here



To learn more about attorney Rogge Dunn and his legal experience, click here.

### Biden’s Executive Order on Non-Compete Agreements

American employers have used non-compete agreements for decades to limit employees’ ability to work. In 2019, non-competes were estimated to limit up to 60 million American workers’ employment mobility. Like most robust political discussions, both sides - employers and employees - have strong arguments for and against non-competes. Employers have a legitimate interest in protecting trade secrets and customer relationships. Employees, however, argue that this practice limits wages and even unfairly restrains employees’ ability to work. Enforcing or limiting non-competes has historically been left to state judicial and legislative discretion. However, a recent July 9, 2021, Biden administration Executive Order (“the Order”) asserts federal authority over non-competes and may change everything we know about them. 







The Order seeks to limit the ability of employers to use non-compete agreements to restrain an employee’s freedom to work. The full scope of this unprecedented action on non-competes and how it will impact Texas employers and employees is unclear. What is clear is that both employers and employees should carefully monitor the impact of the Order and consult with employment attorneys with any questions or concerns that arise with non-competes. 



Biden’s Order is very broad and states:



[T]he Chair of the FTC is encouraged to consider working with the rest of the Commission to exercise the FTC’s statutory rulemaking authority under the Federal Trade Commission Act to curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility. 



The FTC is a federal entity that has statutory power to promulgate rules “to address unfair or deceptive practices that occur commonly.” So, for now, both employers and employees will have to take a ‘wait and see’ approach for what exactly this means for employers, employees, and non-competes. Until the FTC promulgates explicit rules under the Order, be certain that employees and former employees will use the Order to argue that their particular non-compete is an unfair limit on worker mobility, tracking the language in the Order. The anticipation of this argument will create new challenges for employment attorneys representing both employees and employers. 



The Order could be used to limit or invalidate non-competes in several ways. For example, one FTC rule could limit the geographic scope of a non-compete or provide guidance on determining whether such a limitation is unfair. Another rule may limit the time for which a non-compete is valid or give guidance on determining whether a specific time period is fair. Should the FTC invalidate all non-competes that it deems unfair, there will need to be clear guidelines as to whether that rule retroactively affects pre-existing non-competes and for what period of time. Any new FTC rules on non-compete fairness will also give guidance on what types of future non-competes will be considered fair.  



One thing is guaranteed: litigation is coming. Biden’s Order intends for the FTC to curtail the unfair use of non-competes which it concludes restrains workers’ mobility. The FTC’s rules may be useful for creating a more uniform system of judgment. However, in the interim, we are left with a somewhat vague and very broad Order and the ever-varied and evolving state law on what is and is not a valid or enforceable non-compete agreement. This is becoming a complex and intensely disputed area of the law. So, naturally, employers and employees will have several questions on non-compete agreements. Our attorneys are well equipped to answer them. Call an employment lawyer today if you have any questions about your non-compete agreements. 

### Whistleblowing, Employment Retaliation and COVID-19 Safety

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) filed a lawsuit on behalf of two former employees against a Texas small business owner, a dental office, for failing to reinstate furloughed employees who inquired about any COVID-19 safety protocols put in place upon returning to work; one employee specifically cited guidance from the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) while the second employee merely asked about COVID-19 related safety measures. The employees first filed complaints with the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (“OSHA”), OSHA then substantiated the complaints, and the DOL later pursued them in Court, in the matter of Walsh v. Bohannan et al., 21 CIV 00857, Northern District of Texas. 







This federal whistleblower lawsuit alleges the dental office discriminated against the employees for exercising their rights to engage in a protected activity of making good faith health and safety complaints. The Complaint was brought under OSHA act 11(c), which states in relevant part: “No person shall discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed a complaint . . . or has testified or is about to testify … or because of the exercise by that employee … of ANY right afforded by this act." 



While any employer may file a whistleblower complaint with OSHA based on health and safety, statistically very few of those complaints result in actual lawsuits in federal Court, especially complaints against small businesses. This recent filing marks a new and potentially more aggressive prosecutorial trend for the DOL and should be a warning for all Texas employers both large and small.   



Texas employers commonly believe that only Texas law or even local law applies to health and safety concerns, like COVID-19, and hold onto the mistaken belief that as long as you comply with Texas and local laws on health and safety, you cannot be sued; this is NOT the case. While federal whistleblower protection has been around for a long time, it has been infrequently used by employees and even less frequently used in Court by the DOL. It is NOW clear that the DOL can and will sue Texas employers for allegedly terminating Texas employees who raise health and safety concerns or who, in any way, assert rights under OSHA, whether it be COVID-19 related or not.   



There were nearly 10,000 COVID-19 related complaints in 2020, and, according to OSHA, every single one of them was investigated. The number of health and safety complaints for issues not related to COVID-19 is significantly higher at over 20,000. Texas is in Region 6 for OSHA and the DOL works with OSHA on investigating and enforcing complaints. In doing so, the DOL can issue Orders directing a business to do or stop doing something related to health and safety. Or, as they the DOL did with the dental office in Walsh, the DOL can file a lawsuit seeking injunctive and monetary relief. In 2021 in Region 6 (Texas), the DOL commenced proceedings against a transportation company, a construction company, a tortilla manufacturer, multiple contractors, roofing and building companies, and many other employers and businesses.



These types of whistleblower lawsuits seek to protect the health and safety of employees and the public at large, as well as to redress the harm done by the retaliatory termination of the employee. For that purpose, employees will seek lost wages, costs, expenses, as well as any compensatory and punitive damages determined at trial. Making whistleblowers whole can have significant economic consequences for employers, especially small businesses with limited resources. Texas employers must be weary because lawsuits are increasing and economic distress is not a defense to a whistleblower claim. 



As an employee or former employee, if you believe you have been discriminated because you raised health and safety concerns in the workplace, please contact an employment attorney. And, as a Texas business owner, it is always advisable to consult an employment attorney if you have questions about health and safety compliance. 

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in Texas Lawyer Article About Law Firms Reopening

Rogge Dunn Group's Rogge Dunn was quoted in a Texas Lawyer article on July 16th about returning back to the office, and how the COVID pandemic brought new opportunities to do some things differently.



This included the creation of the Rogge Dunn Group "Zoom Room," which is a HD quality broadcast studio used for client meetings.



When asked about his thoughts on using the Zoom Room in the future, Rogge Dunn said:



"Even though mask restrictions and social distancing rules are being relaxed, I still use the Zoom Room a lot."



Although it doesn't beat meeting in person, he added:



"Sure, it's better to be there in person, but if the audio and video quality is so good now that you don't lose a lot and the clients prefer to save the travel time, travel costs, and the lodging expenses, why not use it if the court permits?"



Read the full article below:



How-Law-Firms-Are-Reopening_-Part-III-_-Texas-LawyerDownload



To learn more about attorney Rogge Dunn and his legal experience, click here.

### Mental Health in the Workplace

Until recent years, mental health has had an underappreciated, yet significant, impact on the American workplace. Long hours, difficult assignments, and limited time for family and friends often increase or worsen mental health issues, such as anxiety, depression, and general ‘burnout.’ Burnout is a colloquial term used to describe the apathetic, unengaged feeling many workers get after long periods of grueling, relentless, or intense workloads.  Though it has yet to be recognized as a true medical condition, the World Health Organization labeled burnout as an “occupational phenomenon” characterized by decreased efficiency and productivity. Strains on mental health at work can have a profound impact on the employee; unacknowledged and unaddressed, these strains can have serious and long-term consequences for both the employer and the employee, leading to long-term absences, attrition and lawsuits. Studies have also shown that a failure to address mental health in the workplace can have deleterious consequences for the bottom line, decreasing overall company productivity and corporate profitability.







The COVID-19 Pandemic has brought this issue even further into the spotlight.  Many employees’ mental health has deteriorated due to limited human interaction and COVID-19 related anxiety. Amid all this chaos and uncertainty, businesses and employees persevere, as the needs of their clients and customers remain paramount. Keeping business afloat during an unprecedented era has taken individual effort at every level. Whether their hard work has been executed remotely or in the office, employees’ show of commitment should be noticed, appreciated, and respected. Burnout from COVID-19 is extremely prevalent, especially for the millions of Americans already suffering from mental illness.



One area in which COVID-19 has challenged mental health is in the use of vacation time, a benefit that is not generally protected or ensured by law unless specific states or municipalities have chosen to do so. About half of all employers that do offer vacation time do not allow that time to accrue and be used in the following year. Therefore, many people did not use this vacation time because, to state the obvious, there was no possibility to vacation.  So, not only are employees engaged in a rigorous work schedule, but they also have this nagging thought of ‘you have all these benefits to time off, too bad you cannot actually use them because of a global crisis.’ This ability to exercise rights to benefits, which would help alleviate burnout and other related mental health issues, has been severely limited by the nature of COVID-19.  So, while it may be a benefit to some employees, paid vacation time is not always available to employees because it is not mandated by law and because it is often contingent on employer discretion.



Those who work for employers covered by the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) (i.e. those with 50 or more employees), however, may request time off for certain mental and physical health reasons and should be protected from discrimination for that request.  One common but under-discussed and analyzed phenomenon is the extent to which mental health issues arise of physical health conditions. Yet another under-recognized phenomenon is pre-existing mental health conditions that, when exacerbated by a serious threat such as COVID-19, might render an employee temporarily unable to work; so, where an employee with mental illness might have had no difficulty working prior to COVID-19, the expanding threat of COVID-19 could require time away from work.   



In all, laws around mental health in the workplace are complicated and varied, depending on the jurisdiction. One consistency, however, is that workplace mental health is more readily recognized today as a legitimate area of concern that warrants consideration and accommodation. Less people now believe that mental health days are an excuse to have a paid day off; the growing trend is to recognize that burnout is a common occurrence for American employees and a day off here and there can boost both morale and productivity.  Employers must also be cautious, as, even without employer-sponsored days off for mental health, employees may still have a right to take time off for mental health under the ADA, the FMLA or related statutes.  Violating these statutory rights creates liability for the employer and adversely harms the employee.   Navigating the complexity of these statutes and the direct impact they have on the work environment is best done in consultation with an employment attorney.



We see the advantage in the trend of employer-sponsored time away from work, not only for the more specific and individual needs of an employee but more broadly for needs related to burnout in general and employees as a group. This is particularly true as it not only champions the employee but also directly impacts long-term productivity and profitability. In staying with this trend, Rogge Dunn Group, PC recently had a firm-wide trip to Cancún, Mexico, specifically to combat COVID-19 burnout. After a long year of walking a tight rope between remote work, backed up courts, in-person safety compliance, and a number of other unprecedented issues, Rogge Dunn believes the trip was well earned and essential. 



If you have any questions regarding mental health and the workplace, contact an employment attorney today.

### Rogge Dunn Featured in D Magazine for Team Vacation to Cancún

Earlier this year the entire Rogge Dunn Group office took a four-day trip with around 40 employees to Cancún, Mexico. This trip acted as a way to fight COVID-19 burnout, improve morale, and reward hard work. The firm regularly takes trips like this every four to five years and their benefit goes beyond some much needed relaxation. 



Dunn says that these trips also provide an incentive for everyone to work toward growing the business and allow for more open conversations about how they can work better together.



“We had much more thoughtful and honest answers because they’re relaxed,” Dunn says. “They feel like they can open up.”



Dunn recommends more business owners try this strategy to improve overall team morale. 



“I would encourage all business owners to try it. I can vouch for 25-plus years now that I’ve been doing it,” Dunn says. “I can see a marked difference in morale and the building of team spirit. There’s no doubt in my mind it works.”



Read the full article here.



To contact Dallas employment lawyer Rogge Dunn, click here. 



To learn more about Rogge Dunn's legal experience, click here.

### LGBTQ+ Employment Rights in Dallas, Texas

The month of June is recognized as Pride Month, celebrating the rights of the LGBTQ+ community throughout the United States. Historically, LGBTQ+ rights in Texas have been largely ignored, as Texas has been unwilling to protect members of the LGBTQ+ community. However, even this ship is rising with the tide as exemplified by a recent case, Tarrant County College District v. Amanda Sims (“Sims”). Sims comes after another landmark Supreme Court case protecting LGBTQ+ employment rights, Bostock v. Clayton County. Bostock protects LGBTQ+ rights on a theory that discriminating against members of that community is sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Sims’ claim originated before Bostock was decided, but after Bostock her claim was validated under a sex discrimination theory.  



Sims began in a District Court in Texas. Amanda Sims is lesbian and, at the time, was working at Tarrant County College. After disclosing her sexual orientation, Sims was discriminated against and ultimately fired. The District Court found that her termination was a violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”). That decision was then upheld by the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit of Texas on March 10, 2021. That Court decided that Bostock was the precedent upon which Texas should stand, and held that the TCHRA should follow the exact reasoning and protection of federal law pursuant to Title VII. Title VII, however, expressly covers only those employers who employ 15 or more employees, which is still not providing full LGBTQ+ rights in Texas.   



The Sims ruling is significant because there is no actual law protecting LGBTQ+ rights in Texas for employees. Rather, the ruling concluded that discriminating against someone for their sexual orientation or gender identification is sex discrimination, and that one cannot discriminate against an LGBTQ+ member for being LGBTQ+ without first discriminating against their sex. So, the ruling is not per se a protection in employment for all LGBTQ+ members in Texas, but does protect, as sex discrimination, those members employed by employers with 15 or more employees, tracking the statutory requirements of Title VII pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock.  



Some municipalities do provide further LGBTQ+ rights in Texas, with limited protection in employment to the LGBTQ community. Dallas is one of a growing number of cities in Texas, including Austin, Desoto and others, committed to stronger LGBTQ+ employment protections. Chapter 46 of The Dallas City Code states that it is proud of its diversity and is prepared to protect LGBTQ+ rights to the fullest extent possible. Chapter 46 is titled “Unlawful Discriminatory Practices Relating to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression” and it contains protections for sexual orientation and gender status, regardless of perceived or actual gender. The only entities exempt from the ordinance are the State, the federal government, and religious institutions. 



Dallas’ protection for the LGBTQ+ community, however is limited and arguably only functions as a weak deterrent. Dallas will impose no more than a $500 fine against those employers who discriminate based on LGBTQ+ status. So, while the city has taken a step in the right direction, the failure to provide for any significant penalty renders Dallas’ protections as largely ceremonial. Until the city imposes more than nominal penalties, the LGBTQ+ community in Dallas will not be free from discrimination, at least for employees of small employers with less than 15 employees.   



The Masterpiece Cakeshop case is another example of liability imposed for LGBTQ+ discrimination that results in nominal damages. That business originally won part of its claim against a gay couple that wanted to buy a wedding cake. Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to bake the cake in 2012, on grounds relating to free speech and religious rights. The cakemaker, Jack Phillips, won a partial victory there, but a more recent case on the creation of a cake for transgender pride held that Phillips violated Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”).  While this is a victory, Phillips has filed an appeal so as to not pay the maximum penalty, a $500 fine. Autumn Scardina originally ordered the cake in 2017. While one could say “well, $500 is a lot for a cake,” the principal of the matter is that businesses are free to discriminate while facing only objectively nominal damages. Had this revolved around, say, a multi-million-dollar home renovation then it would be obvious to everyone that a $500 penalty is an ineffective protection. In any event, cake or renovation, the whole Masterpiece Cakeshop line of cases shows that even when protected by law, LGBTQ+ members in some instances have very limited statutory remedies, and the failure to provide adequate relief could arguably be further bolstered. 







Austin, Texas, however, has a more robust system for the LGBTQ+ community. Austin has, in Section 5-3-12(D) of its municipal code, a provision stating that the city will prosecute those in violation of Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code. Chapter 21's primary purpose is to execute the policies of Title VII and is controlled by the precedents set in Sims and Bostock. Austin has afforded protections beyond what Texas has provided, as a state, in a manner similar to Dallas, but, unlike Dallas, has actually given some bite to its bark; the city can prosecute those who would discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community. Whether the city chooses to prosecute is another matter, but Austin is still a step further than Dallas. There is also an issue, however, that to prosecute an employer discriminating against LGBTQ+ members, that an employer must have at least 15 employees. Austin works through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and that agency only has jurisdiction over employers with 15 or more employees. So, even Austin’s bite is more than a stone’s throw away from full protection for LGBTQ+ members to be free from employment discrimination.    



Despite the protections and positive language in statutes and municipal codes, Texas and its cities still fail to protect all members of the LGBTQ+ community from employment discrimination. With no remedies and minimal or no repercussions, certain Texas employers can continue to discriminate in all facets of employment, despite a broad trend in the United States against LGBTQ+ employment discrimination.  



If you have questions or concerns about LGBTQ+ rights in Texas and how those rights affect Texas workers and employers, speak to an employment attorney.  

### An Early Look at Sexual Harassment

First and foremost, it is essential to recognize that any person, regardless of sex, race, or gender, can be a victim/survivor or a perpetrator of sexual harassment.  No victim/survivor should ever feel alone or scared to come forward in any instance of sexual harassment because of a perception of gender or racial stereotypes.  



Sexual harassment and coercion have been crimes spanning millennia and countless cultures.  Often, these crimes occurred outside of the workplace because of a disparity between male and female job opportunities and a lack of interaction between the two at the workplace.  However, with the growth of female employment opportunity in the twentieth century there came a greater number of male-to-female interactions in the workplace and a rise in workplace related sexual harassment.  Before the twentieth century, workplaces were more gendered - men worked here, women worked there - but in the early twentieth century physical workplaces became less gendered than jobs were.  At that point, men and women were all in the same places but there were “masculine” jobs and “feminine” jobs. 



The growth of the gendered job in a neutral place eventually was met by a greater number of sexual harassment reports and allegations.  Until Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, there was no reliable legal mechanism for preventing or punishing workplace harassment.  This act was the culmination of a century long struggle by women to change the social practice of male entitlement to female bodies.[1]  Title VII punishes employers, but only those with fifteen or more employees, who fail to maintain a workplace environment free from sexual discrimination and harassment.  Nearly every state has a mirror or stronger state statute of Title VII even though Title VII applies to every state.



Texas, however, has recently taken a big step in favor of protecting employees from sexual harassment.  Senate Bill 45 was approved and signed into law with an effective date of September 1, 2021.  That bill will expand Title VII and Chapter 21, the Texas state law which mirrors Title VII, to protect those employees who work for employers who have one or more employees.  This new law, however, has another protection that is stronger than Title VII: employers must take “immediate” action to prevent sexual harassment in the work place.  Previously, Texas, by way of Chapter 21, followed Title VII’s requirement that employers take a “prompt” course of action to remedy sexual harassment claims.  This new standard of “immediate” seems to create a stronger, more expedited course of remedy.  The Senate Bill may have also expanded a second standard, that of agents.  The bill says that employers are everyone who works “directly in the interest” of the employer whereas Title VII says that only “agents” of employers are also effectively acting as the employer; this may create a greater scope of which managers and supervisors are considered ‘employers’ under the statute.  The legislature also passed House Bill 21 which states that claims of sexual harassment are no longer time barred to 180 days and claimants can come no later than 300 days after the occurrence of the harassment. This extension given to the amount of time to come forward also allows claimants to seek out better legal representation. It is important to carefully consider which sexual harassment lawyer Texas claimants will choose to represent them in their case.



In Texas, the law recognizes and punishes two types of sexual harassment: quid pro quo and hostile work environments.  Quid pro quo is Latin and loosely translates to “this for that,” and can be thought of as transactional in nature, one party demands a sexual favor in exchange for some benefit.  This type of sexual harassment can be actionable after a one-time event.  Hostile work environments, however, require that the sexual harassment be “severe or pervasive.”  Essentially, severe conduct is that which is more than bullying or teasing and would be considered ‘extreme’ but courts have no mathematically precise test for determining whether an event is severe.  That being said, if bullying, teasing, inappropriate touching, and a number of other actions are persistent or frequent that may qualify as ‘pervasive.’  With a sexual harassment lawyer Texas claimants would be able to have a better understanding of the scope of their case before bringing formal charges.



While Title VII was a step in the right direction, it did not (and has not) ended the practice of sexual harassment in the workplace.  Thirty years ago, sexual harassment in the workplace was brushed under the table by many, sometimes employees would stifle someone from coming forward so that the workplace was not disrupted and other times harassers, often situated in a position of power, would threaten anyone who may come forward about the harassment.   Sometimes even the victims would not speak up because they felt they had no recourse through their jobs to stop the harassment, feared retaliation of being fire, or solely because they felt embarrassed about the whole situation.  Many also believed that the courts were an unreliable form of preventing harassment both because of gender disparity and cost constraints, but fortunately the opportunity to be heard has expanded enormously since the twentieth century.



Today things are much different thanks, largely, to the actions of those who spoke out against sexual harassment, like Anita Hill.  About thirty years ago, Ms. Hill testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which at that time was comprised of only men, speaking out against Supreme Court-nominee Clarence Thomas.  Ms. Hill testified about the decade-long sexual harassment and abuse she had endured while working under Justice Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which, ironically, is the very government body which seeks to vindicates rights of employees who have been mistreated in their jobs in a variety of manners.  In that year alone, the E.E.O.C. saw a 50% increase in the number of charges filed by employees claiming sexual harassment or abuse.



Although social awareness of sexual harassment has come a long way, it still has a long way to go.  While many employers now offer classes regarding how to deal with sexual harassment in the workplace or other types of discrimination, it often does not entirely prevent sexual harassment from occurring.  One important note, moving forward, is to recognize that anyone can be the target of sexual harassment by anyone else.  Often power positions play a role but male-to-male, female-to-male, and female-to-female acts of harassment can occur in any workplace.  Recognizing a gendered history is important but that cannot lead to neglecting to acknowledge that men are often subject to harassment and that women can be the ones harassing men and other women.  At Rogge Dunn Group, we advocate for those affected by sexual harassment in the workplace.  Do you feel you are the victim of sexual harassment? Contact us today to speak with a sexual harassment lawyer Texas employees trust to defend them.











[1] See, Reva Siegel, A Short History of Sexual Harassment, 4-10 (2003) (discussing how nineteenth century women who worked in wealthy homes would often be subject to harassment by the owner of the estate, and that before the Civil War there were discussions by female activists to prevent the continuation of the practice).

### Rogge Dunn Interviewed on Fox 4: Employers Require Vaccination

Rogge Dunn was interviewed recently during a Fox 4 news segment concerning a failed lawsuit against Houston Methodist Hospital. The lawsuit was brought against the hospital due to them requiring their employees be vaccinated against COVID-19. 



The Judge stated that the hospital has a right to require that their employees be vaccinated. This decision now has bigger implications for public and private employers requiring health and safety regulations of their employees.



"This is a major legal decision and it gives employers the green light to require vaccination, require masks, and implement other health and safety measures," said Dunn.



Watch the news segment on Fox 4 below:




https://vimeo.com/563003858




To contact Dallas employment lawyer Rogge Dunn, click here. 



To learn more about Rogge Dunn's legal experience, click here.

### Background Checks: Criminal History and Discrimination in Employment

It is becoming increasingly easier for employers to do background checks on potential employees, a practice which some say employers are exploiting.  Employers argue that background checks on employees help create a safe and secure working environment.  Employee advocates believe that background checks adversely harm minorities and don’t always lead to obtaining information that is relevant to the prospective job duties.  However, although employers once had to physically search through court records in order to find out information on potential employee’s arrest or conviction records, it is now a much easier process often facilitated by background check and consumer report companies, making background information far easier to obtain.  If you are being denied an employment opportunity based on a background check, you might have rights that are best addressed by a discrimination attorney. 



FEDERAL PROTECTIONS



There are some federal legal protections for applicants with criminal records.  For example, when employers have a third party run background checks they must obtain the applicant's written consent and take other steps before rejecting an applicant based on the contents of the report.  And, according to guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), an employer that adopts a blanket policy of excluding all applicants with a criminal record could screen out disproportionate numbers of Black and Hispanic Americans, which could constitute illegal discrimination.  



BACKGROUND CHECK POLICIES



The main issue for employees seeking to claim discrimination is whether use of the background check is true blanket or only selective.  If every single potential employee with a criminal record is turned away, it will be difficult to prove discrimination.  If, however, every Black applicant with a criminal record is denied but only two-thirds of White applicants with criminal records are denied then the Black applicants would have a strong claim against the hiring company on the grounds that they are discriminating against minorities. In this instance, a discrimination attorney would be best suited to determine what options an individual seeking to claim discrimination has.



Even though background checks are required by law to be voluntary, employers have more bargaining power such that background check requests have become a ‘take it or leave it’ practice.  Despite the current legal standards for ‘proving’ discrimination, many scholars and legal analysts are beginning to claim that the entire practice of background checks is discriminatory and part of a larger social practice which perpetuates poverty in certain groups, notably minorities.1 











OTHER DISCRIMINATION LAW CONSIDERATIONS



Since almost 65 million Americans have some sort of criminal record, ranging from arrests to convictions, it seems almost unfair to bar such a huge portion of the population from employment.  But is it?  There is no federal law which prohibits employers from discriminating against potential employees with criminal records, but the EEOC has set clear guidelines on how employers can use such records properly.  It is important to note, however, that potential employees with criminal records are, statistically, more often to be minorities.2 This screening process can clearly lead to, and often does lead to, discrimination in the applicant pool and a potential violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 



However, more specific limits on the use of criminal records in employment come from state laws.  Some states prohibit employers from asking about arrests that did not lead to convictions, unless the charges are still pending. Some states allow employers to ask about convictions only if they relate directly to the job, or require employers that consider convictions to take particular facts into account, such as how serious the crime was and whether the applicant has participated in any rehabilitation efforts.  And, several states now have "ban-the-box" laws, prohibiting employers from asking about any criminal history until after the applicant has an interview or receives a conditional offer of employment.  Texas has no such law but certain municipalities in Texas, such as Austin and Desoto, do have “ban-the-box” laws.  In Austin, for employers with 15 or more employees, it is illegal to ask criminal background questions or conduct a background check until a conditional offer of employment has been made.



QUESTIONS?



Do you feel your rights have been violated as a result of an unfair screening practice of your employer or potential employer?  You should speak with a Texas discrimination attorney.  Or, if you have questions about how this emerging area of the law could impact you, contact Rogge Dunn Group today. 

### Texas Employment Law: An Overview

Whether you are an employee or an employer, knowledge of Texas employment law is important both prior to and after disputes arise. Since Texas employment laws change from time to time, it is also important to consult with an experienced employment attorney in Texas to make sure you fully understand your rights as an employee or your legal obligations as an employer.



FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT LAWS APPLICABLE IN TEXAS



Specifically, depending on the type of employment, Texas employment law can implicate numerous state and federal statutes.  Federal statues like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from making employment decisions based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  Similarly, the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination based on an employee’s disability status and may require reasonable accommodations for certain physical or mental impairments. Further, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits discrimination based on age.  Lastly, the Fair Labor Standards Act establishes, among other things, certain minimum wage and overtime pay requirements on certain employers in Texas.



IMPORTANT TEXAS EMPLOYMENT LAWS



In addition to these federal statutes, many Texas statutes also address employment in Texas.  For example, the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act makes most violations of the foregoing federal employment-discrimination laws a violation of Texas state law. Additionally, statutes like the Texas Payday Law places additional requirements on employers with respect to how employees are paid. Lastly, violations of the state and federal statutes and trigger enforcement actions at both a state and federal level, by regulatory bodies such as the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Texas Workforce Commission, each of which have their own specific requirements for responding to and resolving Texas employment law claims.



OTHER TEXAS EMPLOYMENT LAW CONSIDERATIONS



Aside from these federal and state statutes, the rights and obligations of employers and employees under employment laws in Texas, may change depending on whether an employee is “at-will” or they have an enforceable employment contract that governs their employment relationship. This can impact the enforceability of non-competition and other employment agreements in Texas, which are often the subject of employment disputes in Texas.



QUESTIONS?



Rogge Dunn Group has extensive experience handling Texas employment law matters for both employers and employees. For questions about an employment law matter contact us here.

### The Employment Attorney Dallas Businesses Trust

It’s always important to find an attorney with the right experience and knowledge to successfully handle your case. With over 25 years of experience in employment litigation, Rogge Dunn has become the top employment attorney Dallas businesses trust. Learn more about his expertise and excellent results.



EXPERIENCE



Rogge Dunn's experience includes both prevention as well as representation in all areas of employment litigation. Not only does he have almost three decades of practice under his belt, but he has also been awarded by the National Law Journal for his employment litigation. In addition, he's tried cases in both state and federal courts in Texas and around the United States. Although fewer cases are making it to trial, finding an employment attorney Dallas businesses trust with actual jury trial experience maximizes your potential for a favorable settlement or trial success.



As one of only 25 attorneys in the state to be Texas Board Certified in both Civil Trial Law and Labor Employment Law, he is also one of the most sought-after lawyers in Texas. His expertise has helped attract other seasoned Dallas employment attorneys to Rogge Dunn Group with employment specializations and considerable trial experience. Now, Rogge Dunn Group is comprised of some of the top employment lawyers in the nation.



KNOWLEDGE



In the legal world, knowledge is more than just having a law degree. Rather, knowledge is:  



knowing and understanding the law;staying on top of current legal employment trends within the state of Texas and nationwide;recognizing the ins and outs of employment matters from all perspectives; andknowing how to maximize a client’s position to obtain the best possible result



The lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group go above and beyond in providing excellent, ethical and effective representation in employment law. Their knowledge extends beyond the basic principles of employment law, which is why they are able to counsel clients about how to prevent problems before they occur and can help minimize litigation risks. We are confident you'll find the best employment attorney Dallas has to offer at Rogge Dunn Group.



EXPERIENCE + KNOWLEDGE = SUCCESS



Choosing an employment attorney with both the proper experience and extensive knowledge is crucial to see results. That's why the lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group are highly regarded and respected in the employment law field for their success. Some of these successes include results such as:



The defense and dissolution of temporary restraining orders obtained in Houston and Dallas against a Fortune global 300 company for tortious interference with contract and employee raiding involving its hiring of numerous executives from a competitor; and



Obtaining a $1.2 million verdict for a client suing for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation.



Click here to see more results from Rogge Dunn as the employment attorney Dallas businesses trust.



For questions about an employment law matter contact us here.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in Dallas/Houston/ San Antonio Business Journal About New Texas Firearm Bill

Rogge Dunn Group's Rogge Dunn was quoted in a Dallas/Houston/San Antonio Business Journal article from Monday, May 17th about Texas House Bill 1927. If signed into law, HB1927 would allow Texas residents to openly carry handguns without a license if they are not already prohibited to do so by state or federal law. 



If the bill passes Dunn advises restaurants to reevaluate their current firearm policies and to consider additional training for their employees for situations that may involve patrons in violation of these firearm policies. 



“I think this bill will lead to uncomfortable situations and/or confrontations between restaurant employees and their patrons,” Dunn said. “And they're going to have two choices, neither of which one is great. Either quietly confront and say they need to leave, or call the police on their patrons, which is not a great way to retain business.”



Read the full article below:



Texas-gun-bill-could-force-restaurants-to-reexamine-policies-lawyer-saysDownload



To learn more about attorney Rogge Dunn and his legal experience, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in Washington Post Article About New CDC Mask Guidelines

Rogge Dunn Group's Rogge Dunn was quoted in a Washington Post article from Friday, May 14th about the new CDC mask guidelines for individuals who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. 



The CDC's new recommendations say that fully vaccinated individuals no longer need to where masks in most places. This guideline does not include public transportation and health-care settings. 



One of the main concerns surrounding these new guidelines is how businesses will decide to relax their mask policies or not. And if they do decide to relax their mask policies, how will they confirm customers are vaccinated. 



Rogge Dunn highlighted some potential issues.



“Customers might say, ‘I left [my document] at home, or it’s in my purse, or the car. And if you don’t believe me, I’ll go someplace else,’" said Dunn. 



Read the full article below:



New mask guidelines from CDC_ What to know - The Washington PostDownload



To learn more about attorney Rogge Dunn and his legal experience, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Interviewed on WFAA: CDC Mask Guidance

Rogge Dunn was interviewed recently during a WFAA news segment concerning the changing CDC mask guidance for businesses as more and more Americans become fully vaccinated against COVID-19.



Although masks are still required on public transit and planes, Dunn clarifies that businesses have the autonomy to implement policies they think are most fitting.



It is still unclear if employers can require their employees to be vaccinated, but they can ask their employees if they have opted to be vaccinated on their own.



“The law is quite clear and the EEOC has also said that employers can ask employees if they have been vaccinated,” said Dunn.



Watch the news segment on WFAA below:




https://vimeo.com/549133189




To contact Dallas employment lawyer Rogge Dunn, click here. 



To learn more about Rogge Dunn's legal experience, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Interviewed on CBS11: Remote Workers Push Back Against Return to Office Policies

DFW



Rogge Dunn was recently interviewed during a CBS 11 DFW news segment about bosses and workers being at odds with one another over return to office policies. Remote workers have begun to push back citing health concerns over new COVID-19 variants and increased flexibility according to a study by the Best Practice Institute.



This same study found that 80% of CEOs want to return to the office full-time while only 10% of employees wish to return full-time.



According to Dunn, employees can ask for accommodations if they have an underlying health condition.



But there are a few big reasons there is a push to come back into an office setting.



“You lose the cross pollination of ideas. You lose the comradery. You lose the intensity of people being next to you. And they say that having people work remotely may affect morale, may affect productivity and their corporate culture and that’s not what they’re about,” said Dunn.



Watch the news segment on CBS11 DFW below:



Watch the news segment on CBS11 DFW below:




https://vimeo.com/549070128




To contact Dallas employment lawyer Rogge Dunn, click here. 



To learn more about Rogge Dunn's legal experience, click here.

### An Update on Title IX Changes

Under the last White House administration, the Department of Education passed sweeping changes to Title IX. Title IX is a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions that receive federal funding.  The new Title IX rules went into effect in August 2020 including, among other changes, additional due process requirements for the accused and fewer allegations that a school must investigate based on location of the alleged misconduct



A Political Tug-of-War



Fast forward a few months, a new president was elected with democrats taking control of both the house and senate.  One item on the new administration agenda:  Roll back the just implemented changes to Title IX.  On April 5, 2021, President Biden ordered new Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to re-examine the Title IX rule changes enacted under his predecessor. The order stated that Cardona should consider “suspending, revising, or rescinding” the new rules.



Are More Title IX Changes Coming?



Despite President Biden’s order, it’s unclear how quickly any changes could realistically happen.  The Department of Education’s rule-making process typically takes a couple of years and even then, a rule change would not go into effect immediately.   Of course, the Department of Education, as urged by many House Democrats, could also seek to stay the previous rule through the courts.  Regardless of how the Department of Education proceeds, the new Title IX rules are already facing legal challenges in at least three pending lawsuits.



Current Status of Title IX



Politics and pending lawsuits aside, the new Title IX rules are currently in effect and educational institutions are required to follow them.  Particularly important for anyone accused of a Title IX offense are the new due process requirements.  Under the current Title IX rules, educational institutions must provide equal access to evidence, hold live hearings and allow for cross-examination of the individual asserting the allegations.



Find the Contact us with Your Title IX Questions



If you have questions about a pending or potential Title IX investigation, a seasoned legal professional can help. Sports and entertainment law firm Rogge Dunn Group has lawyers experienced with Title IX investigations including the new rule changes.  If you have questions or would like more information, contact us here.

### Workplace Harassment Lawyer: When You Might Need One

Harassment in the workplace continues to be an issue for employers and employees alike. And although any harassment is problematic, not all harassment is actionable under the law. Harassment, in general, is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic information.



When Harassment Becomes Unlawful



Harassment becomes unlawful where either (1) continued employment is conditioned on enduring the offensive conduct or (2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit retaliatory acts against employees for filing a harassment charge, testifying, or participating in any way in a harassment investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit.   Likewise, employees opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals are protected.



Workplace Harassment Lawyers Know How to Apply the Law and Analyze the Facts



It is impossible to cover every scenario where workplace harassment might become an issue. It is, however, safe to say that the analysis regarding whether the conduct is actionable hinges on the facts surrounding the incident(s).  As such, evaluating workplace harassment claims requires a high level of legal and factual analysis.  Most employers and employees are best served by contacting a workplace harassment lawyer if a potential harassment issue arises.



Asking the Right Questions



In order to analyze a potential workplace harassment claim, an experienced harassment and discrimination lawyer knows how to ask the right questions.  For example, if an employee complains that a supervisor uses harassing language does that constitute legally actionable conduct?  Several factors could affect the ultimate answer including among other things, whether the language used is directed solely at an employee in a protected class versus all employees and whether the language is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile work environment. In addition, a workplace harassment lawyer can evaluate whether an employee claim must be reported internally and/or with the appropriate government agency before pursuing other avenues of resolution. 



Find the Best Workplace Harassment Lawyer for You



As an employee, an experienced workplace harassment lawyer can provide you with the advice necessary to evaluate your claim and give you the best chance to optimize a resolution in line with your ultimate employment goals.  For employers, a workplace harassment lawyer can similarly evaluate harassment claims and advise you on ways to resolve employee disputes in the most efficient, effective ways. The attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group have vast experience and knowledge with workplace harassment matters. If you have questions about a potential harassment claim, contact us here.

### Federal Court of Appeals Affirms Jury Verdict Won by Rogge Dunn Group Overtime Lawyer that our Client was not Required to Pay Overtime Under its Commission Plans

A suit was filed against our Client, Magic Touch Up, Inc. ("Magic Touch"), for failing to pay overtime to its workers who were paid under a commission plan based upon "flag" or "point" hours credited to them (which were distinct from the actual hours they worked). 



The FLSA/overtime lawyer team at Rogge Dunn Group pled and offered evidence as to each element of the Retail or Service Establishment Exemption (which exempts employers from having to pay overtime to certain commissioned employees) under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  In 2018, a Dallas federal jury unanimously found in favor of our Client. 



On April 16, 2021 the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of our Client. Bryan Collins, an overtime lawyer at our firm, tried the matter to the jury and handled the successful appeal.



The verdict confirmed that our Client’s policy–not to pay overtime to certain commissioned employees–was legal.



The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals went on to describe in detail how the evidence we presented at trial conclusively established each of the three separate elements of the Retail or Service Establishment Exemption.



The three elements of the Retail or Service Establishment Exemption are:



the employee must be employed by a retail or service establishment, andthe employee's regular rate of pay must exceed one and one-half times the applicable minimum wage for every hour worked in a workweek in which overtime hours are worked, andmore than half the employee's total earnings in a representative period must consist of commissions.



Bryan Collins, Greg McAllister, Rogge Dunn, and our other FLSA/overtime lawyers stand ready to assist you with any questions regarding employers’ overtime obligations, commission plans, or employees’ rights to overtime under overtime laws.

### April 15, 2021: Rogge Dunn of Rogge Dunn Group Names Classroom at SMU Business School

DALLAS, April 15, 2021 – Rogge Dunn Group, PC. Rogge Dunn, a long-time adjunct professor for the Executive MBA (EMBA) program, gives back to support SMU Cox by naming the Rogge, Cathy, and Ross Dunn Classroom in the James M. Collins Executive Education Center.  Ross Dunn graduates from the Cox EMBA program in May 2021.



“We thank Rogge for giving back in two ways: through his generosity in naming a classroom in the Collins Center and for 20+ years of dedication he’s shown as a highly rated Cox School adjunct professor,” says Cox School Dean Matt Myers. “Rogge’s contributions are consequential and long-lasting.” 



Dunn will be celebrating the dedication of the classroom in the James M. Collins Executive Education Center on Friday, April 23.



Left to right: Ross Dunn, Cathy DeWitt Dunn, Rogge DunnLeft to right: Dean Shane Goodwin, Cathy DeWitt Dunn, Rogge Dunn, Ross Dunn, Dean Tom Dillon, Professor Tom Perkowski




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFbKYscM0PI




About Rogge Dunn



Dunn represents companies, financial advisors, executives, and entrepreneurs in business and employment matters. Dunn is one of only 25 attorneys in Texas Board Certified in both Civil Trial Law and in Labor and Employment Law. 



Dunn has been recognized by Texas Monthly as a “Super Lawyer” every year that award has been given.  D  Magazine has honored him as one of the “Best Lawyers in Dallas” 12 times. He has been selected as one of the top 100 attorneys in Texas by Texas Monthly.  Dunn was honored in 2021 by D CEO Magazine as a "Dallas 500," which recognizes the most influential leaders in North Texas.



Dunn's firm won the 2020 Law Firm of the Year award for plaintiff's gender discrimination cases by the National Law Journal. 



Contact:



LaKeisha J. Phillips, BASChief of Staffphillips@roggedunngroup.com

### Texas Lawyer Publishes Article Written by Rogge Dunn on How Employers Should Handle COVID-19 Vaccine Open Eligibility

An article written by Rogge Dunn Group's Rogge Dunn was recently published on the Texas Lawyer website. The article, titled "With Open Eligibility to COVID-19 Vaccine, How Employers should proceed," provides insight into if employers should require their employees to obtain the COVID-19 vaccine once they return to working in an office setting.



According to Dunn, employers can and should require their employees to become vaccinated once organizational operations return to an in-person setting. This requirement acknowledges those with a disability or sincerely held religious beliefs that would make them exempt from receiving the vaccine. Additionally, Dunn goes on to cite that this vaccine requirement is not without precedence. The 1905 ruling in Jacobson V. Massachusetts as well as an April 2019 order from a New York City health commissioner, both provide instances where the state has issued repercussions for noncompliance of compulsory vaccinations. 



To read the digital version of the article in Texas Lawyer, click here.



The Texas Lawyer publication covers the business and practice of law in the state of Texas. Furthermore, the monthly magazine carries the latest news from law firms, the courts, in-house legal departments, and the state capital. It also includes decisions of interest, legal intelligence on Texas firms, and special reports.



Rogge Dunn is board certified in civil trial and labor and employment law. He handles matters involving employment, partnerships, FINRA arbitration, class actions, defamation, privacy issues, shareholder oppression, "business divorce," non-competes, trade secrets, and whistleblowing. To learn more about Rogge Dunn and his legal experience, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Interviewed on Fox 26 Houston: Can Employers Require Vaccinations?

Rogge Dunn was recently interviewed during a Fox 26 Houston news segment on if employers can require vaccinations. Beginning on March 29th, all Texans are eligible to register to get the COVID-19 vaccine. As a result, many are curious about their workplace rights regarding COVID-19 vaccination. See below for a recap of the interview and to watch a video of the news segment.



Legally speaking, can employers require vaccinations?



Yes. There are only two exceptions: 1) if the employee has a disability and/or has had bad reactions to vaccines in the past, or 2) if the employee has religious beliefs against vaccinations. Otherwise, according to Dunn, employers can "require you to be vaccinated and fire you if you don't."



How would an employee go about filing a religious objection or showing that they have a medical condition?



Notify your employer in writing so you don't face a "he said, she said" situation.



What is the precedent in Texas regarding employers firing employees for refusing to be vaccinated?



In the past, employers have required employees to have various vaccinations, such as measles and smallpox. According to Dunn, employers "have a duty to keep the workplace safe for their employees" under OSHA law. Because of this, courts have historically upheld employers' rights to require vaccinations.



Watch the news segment on Fox 26 Houston below:




https://vimeo.com/531829480




To contact Dallas employment lawyer Rogge Dunn, click here. 



To learn more about Rogge Dunn's legal experience, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in Fox 4 KDFW News Segment on the National Emphasis Program and Federal Agencies' COVID-19 Policies

Rogge Dunn was recently quoted in a Fox 4 KDFW news segment on the National Emphasis Program and the COVID-19 policies and mandates put forth by federal government agencies amid the reopening of Texas.



Just this week, OSHA launched the National Emphasis Program. This program will conduct COVID-19 inspections in response to complaints, referrals, and severe incident reports.



Dallas employment lawyer Rogge Dunn weighed in on the matter during the Fox 4 KDFW news segment, explaining the intention behind the National Emphasis Program.



"All of the things the CDC has been saying the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is going to be enforcing and making sure employers take it seriously," Dunn said. "So Gov. Abbott said no mask mandate, and now the federal government is saying you have to wear a mask if OSHA comes in and says you have to wear a mask."



Watch the news segment here:




https://vimeo.com/525602306




To learn more about Rogge Dunn's legal expertise, click here.



To contact the attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.



Read the full article on the Fox 4 KDFW website here.

### Apr. 28, 2021: Rogge Dunn to Speak for the DAYL Trial Skills Boot Camp Spring CLE Zoom Webcast

Rogge will be a speaker on the panel for the DAYL Trial Skills Boot Camp Spring CLE Zoom webcast at 12:00 p.m. CT on April 28, 2021.  The topic for the 1 – 1.5 hour Spring CLE presentation will be “Mode of Argument:  Making Your Case to a Judge."

### Employee Commission Chargeback Law: Commission Today, Gone Tomorrow

An employee chargeback typically happens in sales jobs. The employee is paid a commission or bonus for the anticipated value of a sale that has not fully closed. If for some reason the sale falls through or the value of the sale is later reduced, an employer may try to offset its losses by taking back all or part of the commission previously paid to the sales employee. When this occurs, it is referred to as an employee chargeback. Here's what you need to know about employee commission chargeback law:



Commission Chargeback Law: Is an Employee Chargeback Legal?



Most courts consider an employee chargeback legal if it is anticipated and included in the employment contract. On the other hand, if the employment contract is silent regarding the possibility of an employee chargeback, courts typically presume the employee is entitled to keep the commission.



The presumption in favor of the employee has been articulated in commission chargeback law for three reasons. Firstly, employers are considered to have more bargaining power in the employment relationship. Therefore, courts are more likely to hold them to whatever they include (or fail to include)in the employment contract. Secondly, courts are hesitant to require forfeiture of money already paid. And finally, the viewpoint that employees should not bear the burden of a company’s losses.



The Employment Contract is Key



An employer can overcome the presumption in favor of the employee by anticipating and articulating employee chargeback situations in the employment contract. Typically, employers reference employee chargebacks in contracts in two ways:



an explicit or implicit agreement to pay back commissionscharacterizing money paid to the employee as a loan, often referred to as an advance



The Role of the Employee Charge Back Lawyer



An employer should work with an experienced employee chargeback lawyer to ensure that their employment contract contains a clear chargeback clause. In addition, an employee chargeback lawyer can analyze an existing contract for either an explicit or implicit chargeback clause for a sales employee. Likewise, an employee can benefit from an employee chargeback lawyer if they believe a chargeback was not anticipated or improper.



Questions?



If you have questions about commission chargeback law or wish to consult an employee chargeback lawyer, contact us here. The Dallas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group have the experience needed in all aspects of employment law, including employee chargeback clauses, to successfully prevent and/or resolve employment disputes.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in Dallas Morning News About Mask Policies of Major Retailers in Dallas

Rogge Dunn was recently quoted in a Dallas Morning News article regarding the mask policies of major retailers in the Dallas area.



In response to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott rescinding statewide COVID-19 policies, retailers such as Walmart, NorthPark, and Best Buy announced they will still require employees and customers to wear masks. Wednesday, March 10, marks the first day that the statewide mask mandate is no longer in effect and businesses are allowed to operate at 100% capacity.



In the Dallas Morning News article, Rogge Dunn said he was surprised that in conservative Texas, the mask policies of major retailers are still going to be in effect. Rogge Dunn said that since companies such as Walmart, NorthPark, and Best Buy are major employers, they have an obligation under Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules to provide a safe workplace for their employees. 



"If an employer doesn't take measures, they can be sued and have workers compensation claims," Dunn said. "And if employers can help prevent spread, they won't have as many employees out sick."



To read the full article by Dallas Morning News, click here.



To learn about the Dallas employment attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.



Rogge Dunn is board certified in Labor and Employment law. To learn more about Dun's legal expertise, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Interviewed by CBS 11 News on Reopening Texas

Rogge Dunn was recently interviewed on CBS 11 about how business owners are navigating mask policies after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ended the statewide mask mandate.



During the news segment, Dunn introduced three important steps employers should take to better navigate mask policies. According to Dunn, employers should:



Sit down with their employees and decide on the best policy for the companyPut the policy in writing so there's no confusionConsistently enforce that policy



Failure to consistently enforce the policy, Dunn said, could lead to claims of discrimination, legal trouble for businesses, and reputational damage.



Watch the CBS 11 news segment below:




https://vimeo.com/519717204




To learn more about Dallas employment attorney Rogge Dunn, click here.



To contact Rogge Dunn, click here.

### Apr. 19, 2021: Rogge Dunn to Speak in Live Webcast on Commercial Litigation Trends, Updates, and Challenges Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic

Rogge Dunn will be speaking in a LIVE webcast on Monday, April 19, 2021 from 3:00pm to 5:00pm (ET). The webcast is titled, "Commercial Litigation: Exploring Trends, Updates, and Challenges Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic."



About the Webcast



Commercial litigation is among the many areas of law affected by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, there have been several case delays and significant business litigation proceeding restrictions. Furthermore, the currently implemented remote hearings also add a great deal of uncertainty and this will likely continue for a period of time as in-person arrangements are not possible yet. These issues bring further complexities and challenges in the determination of proceedings and trials, thus creating a crucial need to be conversant with the nuances of the situation and other updates.



In this LIVE CLE Webcast, a seasoned panel of thought leaders and professionals brought together by The Knowledge Group will present an in-depth analysis of the current commercial litigation trends. Speakers will also discuss the implications of COVID-19 and offer the best strategies to devise effective litigation tactics even amidst the challenges of the pandemic.



Some of the major topics that will be covered in this course are:



Commercial Litigation –Trends and DevelopmentsCOVID -19 ImplicationsNotable Court RulingsBest Litigation Tips and StrategiesWhat Lies Ahead



To register for the live webcast, click here.



About Rogge Dunn



Dunn is one of only 25 attorneys in Texas Board Certified in both Civil Trial Law and in Labor and Employment Law. He litigates business, employment, and personal injury disputes throughout the country.



In addition, Dunn has represented clients in disputes arising in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Dubai, England, France, Hong Kong, India, Mexico, the Netherlands, Scotland, Spain, and Qatar.



Dunn handles employment, partnerships, FINRA arbitration, class actions, defamation and privacy issues. He also handles shareholder oppression, “business divorce,” non-competes, trade secrets, whistleblowing, and significant personal injury matters.



To learn more about Rogge Dunn and his legal experience, click here.



To contact Rogge Dunn, click here.

### Jan. 26, 2021:  Rogge Dunn to Speak in LIVE CLE Webcast on Demystifying the Current Landscape of Broker-Dealers Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic

On January 26, 2021 at 11:00 a.m., CT Rogge Dunn will be speaking in a live CLE Webcast. The webcast is titled, “Demystifying the Current Landscape of Broker-Dealers Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic: What You Must Know and Do.” 



In this live CLE Webcast, a seasoned panel of thought leaders and professionals brought together by The Knowledge Group will provide and present an in-depth analysis of the fundamentals as well as recent developments in Demystifying the Current Landscape of Broker-Dealers Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic: What You Must Know and Do. Speakers will also present all important issues surrounding this significant topic. 



Join us for this Knowledge Group Broker-Dealers Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic CLE Webinar by clicking the link below:



https://www.theknowledgegroup.org/webcasts/broker-dealers-amidst-the-covid-19-pandemic/



The Knowledge Group is the leading provider of CLE CPE & Technology Webcasts. It works to provide quality continuing education programs for lawyers, accountants, and various professionals and industries. The organization also offers professional credits for CLE (Continuing Legal Education).



Rogge Dunn is an experienced business lawyer located in Dallas. He represents clients in a wide variety of complex business matters, including non-competes, change-in-control, partnership disputes, breach of contract, business torts, and more.



For more information on Rogge Dunn's legal experience, click here.



Additionally, to learn more about Rogge Dunn Group's business lawyers and their expertise resolving complex business disputes, click here.



Lastly, if you wish to contact Rogge Dunn or the Firm, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in CNBC Article Regarding Covid Vaccine Side Effects and Compensation Lawsuits

Rogge Dunn was recently quoted in a CNBC article regarding the possibility of compensation lawsuits arising from Covid vaccine side effects.



Why are Successful Compensation Lawsuits Unlikely?



The PREP Act provides liability protection to companies like Pfizer and Moderna, both of which are credited with developing Covid vaccines. Furthermore, employers that require vaccinations as a condition of employment are also immune to compensation lawsuits if people claim serious side effects. 



Dallas employment lawyer Rogge Dunn gave insight on the topic during an interview with CNBC. "It is very rare for a blanket immunity law to be passed," said Dunn. "Pharmaceutical companies typically aren't offered much liability protection under the law."



Unprecedented Protection



In the article, Dunn said he thinks this unprecedented protection stems from the urgency placed on pharmaceutical companies to develop a vaccine. Summarized, Dunn said, the government likely agreed to protect manufacturers from lawsuits. In return, the manufacturers would expedite the development of a vaccine. 



In addition to protection from compensation lawsuits, Dunn said the legal immunity also serves another important purpose. It lowers the cost of the immunizations. "The government doesn't want people suing the companies making the Covid vaccine. Because then, manufacturers would probably charge the government a higher price per person per dose," Dunn explained.



Employer Liability



Employers can legally require vaccinations for their employees. Moreover, if a compensation claim arises from serious side effects, it would most likely be treated as a work-related injury. In the CNBC article, Dunn said that the claim would be difficult to prove. Furthermore, Dunn said that "there are significant limits or caps on the damages an employee can recover."



Learn More



For more information on compensation lawsuits related to Covid vaccine lawsuits, contact the business lawyers and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group here.



To read the full article on the CNBC website, click here.

### Jan. 15, 2021: Rogge Dunn to Speak at the Texas Bar's 29th Annual Advanced Employment Law Seminar on How to Win an Employment Case at Trial

Rogge Dunn will be speaking via Live Webcast on January 15, 2021, at 11:45 a.m. during the Texas Bar's 29th Annual Advanced Employment Law Seminar. The topic of the speech is "How to Win an Employment Case at Trial."



Advanced Employment Law Course 2021 (webcast)



Jan 14-15, 2021 from 8:55 am to 5:00 pm CT on first dayMCLE Credit: 12.75 hrs (includes 2.5 hrs ethics)MCLE No: 174095282



Early Bird Registration: $595.00(Regular Course Fee: $645.00)Note: Early Bird Registration ends Friday, January 15, 2021



To register for the Webcast, click here.



To view the event agenda, click here. 



To learn more about Rogge Dunn's employment law experience, click here.

### Jan. 13, 2021: Rogge Dunn and Greg McAllister to Speak in Live Webcast on Obtaining a TRO Against Former Employees

Rogge Dunn Group founder Rogge Dunn and  Greg McAllister are scheduled to speak on January 13, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. CT in a live webcast titled, "Practical Tips for Obtaining a Temporary Restraining Order Against Former Employees."



About the Webcast



The key to winning a successful Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is understanding your client's goals. Rogge Dunn and Greg McAllister have spent a great part of their practice working with clients seeking or defending against injunctive relief. In the live webcast, they’ll share their thoughts on strategy and clear thinking before seeking extraordinary relief. Topics will include legal points (drafting pleadings and orders) and specific subjects (trade secrets, noncompetition/nonsolicitation covenants, lift outs). They will also share stories from the battlefield, because practical tips can make the difference between winning and losing.



For more information about the webcast, click here.



About Rogge Dunn



Rogge Dunn has been rated as one of the Top 100 attorneys in Texas by Texas Monthly. He has repeatedly been named one of the Best Lawyers in Dallas by D Magazine and a Super Lawyer by Texas Monthly. He is one of only 25 attorneys Texas Board Certified in both Civil Trial Law and Labor and Employment Law. To learn more about Rogge Dunn's legal experience, click here.







To contact the Dallas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### The Zoom Room: Inside Rogge Dunn Group's Top-of-the-Line Studio

The Rogge Dunn Group recently invested in a state-of-the-art video studio for virtual conferences, hearings, and meetings.



The studio, called the "Zoom Room," is furnished with high-quality equipment to ensure crystal clear audio, including sound baffling panels, high-quality radio broadcast microphones, a sound mixer, and portable microphone clips. 



In addition, the Zoom Room's top-notch video equipment enhances the virtual experience further. The studio is equipped with three video screens, lights, a green screen, and remote-controlled HD cameras. The three computers can accommodate a lawyer and two witnesses or a lawyer, a client representative, and a witness.



Rogge Dunn Group founder Rogge Dunn said he consulted with people working in radio and television to determine which equipment to purchase for the Zoom Room. According to Dunn, using quality audio and video to meet someone virtually is a big plus. "You never get a second chance to make a good first impression," Dunn said.







The Zoom Room in the News



Law.com Article



Rogge Dunn was recently interviewed by Texas Lawyer (law.com) regarding the Zoom Room. The article gives insight into the technical aspects of the studio and what the future might hold for court via video. 



In the article, Dunn said he is confident his firm will use the studio even after the pandemic for convenience and economic reasons. "Every edge counts," Dunn said. "I've been a big believe since I've been practicing law that you can't put a price tag on professionalism."



Read the full story on law.com here. To view a PDF of the article, click here.



NBCDFW Television Appearance



In a news segment on KXAS NBC 5, Rogge Dunn was interviewed about his opinion on the possible permanent shift to working remotely for Dallas area businesses, and how he's equipping his Firm for successful virtual hearings with the Zoom Room.



During the interview, Dunn said that although there's no substitute for occasional face to face interactions, working remotely is "just clearly a much better way of doing business." Moving forward, Dunn said, he believes some clients will prefer the ease of virtual meetings.



Watch a recap of the KXAS NBC 5 news segment here:




https://vimeo.com/507570069




Click here to watch the full news segment or to read the accompanying article.



Rogge Dunn is a seasoned employment attorney. He is Board Certified in both Civil Trial Law and Labor and Employment Law. To learn more about Rogge Dunn and his legal experience, click here.



To learn more about the Dallas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### Insight From an Executive Contract Attorney: How to Get the Most Out of an Executive Employment Contract

Executive employees changing jobs or starting at a new position should strongly consider contacting an executive contract attorney. Certainly, executives are typically business savvy in their own right. However, an executive contract lawyer familiar with executive contracts can help review, negotiate and avoid the pitfalls typically seen in such contracts. An experienced executive contract attorney has gained insight from negotiating and litigating almost every aspect of executive employment agreements. Executives should utilize that expertise to their advantage in contract negotiations. This includes everything from the basic to the most complicated contract terms. 



The Basics of Executive Contracts



Executive employment contracts should always address a few basic matters such as base salary, raises and bonuses. Even though numbers seem straightforward, always do your research. For example, executives looking to change to a different industry or who are transitioning from a long-term position should understand the current demands and options to negotiate a higher salary if warranted. In addition, bonus terms should be reviewed carefully to determine how, when and what they pay out under all scenarios. An executive contract attorney can offer seasoned advice on negotiating a pay-scale and how bonus structures operate.     



Beyond the Basics



As most executives know, there is typically much more to an executive contract than the basics. For example, contracts can (and often do) include stock options, reimbursement terms and termination terms. They also often include non-disclosure agreements, non-compete agreements and severance pay. The scope, applicability and enforceability of the more complicated contract terms can vary widely depending on job position and industry, as well as applicable law. In addition to understanding the specific effects of the more complex terms, an attorney familiar with executive contracts can also provide guidance on issues which a contract might be missing. For example, if an executive maintains a separate business where a conflict of interest might arise, this should also be addressed in the contract. 



Contact an Experienced Executive Contract Attorney



The nuances of executive employment contracts are best evaluated by an attorney. An experienced attorney can spot potential issues and raise questions to best situate the executive for meaningful contract negotiations. The Dallas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group handle all aspects of employment agreements and have considerable experience with executive contracts. For more information contact us here.

### Rogge Dunn Answers Questions in D Magazine Article About the COVID-19 Vaccine in the Workplace

In an article recently published by D Magazine, Dallas employment lawyer Rogge Dunn answers common questions about the COVID-19 vaccine in the workplace. See a recap of the article below:



What should companies do when the COVID-19 vaccine is readily available?



Dunn said employers can require employees to be vaccinated, and "if they refuse, fire them." However, anti-discrimination laws and disability laws protect employees who refuse the vaccine because of religious beliefs or disabilities.



What are the pros and cons of employers requiring the COVID-19 vaccine in the workplace?



According to Dunn, some employers believe mandatory vaccinations provide a competitive edge because they can then tell customers that their establishment is safe. On the other hand, other employers believe mandatory vaccinations could hurt morale and cause friction.



What is the risk of worker's compensation claims for contracting COVID if the employer does–or does not–require COVID-19 vaccines in the workplace?



The risk of a worker's compensation lawsuit is low. Firstly, if employers require vaccination and an employee has an adverse reaction, that employee can only sue the employer under the worker's compensation program. This program, according to Dunn, "significantly limits the amount of damages an employee can recover." On the other hand, if the employer doesn't require vaccinations and an employee claims they caught COVID in the workplace, the employee can file a worker's compensation claim. However, Dunn said, proving they got COVID while at work "would be difficult, if not impossible."



How can employers keep up with COVID development without always having to consult a lawyer?



In response to this question, Dunn provided several resources for COVID-related legal guidance:



Visit the EEOC websiteVisit the OSHA websiteSet Google alerts on COVID topics impacting employersReview updates from the CDCReview updates from the White House COVID task force



To read the full article on the D Magazine website, click here.



Rogge Dunn is a seasoned employment attorney. Furthermore, he is board certified in civil trial law and labor and employment law. To learn more about Rogge Dunn and his legal experience, click here.



To learn more about the Firm's employment lawyers, click here.

### Obtaining a TRO Against a Former Employee: Texas Lawyer Publishes Article Written by Rogge Dunn and Greg McAllister

An article written by Rogge Dunn Group's Rogge Dunn and Greg McAllister was recently published in the December 2020 print issue of Texas Lawyer. The article, titled "Practical Tips for Obtaining a Temporary Restraining Order Against Former Employees," provides insight into successfully obtaining a temporary restraining order (TRO). 



According to Dunn and McAllister, understanding your client's goals is key to successfully obtaining a TRO. Moreover, the departure of executives or employees can often be emotional. Therefore, the first order of business is to determine the client's end game, emotion aside. In the article, Dunn and McAllister also stress the importance of thoughtful planning and clear thinking before seeking a TRO. 



To read the digital version of the article in Texas Lawyer, click here.



The Texas Lawyer publication covers the business and practice of law in the state of Texas. Furthermore, the monthly magazine carries the latest news from law firms, the courts, in-house legal departments, and the state capital. It also includes decisions of interest, legal intelligence on Texas firms, and special reports.



Rogge Dunn is board certified in civil trial and labor and employment law. He handles matters involving employment, partnerships, FINRA arbitration, class actions, defamation, privacy issues, shareholder oppression, "business divorce," non-competes, trade secrets, and whistleblowing. To learn more about Rogge Dunn and his legal experience, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in CBS 11 News Article Regarding Employer Control over Holiday Travel Plans

Rogge Dunn was recently interviewed by CBS 11 about employer control over holiday travel plans. Can companies can ask their employees about holiday travel plans or enforce travel policies? During the interview, Dunn gave legal insight on these concerns. 




https://vimeo.com/490923839




Dunn explained that employer influence over actions outside of work is not new; however, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, this is extending to employer control over holiday travel plans.



Dunn went on to explain that as businesses aim to protect their workforce and keep their doors open, they can legally enforce travel limitations and policies. "If they have a policy and they say nobody's allowed to travel on a plane, and you violate that policy, they could fire you," Dunn said. "You could come home from your vacation, and violate company policy, and find out you're out of a job."



According to Dunn, employers are within their rights if they limit travel to virus hotspots, require quarantine upon return, or implement a testing protocol. "In the absence of some state law protecting employees' individual personal rights, outside the workplace, an employer pretty much has free reign to control what you do," he said.



In a concluding statement, Dunn advised employees to follow their employer's policies. "I would make sure, if there's a policy, that I absolutely, positively follow that policy."



View the full article by CBS 11 News here.



To learn more about Rogge Dunn, click here.



To learn more about Rogge Dunn Group and the Firm's experience with labor and employment matters, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in Reuters Article About Employer Options for COVID-19 Vaccine Policies

An article recently published by Reuters covered employer options for COVID-19 vaccine policies amid potential U.S. approval of the first COVID-19 vaccine. According to Reuters, the split between those who support and those who oppose the vaccine have led to an array of choices for how employers could handle employee vaccinations. Potential options include free COVID-19 shots and a cash bonus for employees that get immunized. For those unwilling to get vaccinated, employees could get reassigned or lose their jobs.



The article went on to say that many companies are doing their research to determine the best course of action, from consulting with lawyers and health care experts to polling their workers.



In the Reuters article, Dallas employment lawyer Rogge Dunn weighed in on the subject of employer options for COVID-19 vaccine policies. Dunn is advising businesses on implementing workplace programs to encourage employees to get vaccinated.



"Some of my clients say, 'if you get a vaccine, we'll give you a bonus,'" Dunn said.



To read the full article on the Reuters website, click here.



Rogge Dunn is Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. As an experienced employment attorney, he helps clients successfully prevent and/or resolve employment disputes and advises clients on a wide range of employment matters. Learn more about Rogge Dunn's legal experience here.



To learn more about Rogge Dunn Group and the Firm's work in the labor and employment sector, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Gives Insight on CNBC Article Regarding Covid Vaccine Labor Laws

Rogge Dunn recently gave insight in a CNBC article about Covid vaccine labor laws. Although distribution of the newly developed Covid vaccine is swiftly approaching, there is still a difficult hurdle to overcome: convincing the public to take the vaccine. However, some employers may not be giving their employees the option.



In an interview with CNBC, employment lawyer Rogge Dunn gave insight into topics related to Covid vaccine labor laws. In short, Dunn said it is legally within an employer's rights to require employees to take the vaccine. "Under the law, an employer can force an employee to get vaccinated, and if they don't take it, fire them," Dunn said. 



Why would employers require employee vaccinations? Dunn explained it's partly a marketing or PR tactic. "They think it gives them a competitive advantage. They can say to their customers, 'Hey, our restaurant is safe. All of our employees have been vaccinated."



Read the full article by CNBC here.



About Rogge Dunn



Rogge Dunn is Texas Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law. His clients include companies in industries heavily impacted by the pandemic and related lockdowns, such as the manufacturing and food and beverage industries.



To learn more about Rogge Dunn's legal work in the labor and employment sector, click here.



About the Firm



Rogge Dunn Group's employment lawyers represent employers in all areas of employment law. Indeed, three of the Firm's lawyers are Texas Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law. They try cases before the EEOC, the Department of Labor, and the Texas Workforce Commission. In addition, they counsel clients about how to prevent problems before they occur and how to minimize litigation risks.



To learn more about the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### Negotiating a Severance Agreement: How Can a Severance Negotiation Lawyer Help?

An employer may offer a severance agreement for a number of reasons.  But it’s important to remember, there’s almost always something the employer wants in exchange. Typically, it involves an employee agreement not to sue the company for any employment related claims. It also often involves an agreement to certain restrictive covenants regarding future employment. Depending on the circumstances, an employee may want to leverage these requests to negotiate a more favorable severance. Oftentimes, a severance negotiation lawyer can help the employee negotiate a more favorable severance agreement.



An Employee Should Review A Severance Offer Carefully



An employee should take the time to carefully review a severance offer with a severance negotiation lawyer. In addition, an employee should gather relevant documents like any original employment letters, employee handbooks, and e-mails related to any ongoing disputes between the employee and the company. A review of relevant documents will help determine exactly what benefits have been offered, what has been left out, and whether an employee should pursue negotiations. 



What is Negotiable?



Almost all severance offers are negotiable. And although a company may withdraw (or threaten to withdraw) a severance offer if the employee rejects (or attempts to negotiate) the terms, companies rarely do. Remember, the company wants something out of it too. The most common terms to negotiate include compensation and benefits. Moreover, these cover cash, bonuses, stock options, and unused benefits like vacation time, among other things. Additionally, an employee may want to negotiate insurance coverage, a letter of recommendation, terms of exercising stock options, and terms of or a release of some type from a non-compete provision.



How a Severance Lawyer Can Help



Most employees who are considering negotiating a severance offer should contact an experienced severance negotiation lawyer. A severance lawyer can review any documentation, evaluate potential claims against the company, and assist with negotiations. Similarly, the employee should think about what they want out of severance negotiations and communicate those goals to their severance attorney. The severance attorney can then formulate the best strategy to accomplish the employee’s goals and to negotiate the most favorable severance agreement.



Rogge Dunn Group employment lawyers have the experience needed to successfully resolve employment matters. If you have questions about a severance agreement or other employment disputes contact us here.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in CBS 11 Article on Labor Laws Surrounding COVID-19 Vaccine

Rogge Dunn was recently quoted in a CBS 11 article regarding the COVID-19 vaccine workplace requirement.



Leading up to the distribution of the newly-approved COVID-19 vaccine, employees and employers alike are wondering if employers can require their employees to take the vaccine. Because the vaccine was developed and approved within months, many people are wary about the potential safety issues related to the vaccine.



In response to the COVID-19 vaccine workplace requirement question, Rogge Dunn stated that the law is clear. "Unless you have a disability or sincerely held religious beliefs, the employer can force you to take it," said Dunn. "And if you don't take it, they can fire you."



In addition, Dunn says he expects some businesses to use a required vaccine policy as a marketing tool. "I think that's a good selling point. And that's one reason I think employers may well require it."



To see the full article on the CBS 11 website, click here.



To learn more about employment lawyer Rogge Dunn, click here.

### COVID-19 and Employment Discrimination of Older Employees

COVID-19 and the related recession is having a disproportionate effect on older employees for a number of reasons. First, older Americans are at a greater risk of developing complications from COVID-19. Second, studies show that older Americans are overrepresented in jobs with increased exposure risks. And third, many older workers are in job fields, like hospitality, that are still trying to recover from the economic downturn caused by initial COVID-19 shutdowns. Moreover, these job fields continue to be disproportionately impacted by the ongoing pandemic. Here are the labor laws applicable to COVID-19 and employment discrimination of older employees.



Good Intentions Can Still Lead to Discrimination



Mix the above factors together and you have the perfect storm for potential age-related employment discrimination. This could include a wide range of employer intentions from wanting to protect older workers to simply viewing them as more expensive employees and using COVID-19 as an excuse to get rid of them. Regardless of the reason, firing or not rehiring an employee over 40 because of their age runs afoul of the ADEA. The ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) prohibits covered employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of age.



Lawsuits Surely to Follow



According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate among people age 65 and older quadrupled between March and April 2020 from 3.7% to 15.6%. With continued layoffs and furloughs, labor and employment lawyers on both sides agree that age-related discrimination lawsuits will likely follow. Indeed, it appears that many of these new age-related discrimination cases are currently being investigated and filed as charges or complaints on a pre-lawsuit basis with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and state civil rights agencies.    



Questions about COVID-19 and Employment Discrimination of Older Employees



The employment lawyers in Dallas at Rogge Dunn Group have experience litigating issues related to COVID-19 and employment discrimination. We have the knowledge needed to successfully prevent and/or resolve employment disputes. If you have additional questions about COVID-related employment issues including age discrimination contact us here. 

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in Texas Sports Nation Article Regarding Breach of Contract Lawsuit Filed by Ex-Astros GM Jeff Luhnow Against the Astros Ballclub

Sports and entertainment attorney Rogge Dunn was recently interviewed by Texas Sports Nation in regards to the breach of contract lawsuit filed by Ex-Astros general manager Jeff Luhnow against the Astros ballclub. In the article, Dunn offered insight regarding the contract dispute and the possibility of resolving it using private arbitration.



Luhnow claims that Astros owner Jim Crane violated his contract by firing him, which denied Luhnow benefits that include $22 million of his $31 million contract and a guaranteed portion of the ballclub's profits.



The complaint filed by Luhnow says he is required to submit contract disputes to arbitration "by the commissioner or the commissioner's designee." Rogge Dunn commented on this critical part of the complaint, saying, "Jeff Luhnow will have a very difficult time defeating the arbitration agreement clause." Dunn goes on to say, "His point is that this is an inside deal. The commissioner will protect the owner and scapegoat me, and he also gets to appoint the arbitrator, who will know on whose bread is being buttered."



When asked about the potential outcome over whether Luhnow was fired with cause, Dunn said it will depend on the wording of Luhnow's contract. 



Dunn went on to give a few examples of what Texas Law generally considers "good cause" in regards to firing an employee. Dunn said that if an employee did "something detrimental, not just a mistake," it would reflect good cause. Such detrimental actions, Dunn said, could include "failure to perform duties in the scope of employment that a person of ordinary prudence would have done under the same or similar circumstances." 



Rogge Dunn is an experienced sports attorney. He has represented professional coaches, professional athletes, Olympic gold medal winners, athletic department employees and University Presidents. 



To learn more about Dunn's experience, click here. 



To learn more about sports and entertainment law firm Rogge Dunn Group, click here.



To read the full article by Texas Sports Nation, click here.

### Physician Non-Compete Agreements Under Texas Law: Restrictions on Physicians

Medical practices, like many businesses, are interested in maintaining clients (i.e., patients) even after a physician may leave the practice. However, restricting a physician’s ability to practice medicine raises concerns outside of the normal employment context because of the special nature of doctor-patient relationships. Some states completely prohibit non-compete agreements with physicians. But other states, like Texas, impose additional requirements in order to make a physician non-compete enforceable. 



Texas Non-Compete Law: General Guidelines



Under Texas law, a non-compete agreement is enforceable if it meets two requirements:



The agreement is ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement (like an employment agreement) at the time the agreement is made. The agreement contains reasonable limitations as to time, geographical area, and scope of activity to be restrained. These limitations cannot impose a greater restraint than necessary to protect the goodwill or other business interests of the employer.



Texas case law provides guidance on what is considered a “reasonable” limitation and what constitutes goodwill or business interests sufficient for protection. Notably, both can vary widely among industries and professions.        



Additional Requirements for Physician Non-Compete Agreements



In addition to the requirements discussed above, a physician non-compete must also meet several other requirements under Texas law. In order to be enforceable, physician non-competes must also:



Allow a physician access to a list of the patients she has treated in the year preceding her separation from the practice.Provide the physician access, with patient consent, to the patient's medical records.Allow for the patient lists and records to be provided to the physician in the format in which they are ordinarily maintained, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties to the agreement.Contain a provision providing the physician an option to buyout of the non-compete at a reasonable price, or, upon agreement, for a price set by an arbitrator.Allow the physician to continue the care and treatment of any existing patients with acute illnesses. This applies even after the contract or employment has terminated.



Questions about a Physician Non-Compete Agreement?



Navigating a non-compete, especially involving a physician, can lead to a number of legal questions. Rogge Dunn Group has the answers. The Firm has handled numerous employment disputes involving non-compete agreements in Texas and throughout the country. For more information, contact us here.

### Texas Payday Law: The Final Paycheck

The Texas Payday Law establishes the procedures an employer must follow in paying its employees.  It covers all private (i.e. non-government) Texas business entities, regardless of size.  The Texas Payday Law addresses the final paycheck issued to an employee, which is often an area of concern for employers and employees alike.



The Timing of the Final Paycheck 



The Texas Payday law sets out clear dates for the issuance of a final paycheck.  If an employee is laid off, discharged, fired, or otherwise involuntarily separated from employment, the final paycheck is due within six (6) calendar days of discharge. This procedure differs if the employee quits, retires, resigns, or otherwise leaves employment voluntarily. In such situations, the final paycheck is due on the next regularly scheduled payday following the effective date of resignation.



Will the Final Paycheck Include Wages for Unused Benefits?



The Texas Payday Law does not create any automatic right to unused benefit wages. An employee may be entitled to wages for unused fringe benefits (vacation, holiday, sick leave, parental leave or severance pay). However, this is only if the employer provides for these benefits in a written policy or agreement.



Deductions from the Final Paycheck



The employer may not make deductions from the final paycheck unless:



Ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction, such as in court-ordered child support payments,Authorized to do so by state or federal law, such as IRS withholding, orAuthorized in writing by the employee, and then only for a lawful purpose. 



With regard to the final paycheck, the issue of deductions typically involves the last category of an authorized and lawful deduction.  The best practice is to include a separate, specific and clear wage deduction acknowledgement signed by the employee. However, even when lawful and authorized, the employer must not reduce the employee's salary to below the minimum wage. 



Additionally, the employer is responsible for ensuring properly withheld wages are applied toward their authorized purpose. Otherwise, they are considered unlawful deductions.



Get Legal Advice Early



Questions regarding the final paycheck can, and should, be addressed early.  Indeed, wage deductions are ideally covered at the beginning of an employment relationship.  Employers should seek the advice of an experienced employment lawyer early to gain advice on necessary paperwork and guidelines to fit the company’s needs and comply with the Texas Payday Law. If you are an employer or employee with additional questions regarding the Texas Payday Law or other employment matters, contact us here.

### Executive Change of Control Provisions

A change of control provision provides that if certain triggering events occur, like change in the company’s ownership, the executive is entitled to specified payments and benefits. The thought behind including change of control provisions in employment contracts is that they keep an executive objective, neutral and focused in performing job duties, rather than distracted over concern with a potential company take-over. 



Executives and Middle-Management Might Benefit from Change of Control Provisions



You can typically find change of control provisions in executive and upper management contracts. However, depending on the industry, some type of change of control provision may be included at the middle-management level. For example, a company may want to extend a retention bonus to lower executives. This would prevent a “mass exodus” if there is a change in ownership.



Triggering Events



A few common transactions that trigger a change of control provision include:



Sale of assets. This change of control provision will usually address the sale of all, or a majority of the company’s assets.



Transfer of Company Stock. This change of control provision often involves the issuance of a specific percentage and transferring of any outstanding shares from the main company to the new owner.



Mergers. This change of control provision is triggered when the company merges with another company.



Other triggering events can include consolidations, reorganizations or other transactions where more than half of the board members change.



Change of Control Provisions Should be Clear and Easy to Apply



The key to a valuable change of control provision is to make it clear, easy to understand and apply. Vague and ambiguous change of control agreements can result in litigation over whether the triggering event has occurred.  In addition, change of control provisions can vary widely and can limit the executive’s change of control benefits to more specific events.  For example, providing that the triggering event is not just a change of ownership, but also must include a material change in the executive’s duties.  In order to protect themselves, executives should negotiate broader change of control provisions to insure that they fulfil their intended purpose.   



Questions?



Rogge Dunn Group lawyers have worked extensively with executives on a variety of employment matters. If you have questions about a change of control provision or another employment matter contact us here.

### Dec. 2, 2020: Rogge Dunn to Speak in Live CLE Webinar on Commercial Disputes and the COVID-19 Pandemic

Rogge Dunn will be speaking in a live CLE Webinar December 2, 2020 from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. CT. The webinar is titled, "Commercial Disputes and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Trends, Developments, and Critical Issues Explored."



Click Here to Register



Webinar Overview



Provided by The Knowledge Group



The COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented disruptions to supply chains and business operations. This has incited the rapid increase of commercial dispute claims filed at both federal and state levels. Covering a wide range of practice areas, such as breach of contractual obligations, insurance coverage disputes, and consumer protection class actions, the pandemic-related litigations are expected to continue to rise as businesses gradually reopen.



Companies and their counsel must keep themselves abreast of the emerging developments and issues in this field in order to devise effective steps to mitigate the risk of litigation.



Our panel of key thought leaders and practitioners assembled by The Knowledge Group will offer a discussion of the recent litigation trends and issues surrounding businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Speakers will also offer the best compliance tips and best defense strategies to avoid pitfalls in today’s shifting legal climate.



This LIVE Webcast will discuss the following key provisions:



Commercial Disputes in Times of COVID-19 – Noted CasesCritical Issues and ChallengesPractical Litigation StrategiesBest Compliance Practices2021 Outlook



About The Knowledge Group



The Knowledge Group is the leading provider of quality continuing education programs for lawyers, accountants, and other various professionals and industries. The organization also offers professional credits for CLE (Continuing Legal Education).



About Rogge Dunn



Rogge Dunn is a trial attorney and counselor for Fortune 500 companies, wirehouses and prominent Financial Advisors, executives and entrepreneurs.



He has twice set the largest wrongful discharge arbitration award against Goldman Sachs for FAs in California. (Breaking Dunn’s own record). Most recently he obtained a $7.6 million Award against Goldman Sachs in a FINRA arbitration in Los Angeles.



Dunn has won more than $2 billion in judgments and settlements for his clients. He has represented more than 10 FAs in Barron’s national top 100 financial advisors. Dunn has won million dollar jury verdicts or arbitration awards in California, Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas.



To learn more about Rogge Dunn's experience and results, click here.



To contact Rogge Dunn Group, click here.



To register for the webinar, click here.

### To Compete or Not to Compete: Enforceability of Non-Compete Agreements in Texas

In a typical non-compete clause or covenant not to compete an employee agrees that at the end of his or her employment they will not work for or start a similar business in competition with their former employer. The restrictive nature of non-compete agreements have long been debated. Indeed, most states, including Texas, have enacted legislation to address the limited situations where such restraint of competition is allowed.



Ancillary to An Otherwise Enforceable Agreement



First, to be enforceable in Texas a non-compete agreement must be “ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement.”



This requirement basically means that both parties to the agreement made binding promises. Although it sounds simple, what constitutes ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement has been the subject of much litigation. 



An At-Will Employee Can Be Subject to a Non-Compete Clause



Historically, Texas at-will employees challenged non-compete agreements. They argued that since they could be fired at any time, any promises made by the employer were illusory. In 2006, however, the Texas Supreme Court held that an at-will employee could be subject to a non-compete once the consideration was provided by the employer. For example, once an employer provided specialized training or provided trade secrets, the non-compete clause could be potentially binding regardless of an at-will employee status.



“Reasonably Related” to the Need to Restrain Competition



Prior to 2011, Texas courts also held that the consideration provided to an employee must “give rise” to the need for an employee to restrain competition. The Texas Supreme Court changed the standard in Marsh USA, Inc. v. Cook. The consideration now has to be “reasonably related” to the need to restrain competition. Consideration such as confidential information, trade secrets, and the need to protect goodwill could, in the right case, meet this standard.



Reasonable Restrictions on Time, Geography and Activities



If the non-compete is ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement, then Texas courts evaluate the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed. Specifically, courts look to the restrictions on time, geographical location and activity. What constitutes reasonable time, geographical and activity restraints is fact based and determined by the courts. Courts typically evaluate on a case by case basis.



Nevertheless, some general guidelines have emerged from Texas case law. For example, geographical restrictions beyond the area where the employee performed work on behalf of the employer are generally found to be unreasonable. With regard to the activity restrained, non-competes that restrict contact with clients or customers that the employee had no contact with are typically considered unreasonable. On the other hand, the analysis may be complicated by the size of the company and the nature of the industry involved. 



Similarly, with regard to the amount of time an employee is restricted, the analysis is more complex. In these cases, courts consider the industry involved, the role of the employee within the company and other factors.



Employers and Employees Need to Know Texas Non-Compete Law



Both employers and employees are often faced with the question, "is my non-compete agreement enforceable?". Rogge Dunn Group has vast experience analyzing and evaluating non-compete agreements in Texas and across the country. Our employment lawyers regularly obtain and defend against temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions regarding non-compete agreements. If you have questions about a non-compete agreement contact us here.

### Rogge Dunn Weighs in on Whataburger Discrimination Complaint on Fox 4 News

Fox 4 News interviewed labor and employment lawyer Rogge Dunn on a recent discrimination complaint. The claim comes from a former Whataburger employee and relates to her wearing a "Black Lives Matter" mask to work.




https://vimeo.com/461174242




The former worker, Makiya Congious, filed the discrimination complaint after a recent dispute in August regarding her mask. A customer complained about her "Black Lives Matter" mask and threatened to report Congious to corporate. Management then asserted that Congious's mask was inappropriate for work.



Congious said she then asked her manager about giving her two weeks’ notice. The manager allegedly responded that she “was free to go because she was done."



Since her resignation, Congious filed a claim with the Texas Workforce Commission’s civil rights division. However, her attorney said they want to “give Whataburger a chance to make things right before moving forward with a possible lawsuit.”



Dunn weighed in on this discrimination complaint, saying “free speech protection does not apply to private employers.”



As a labor and employment attorney, Dunn has experience in discrimination, retaliation and harassment claims. For this particular claim, Dunn said that “an employee may have a tougher time with any lawsuit or claim if they quit before getting fired.”



“Whenever you resign, that makes it much more difficult to pursue any type of claim against your employer. So, one key takeaway is you shouldn’t quit because then you have to prove constructive discharge in addition to discrimination or some other violations,” he said.



To read the accompanying article for the Fox 4 News segment, click here.



To speak to the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### Employee Rights in Texas

Texas employees are protected by law with regard to fair wages, discrimination, and occupational safety.  As an employee, you may not know your rights. This article is a quick overview of the laws which address employee rights in Texas. In addition, this article addresses where an employee can seek additional information.



The Texas Workforce Commission



The Texas Workforce Commission (“TWC”) is the state agency charged with overseeing and providing workforce development services to employers and job seekers in Texas. Moreover, the TWC is a valuable resource for any employee seeking information about employment discrimination and complaints that TWC handles. This includes unpaid wage claims, minimum wage, and child labor laws.  Currently, the TWC is also providing information addressing COVID-19 questions facing many Texas employees.



Texas Laws on Employee Rights



Most Texas laws relating to employee rights are located in the Texas Labor Code.  For example, Chapter 21 makes it unlawful for an employer or employment agency to discriminate based on race, color, disability, religion, sex, national origin, or age.  Chapter 61, also known as the Texas Payday Law, covers wage claims of Texas workers. And Chapter 62, also known as the Texas Minimum Wage Act, sets the minimum wage for most Texas workers. It also requires employers to provide written earning statements.



Federal Laws on Employee Rights



A number of federal laws also address employee rights and may be applicable to Texas employees. Some of those federal laws include:




Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (which protects against race, color, religion, sex, or national origin); 





The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) (which protects workers who are 40 years or older);





The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) (which protects disabled persons in federal, state, and local sectors); and





The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) (which sets the federal minimum wage and includes the Equal Pay Act amendment).




Texas Employees and Employers Need to Understand Employee Rights



There are a number of state and federal laws addressing employee rights.  Therefore, if you are a Texas employee with questions about your rights or feel your rights have been violated, it’s best to contact an experienced Texas employment lawyer.  Likewise, if you are a Texas employer with questions about compliance with Texas law or potential legal consequences to an employment decision, a knowledgeable employment lawyer is an invaluable resource. 



The labor and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group know the law and have the experience needed to successfully prevent and/or resolve employment disputes. Three of the Firm’s employment lawyers are Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. For more information, visit our website or contact us here. 

### Rogge Dunn Group, PC Receives "2020 Texas Legal Awards Litigation Department of the Year - Small Firm" Award by Texas Lawyer

Rogge Dunn Group, PC is honored to receive the "2020 Texas Legal Awards Litigation Department of the Year - Small Firm" Award by Texas Lawyer. The Firm received the award for our work in obtaining a $7.6 million dollar award for a client in a fraudulent transfer case, for settlements on behalf of women, oil and gas executives, a financial advisor in a gender discrimination case and other significant results.



The Texas Legal Awards 2020 were held as a virtual event on September 17. Texas Lawyer honored those attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in Texas -- whether in shaping the law, achieving outsized results for their clients, being an outstanding jurist or assisting those in need of legal services. We are proud to be included among this prestigious group of honorees.



Watch: Rogge Dunn Group, PC Receives the "2020 Texas Legal Awards Litigation Department of the Year - Small Firm" Award During Virtual Event




https://vimeo.com/459398984




To watch the full virtual event, click here.



To contact the litigation attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### The Role of the Plaintiff's Employment Lawyer Before a Lawsuit

Employment relationships can result in any number of disputes or disagreements. Employees experiencing workplace problems that may have legal consequences often wonder when to contact a plaintiff’s employment lawyer and what a lawyer can do to help other than filing a lawsuit. Long before any dispute makes it to a courtroom, a plaintiff’s employment lawyer can play a valuable role. This article briefly overviews how a plaintiff’s employment lawyer can help an employee handle workplace conflict before a lawsuit is filed.



A Few Basic Guidelines for an Employee Experiencing Workplace Conflict



If you are an employee that is experiencing harassment, discrimination, workplace safety issues or any other employment disputes, there are a few basic guidelines to follow. 



Know your Rights.  Employment regulations and laws can vary by state and occupation.  Make sure you know and understand your rights, whether through consultation with a lawyer or otherwise.Document the Problem. Keep all documentation, including employee handbooks, contracts, emails and other communications with your employer that relate to the dispute.Manage Your Risk. Laws and regulations apply to employees as well.  Make sure you follow all laws regarding proprietary information, confidentiality and legal deadlines. 



The above guidelines are just a few things for the employee to consider.  As you can see, each one involves knowing at the outset of a perceived problem what to do and when to do it.  That is where an experienced plaintiff’s employment lawyer comes into play.



Contact an Experienced Plaintiff's Employment Lawyer Sooner Rather than Later



By contacting a lawyer early, an employee can get guidance on the basics as well as case specific advice. Indeed, employees are often unfamiliar with the applicable employment laws and their rights.  An experienced employment lawyer is familiar with workplace laws and guidelines.  Further, an employment lawyer understands the effect of any employment contracts or handbooks. 



Even before a lawsuit is filed a plaintiff’s employment lawyer can help employees by reviewing employment documentation, evaluating potential claims, advising employees of workplace rights and exploring early resolution options before filing suit. And if a lawsuit is ultimately filed, the employee has an advocate that is already up to speed on the case specifics.  Any way you look at it, the early involvement of a lawyer in the dispute is beneficial to the employee.



Questions for a Plaintiff's Employment Lawyer?



The labor and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group have the experience needed to successfully prevent and/or resolve employment disputes. Three of the Firm’s employment lawyers are Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  If you have an employment law question, contact us here.

### The Texas Lawbook Interviews Rogge Dunn on Wage and Hour Litigation Increases

The Texas Lawbook recently published an article outlining the rise of wage and hour litigation in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Natalie Posgate reported that exclusive data provided to The Texas Lawbook by Androvett Legal Media showed a spike in lawsuits pertaining to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Specifically, Posgate reported that Texas federal courts saw 422 FLSA lawsuits filed during the first half of the year. That number is up 16% from the same time period last year, and up 19% from the second half of 2019.



Wage and hour litigation increase has a direct relation of the pandemic-relate layoffs, especially within the energy industry. Prior to the pandemic and the results of mass amounts of employees working from home, workers would be less inclined to file FLSA claims than they are now. With extra free time and more financial uncertainty, these laid off workers are emboldened to act upon what they believe their employers are entitled to give them.



Dallas labor attorney Rogge Dunn of Rogge Dunn Group was interviewed in relation to the increase of employees across Texas suing for FLSA violations. He is quoted saying, “If they basically swing from an old trapeze to a new trapeze without any break in employment, oftentimes they will blow off claims they could otherwise make. If an employee is thrown off the trapeze by the old company and they start falling, they’re going to look for a safety net.”



While FLSA lawsuits have seen a steady increase in Texas since 2015, the mass layoffs, particularly in the energy industry, has tipped the scale towards even higher numbers. The volatility of this industry means that it relies on hourly workers and contractors, and its employees are prone to cyclical layoffs. Posgate describes the Texas oil patch as a “perfect breeding ground for FLSA litigation.”



Another reason for the increase in wage and hour litigation is the simple fact that there is a low barrier of entry and a lucrative nature to this type of law for plaintiffs. Therefore, the labor employment practice groups within law firms across Texas are receiving lots of action. This is due to many employers slipping up during this unemployment and work-from-home season.



Dunn, who represents both plaintiffs and employer defendants, offered a piece of advice to employers as wage and hour litigation increases. “When you have employees working remotely, you need to be on guard to make sure they’re paid appropriately and that they’re actually working when they say they are.”



Dunn also advises his plaintiff clients to “contact the DOL, read their website, Google the law and know your rights.”



To read the full article, click here.



To learn more about Rogge Dunn’s legal experience with employment matters, click here.



If you wish to contact Rogge Dunn Group, please click here.

### Rogge Dunn Group Attorneys Nationally Recognized in Best Lawyers in America 2021 Edition

 Attorneys honored for labor & employment and commercial litigation work



The firm is proud to announce the nationally prestigious legal guide Best Lawyers in America 2021 edition has recognized four attorneys from the Rogge Dunn Group.



Best Lawyers in America 2021 Honorees



Honorees include firm founder R. Rogge Dunn, partners Gregory M. Clift and Bryan C. Collins, and attorney David A. Gross.



Mr. Dunn and Mr. Clift have both earned selection to the list since 2016. The listing is recognizing Mr. Dunn for his commercial litigation and employment law management practice. It recognizes Mr. Clift for his expertise in labor and employment litigation.



Additionally, for the first time this year, Mr. Collins and Mr. Gross have earned honors for their work in labor and employment litigation.



“We work hard to represent individuals and companies on both sides of the spectrum,” said Mr. Dunn. “We are honored that our peers recognize our hard work.”



The Selection Process



The Best Lawyers in America 2021 listing is compiled through a rigorous vetting process. Firstly, it starts with lawyer nominations. It is then followed by an additional review from prior nominees. Lastly, the Best Lawyers editor make the final selection. The full listing is available at https://www.bestlawyers.com/.



The Rogge Dunn Group has achieved many honors, including recognition by the National Law Journal and The National Trial Lawyers (NTL) as Law Firm of the Year on the 2020 Elite Trial Lawyers list for the firm’s work on gender discrimination cases. In fact, one of only three law firm finalists in that category, the firm won National Law Firm of the Year for its enforcement of gender discrimination laws for female executives. Additionally, it also won for winning multimillion-dollar settlements in the energy, finance, and medical industries.



Rogge Dunn Group has built a well-deserved reputation for aggressive litigation, outstanding results, and attentive client service. Led by founding partner Rogge Dunn, the firm is well-known for successfully trying high-profile business and employment disputes. Overall, this trial experience fosters innovative strategies to obtain effective settlements and minimize litigation risks for corporate and individual clients. Based in Dallas, the firm tries cases in state and federal courts in Texas and throughout the United States. Learn more about the firm at www.roggedunngroup.com.

### The Real Estate Investor Guide to Finder’s Fees – Insight from a Real Estate Lawyer

A finder's fee (also known as "referral income" or a "referral fee") is a commission paid to an intermediary or the facilitator of a real estate transaction. Finder’s fees aren’t unusual in real estate transactions. The law, however, heavily regulates finder's fees and it can vary from state to state. Typically, real estate agents pay finder’s fees, not investors, but since commercial real estate investment (REI) transactions almost always include a finder’s fee, investors should ideally know and understand how they operate to make sure they comply with applicable regulations. In some situations, it might be necessary for a real estate lawyer to determine the legality of the fee.



What is the Purpose of a Finder’s Fee?



A finder's fee is basically a reward for making a deal happen. They are often used as an incentive to keep business parties communicating and to keep agents in mind for referrals on future deals. The finder’s fee can be in the form of a gift, a commission or a percentage of the deal. Most states have laws that allow intermediaries to request anywhere from 3-35% of the deal’s value.  As an investor, you won’t be paying the finder’s fee, but any questions about the legality of a fee request should be raised with an experienced real estate lawyer.



What are Potential Red Flags about Finder’s Fees?



As mentioned above, finder’s fees are common and can happen in a number of ways. However, an investor should keep in mind some red flags that the fee might not be on the up and up. First, carefully scrutinize any unlicensed intermediary. As an investor, you want to make sure you understand how the middleman actually facilitated the deal. Also, any request that an investor pay the finder’s fee directly is a clear red flag. If you encounter a red flag or a finder’s fee situation that feels questionable, an experienced real estate lawyer can advise you if the fee at issue is legal and proper and ensure that such a fee complies with all applicable regulations.



When You Need an Experienced Real Estate Lawyer…



Contact Rogge Dunn Group here. Formed by experienced trial lawyers, Rogge Dunn Group is a trial boutique handling business, employment, and FINRA matters. We’ve got the experience to answer questions about REI transactions, related fees and other real estate matters. To view our real estate lawyer results, click here. View real estate testimonials by clicking here.

### COVID-19 Continues to Create Employment Issues

The COVID-19 pandemic appears to be far from over in the United States. As a result, employers and employees continue to encounter unique and challenging employment issues. In fact, a number of employers have already experienced increased internal complaints or litigation related to COVID-19. Discussed below are a few employment law matters emerging as areas of potential conflict and how a labor law attorney can help resolve or prevent these scenarios.



Continuing Workplace Safety Concerns



As more employees return to the physical workplace, safety concerns have become an even bigger obstacle. Further complicating the matter, many areas of the country are still experiencing increasing numbers of COVID-19 cases. Employers need to be aware of CDC guidelines, OSHA requirements and recommendations, and state and local mandates addressing workplace safety. In addition, employers are already seeing an increase in worker’s compensation claims related to contracting COVID-19 at work. Employers should consider contacting an experienced employment and labor law attorney to evaluate the multitude of legal aspects regarding workplace safety in the continuing age of COVID-19. 



COVID-19 Related Leave Complaints



When many states issued shelter-in-place orders the federal government and some state governments passed laws aimed at allowing for leave specifically related to COVID-19 problems. As we move forward, employers are currently facing complaints that they failed to comply with federal and/or state leave requirements. Because of this, employers and employees should be familiar with applicable COVID-19 leave requirements within their state and understand potential legal ramifications of employment decisions made subsequent to COVID-19 related leave. Again, an experienced employment lawyer can offer advice to both employers and employees on leave requirements and related legal obligations.



Other COVID-19 Employment Law Concerns



Continued COVID-19 employment law issues are inevitable. Other new employment law COVID-19 related conflicts relate to employees continuing to work from home. For example, disputes can arise regarding wage and hour claims and reimbursement issues for work from home related expenses. Other concerns include, ADA implications for employees wishing to continue working from home as a reasonable accommodation.



Contact a Labor Law Attorney



COVID-19 employment law questions? The labor and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group continue to monitor developments related to COVID-19 and employment issues. The Firm has the experience needed to successfully prevent and/or resolve employment disputes. Three of the Firm’s employment lawyers are Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. For more information, contact Rogge Dunn Group here.

### Rogge Dunn Interviewed by AdvisorHub on Multi-Million Comp Award to Former Credit Suisse Brokers

On Wednesday, July 21, Justice Andrea Masley of the New York State Supreme Court rejected an attempt made by Credit Suisse Securities to vacate a multi-million comp award to two of its former brokers.



The two brokers, Joseph T. Lerner and Anna Sarai Winderbaum, joined Morgan Stanley in 2015 after Credit Suisse announced it was shutting down its U.S. operations. However, in May 2019, FINRA arbitrators ordered the Swiss bank to the award them $6.07 million to compensate them for deferred compensation. Credit Suisse allegedly refused to pay the deferred compensation because they said they “received transition payments from Morgan Stanley to compensate for money left behind,” according to the AdvisorHub Staff.



Justice Masley upheld the multi-million comp award at $6.1 million, asserting that Credit Suisse failed to provide “convincing arguments to show that arbitrators manifestly disregarded state employment law and industry standards.”



Rogge Dunn weighed in on the judge’s decision to uphold the multi-million comp award. Dunn, who has seven claims pending in FINRA arbitration, is quoted saying, “Credit Suisse continues to pursue a defense that has been declared irrelevant and inapplicable.”



This case comes as the second comp award loss for Credit Suisse, and is among dozens of other arbitrations claims for deferred compensation.



“It’s another huge loss for Credit Suisse, and it makes the continued defense that they don’t owe FAs deferred comp because of their deals with new employers frivolous,” Dunn said.



While Credit Suisse has lost seven arbitration claims for deferred comp, it continues to seek to vacate other awards.



To read the full article, click here.



To learn more about the FINRA and Financial Advisors at Rogge Dunn Group, visit this page. Read about how a FINRA Compliance Lawyer can help you here.



If you wish to contact Rogge Dunn Group, please click here.

### How a FINRA Compliance Lawyer Can Help

The Role of FINRA



FINRA is a government-authorized not-for-profit organization that oversees U.S. broker-dealers. FINRA plays a major role in regulating the U.S. market integrity and protecting investors. To that end, FINRA has rules and guidelines in place to ensure basic protections for investors. Such rules include qualifications for brokers, truth in advertisement, product suitability and product disclosures. Indeed, a FINRA compliance lawyer can help any size firm navigate and comply with the myriad of FINRA rules.



FINRA Compliance Concerns



FINRA compliance issues can run the gamut from reporting errors to failure to make necessary disclosures. Newer technology created the need for additional rules to address cybersecurity and social media posts. The biggest recent compliance change is Regulation Best Interest (“Reg BI”), passed by the SEC in September 2019. FINRA designed Reg BI to raise the broker-investment standard from suitability to best-interest. Furthermore, FINRA is expected to start Reg BI enforcement this month.   



FINRA Compliance Lawyers



Lawyers familiar with FINRA compliance know the rules, follow the proposed changes and understand how to evaluate compliance concerns. For example, a FINRA compliance lawyer can represent investment professionals, advisors and managers in compliance examinations, investigations, administrative proceedings and enforcement actions brought by regulatory bodies including the SEC, FINRA and state securities agencies. Additionally, a FINRA compliance lawyer can advise clients on compliance-related matters, such as questions relating to supervision, books-and-records maintenance, Form U-4 and U-5 filings and customer privacy.



FINRA Questions?



Rogge Dunn Group handles a variety of matters across the U.S. in the financial industry area and has a significant amount of experience with FINRA rules and regulations. 



We transition teams to new firms, handle TROs, fight off non-competes and non-solicits, ensure that the broker recruiting protocol is followed (for signatories), and defend against promissory note enforcement. In addition, our lawyer for financial advisors, branch managers, RIAs and financial executives assists with severance, regulatory issues, letters of education and FINRA investigations.



If you have FINRA questions, contact Rogge Dunn Group for more information.

### CoStar News Interviews Rogge Dunn on Pandemic-Related Layoffs

J.C. Penney, the popular 118-year-old department store retailer, is planning to lay off 1,000 corporate and management workers as a result of their filing for bankruptcy in May. While the company has been struggling for years, the rise of the COVID-19 pandemic was the final straw that pushed them towards bankruptcy. With these pandemic-related layoffs, J.C. Penney has identified 152 out of their 387 stores that will be closing.  



J.C. Penney, whose headquarters are located in the Dallas suburb of Plano, is just one of many corporate headquarters in the DFW area that have filed for bankruptcy as a result of the pandemic. Others include Neiman Marcus and Tuesday Morning, who have also decided to cut their national footprint by means of mass layoffs.



Dallas labor attorney Rogge Dunn of Rogge Dunn Group was interviewed on the unfortunately common topic of these pandemic-related layoffs. Dunn is quoted saying that he expects to see “substantially more layoffs” from retailers with a heavy-brick-and mortar presence in the near future, as COVID-19 is far from being contained in Texas.



In relation to the many large retail stores filing for bankruptcy during this time, Dunn said, "you can't cut off the root of a tree and not expect it to spread to the very top of the tree.” Further, Dunn asserted that “this doesn't mean the whole C-suite will get canned, but that's one reason why you often see the chief executive office and chief operating officer roles combined. It's a way of reducing operating costs.”



While it seems that Texas is being hit particularly hard with the pandemic-related layoffs due to many corporate headquarters being located in the state, Dunn said this is not of concern because businesses throughout the world are being affected. According to Dunn, DFW is a “very business friendly place” and that the area will continue to prosper.



Dunn is quoted saying, "I could see if the cost cutting continues that we could see more companies move to Dallas to shed corporate income taxes from other states or have a less unionized workforce, but I also think we're going to see companies innovate to survive."



To read the full article, click here.



To learn more about Rogge Dunn’s legal experience with employment matters, click here.



To contact Rogge Dunn Group, please click here.

### Rogge Dunn Interviewed on WFAA Regarding COVID-19 in the Workplace

WFAA interviewed employment lawyer Rogge Dunn about how businesses are handling the situation in which an employee tests positive for COVID-19 in the workplace. Because of the lack of a strict protocol and no obligation to publicly report positive cases, there is much uncertainty surrounding what measures business should take in response.




https://vimeo.com/432517552




Dunn, however, said reporting cases within a business is a good idea. "The question is how safe do you want to be," he said.



COVID-19 has put business owners in a tough position to decide whether or not to remain open. When an employee tests positive for the virus, this decision is even harder.  "They're balancing lost business versus getting sued for negligence," Dunn said.



Another factor to consider in this decision is that what businesses owners think is reasonable greatly varies depending on the person. Therefore, business owners must choose whether or not they want to take the chance in remaining open. 



For customers who are planning to continue visiting businesses, Dunn suggests that they read recent reviews and continue to check in on social media for updates. Ultimately, Dunn said "the best protection is yourself to be on guard and be on notice."



The best way to handle COVID-19 in the workplace is unclear. However, business owners must seriously consider the risks versus the benefits in how they respond to the virus.



To view the WFAA news segment and the accompanying article, click here.



To speak to the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### Aug. 20, 2020: Rogge Dunn to Speak in Live CLE Webcast on How To Manage and Resolve Complex Commercial Disputes

On August 20, 2020, Rogge Dunn will be speaking in a live CLE Webcast. The webcast is titled, "How to Manage and Resolve Complex Commercial Disputes: A Practical Guide."



In this LIVE CLE Webcast, Rogge Dunn and other seasoned thought leaders and professionals will provide and present an in-depth analysis of the fundamentals as well as recent developments in How to Manage and Resolve Complex Commercial Disputes: A Practical Guide. Speakers will also present on important issues surrounding this significant topic.



Some of the major topics that will be covered in this course are:



Complex Commercial Disputes - Recent Trends and DevelopmentsRecent Notable CasesCurrent and Emerging IssuesBest PracticesOutlook



Join us for this CLE webinar by clicking the link below:



https://www.theknowledgegroup.org/webcasts/manage-and-resolve-complex-commercial-disputes/



The Knowledge Group provides best-in-class continuing education programs for lawyers, accountants, and various professionals and industries. In addition, the organization offers professional credits for CLE (Continuing Legal Education).



Rogge Dunn is a seasoned business lawyer and represents clients in a wide variety of complex business matters, including non-competes, change-in-control, partnership disputes, breach of contract, business torts, and more.



For more information on Rogge Dunn's legal experience, click here.



The business lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group represent a wide range of clients, including c-level executives, entrepreneurs, and private and public companies. Because of this, companies around the world trust the Firm's expertise and resources to resolve all types of business disputes.



To learn more about Rogge Dunn Group's business lawyers and their expertise resolving complex business disputes, click here.



Lastly, to contact Rogge Dunn or the Firm, click here.

### Big Changes for Title IX: New Title IX Requirements

In May the U.S. Department of Education announced major changes to how colleges are required to handle Title IX sexual assault and sexual harassment complaints. Generally, the new Title IX requirements provide more protection for to the due-process rights of the accused student or employee. According to U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, “[t]his new regulation requires schools to act in meaningful ways to support survivors of sexual misconduct, without sacrificing important safeguards to ensure a fair and transparent process."



What is Title IX?



Title IX, a federal civil rights law, passed as part of broader education legislation in 1972. Essentially, the law prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions that receive Federal funding (the vast majority of schools). It states that:



“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”



Under Title IX, schools are legally required to respond and remedy hostile educational environments. The failure to do so is a violation that means a school could risk losing its Federal funding.



Notable New Title IX Requirements



Experts believe the most significant changes are that colleges must hold live hearings and allow cross-examination when adjudicating sexual-misconduct complaints. Other notable Title IX changes include: 



Colleges can decide whether to use a “preponderance-of-evidence” or “clear and convincing” standard burden of proof that a violation occurred.  Previously institutions had to use a preponderance-of-evidence standard, which is a lower standard and therefore easier to meet.Colleges do not have to designate most employees as “mandatory reporters.”Colleges can no longer use the common single-investigator model, in which an investigator writes a report and recommends a finding, but no hearing takes place. The definition of harassment also explicitly covers domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. Colleges must investigate off-campus sexual misconduct that occurs in educational activities. Such activities include college-owned buildings and college-sponsored trips, but not in off-campus apartments or during study abroad.



Survivor Advocacy Groups Prepare to Challenge the Changes



Policy change inherently highlights the divide between groups on each side of an issue. These new requirements are no exception. While those supportive of the changes argue they create a more transparent and fair process for all students, student survivor advocacy groups fear it will only serve to deter sexual assault victims from reporting offenses. At least one advocacy group is planning to challenge the legality of the new Title IX rule. But as of now the new rules go into effect on August 14, 2020.



Questions?



One thing almost everyone agrees on is that the new Title IX rules make it much more likely parties involved in a related investigation will need legal advice to navigate the process. Sports and entertainment law firm Rogge Dunn Group has lawyers experienced with Title IX investigations and the changes the new rules bring.  If you have questions or would like more information, contact us here.

### Fired for Following the Law? Wrongful Termination Cases During COVID-19

April brought a surge in wrongful termination employment lawsuits related to COVID-19. The lawsuits spanned the country and ranged from claims of retaliation for raising COVID-19 safety issues to termination during a mandated 14-day quarantine. However, central to almost every case is the obligation of an employee to follow government/local ordinances versus an employer’s right to terminate an employee.



What is Wrongful Termination?



Most employees are at-will. This means they have no employment contract and can be fired at any time for any lawful reason (or no reason at all). Generally, wrongful termination is the firing of an employee for an unlawful reason, such as discrimination or retaliation. In addition, employees with an employment contract, and even some at-will employees, may have an argument that a written or implied promise provided that an employer could only fire them for good cause. Finally, in some circumstances, the employer may be prevented from firing an employee without cause because it violates a well-established public policy.



COVID-19 Wrongful Termination Case Examples



A common thread through many of the recently filed lawsuits is public policy concerns. Here are a few examples of such lawsuits:



Reggio v. Tekin & Associates, LLC (Texas)



Employee sued for wrongful termination in violation of the public policy of the State of Texas. Plaintiff, who lives in Dallas County but works in Collin County, alleges she was terminated after she refused to violate a Dallas County shelter-in-place order. This order made it unlawful for her to travel to work in another county.



Michael Manwell v. Rochester Gear, Inc. (Michigan)



Employee sued for wrongful termination where he was allegedly sent home after demonstrating potential COVID-19 symptoms. Plaintiff alleges defendant (employer) violated the FMLA and public policy.



Chapman v. Alaris Health, LLC (New Jersey)



Employee, a nurses’ assistant, sued for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and in violation of state whistleblower law. Plaintiff alleges that despite testing positive for COVID-19, defendant terminated her for not returning to work.



These examples are just a handful of several dozen similar cases filed between March and April. Moreover, many expect COVID-19 wrongful termination lawsuits to continue to increase in the coming months as employers and employees face confusion over re-opening guidelines, continuing state and local ordinances, and the various resulting economic challenges.



Questions About Wrongful Termination?



The employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group have experience and expertise in handling wrongful termination issues. Indeed, three of the Firm’s employment lawyers are Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. For more information, contact us here.

### COVID-19 Employment Rights: Dallas Business Journal Q&A with Rogge Dunn

In a recent Dallas Business Journal article, Rogge Dunn answers common questions about COVID-19 employment rights. He also examines possible situations employers and employees may face as businesses open back up in the state of Texas. Below, read the questions posed in the article, along with shortened versions of Dunn's answers. To view Dunn's full insight into these questions regarding COVID-19 employment rights, visit the Dallas Business Journal website here.







COVID-19 Employment Rights Q&A



Question: What happens if individuals on unemployment benefits do not search actively, refuse a job, or decide not to go back to work if the employer's business reopens?



Dunn: Generally, an employee becomes automatically ineligible for unemployment benefits if they are offered a job and turn it down without good cause.



Question: What rights does an employee have if they feel a business is not providing the proper protective equipment or they feel working conditions are unsafe?



Dunn: The safest approach would mean employees band together as a large group and ask the employer to fix the safety concerns.



Question: What if I have an employee who has an underlying health condition and the business reopens? Does the employee have to go back if they do not feel safe?



Dunn: More than likely, an employee who does not fall into a category covered by the CARES Act for family or medical leave or fall into one of the TWC categories for unemployment benefits will likely have to return to work. An employee with serious concerns should reach out to his or her employer to determine alternative options.



Question: What options does an employee have if childcare is not available and they are called back to work?



Dunn: An employee may still be eligible for FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) leave through December 2020 that is related to childcare needs created by the COVID-19 pandemic.







To learn more about Rogge Dunn's legal experience with employment matters, click here.



The employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group represent clients in all areas of employment litigation. Click here to learn more about the Firm's expertise in employment law.



To view more of Dunn's COVID-19 related media appearances, click here.

### Blue Angels Fly By Our Office Patio

The Navy's Blue Angels honored the first responders of the COVID-19 crisis during a scheduled flyover in Dallas and Fort Worth on May 6th, 2020. The jets looped around downtown Dallas, giving us a great view of the tribute from our office's outdoor patio in Ross Tower. Take a look at the video and pictures below!



Watch: Downtown Dallas Blue Angels Flyover



View from Rogge Dunn Group Office Patio




https://vimeo.com/415644037

### Recent Developments in Non-Compete Laws

Non-compete laws serve the purpose of protecting confidential information and preventing unfair competition. In a non-compete clause or covenant not to compete, an employee agrees that at the end of his or her employment they will not work for or start a similar business in competition with their former employer. The restrictive nature of non-compete agreements have long been debated. In fact, most states have geographic, time, and reasonableness limitations on what constitutes an enforceable covenant not to compete.



The Impact of Newly Enacted Non-Compete Laws



Effective January 1, 2020, several states have passed new legislation affecting the enforceability of non-compete agreements. Experienced business lawyers can guide employers and employees though the various state laws and offer advice on the impact of newly enacted non-compete laws.



No Non-Compete Clauses for Lower Wage Employees



Many states recently passed legislation limiting non-compete clauses for lower wage-earning employees. Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Washington became the most recent states to pass such legislation. While each law varies slightly, the concept is the same: Lower wage-earning employees are not receiving enough of a financial benefit from their employer to justify restricting their ability to change employers within a similar industry.



As with any new legislation, interpretation of intent and scope is left primarily with the courts. For example, labor and employment lawyers analyzing Washington’s statutory language suggest that courts may void agreements entered into prior to January 1, 2020 by retroactive application of the statute. Employers and employees will have to wait and see how courts apply the new non-compete laws throughout the coming months.



Agreement Provided at Termination



Other newly passed legislation includes Oregon’s new requirement regarding non-competes. Employers must provide employees with a signed, written copy of his or her non-competition agreement within 30 days of termination. Failure to properly provide the agreement will render the agreement voidable and unenforceable in the state of Oregon. Without a doubt, employers want terminated employees to abide by the terms of their non-compete agreement. Therefore, they will usually provide a copy upon request. The shift in Oregon law puts an active burden on the employer with sweeping consequences.   



Labor and Employment Lawyers Can Help With Claims Regarding Non-Compete Laws



Employment lawyers, like the ones at Rogge Dunn Group, understand new legislation and its impact on employers and employees alike. The employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group are able to draft covenants not to compete to protect our clients’ trade secrets and other intellectual property. When claims arise concerning violation of a covenant not to compete, Rogge Dunn Group lawyers can quickly investigate the facts, evaluate options, and take the necessary actions. Moreover, our negotiated solutions allow our clients to accomplish their business objectives and avoid the courtroom. Some disputes, however, must be litigated. Our attorneys regularly obtain and defend against temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions regarding non-compete agreements.

### Rogge Dunn Interviewed on KHOU 11 Regarding the Requirements for Unemployment Benefits

KHOU 11 interviewed employment lawyer Rogge Dunn about the requirements for unemployment benefits as outlined by the Texas Workforce Commission. 



The news segment aired in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic as Texas businesses prepare to reopen on May 1 following a period of shelter-in-place orders. This brings forth a dilemma for many Texas residents: do they get back to work or stay on unemployment benefits? Moreover, if people want ongoing eligibility, they must continue to meet all of the requirements for unemployment benefits.




https://vimeo.com/413664645




During the KHOU 11 news segment, Dunn emphasized that unemployment benefits are a safety net and nothing more. “You don’t want somebody who is simply not going to work and not trying to find work and the taxpayers, in essence, the employers and the taxpayers, are funding them to sit at home and twiddle their thumbs,” Dunn said.



Requirements for Unemployment Benefits



According to the Texas Workforce Commission, a person is eligible for unemployment benefits if they are totally or partially unemployed and meet all of the requirements below:



Request payment for weeks of unemploymentBe capable, physically and mentally, to workBe available for a full-time jobParticipate in required reemployment activitiesRespond to TWC or Workforce Solutions office requests



Work Search Requirements



In addition to the requirements above, a person must also meet all of the work search requirements below:



Register for work in your stateSearch for workDocument your search activitiesApply for–and accept–suitable full-time job offers



Rogge Dunn discussed these work search requirements and scenarios in which a person could lose their benefits. “You have to fill out a form and turn it in to the TWC to prove that you are making an active job search,” Dunn said. “If you don’t make an active job search or you get offered a job and you turn it down, then your unemployment benefits stop.”



Dunn stated that this requirement also applies to accepting jobs from your previous employers. He gave an example: “If your exact same employer lays you off or furloughs you because of COVID and then asks you to come back and you’re getting unemployment benefits...if you don’t take that back the Texas workforce commission will cut off your unemployment benefits.”



However, according to Dunn, there are exceptions to the rule. Under OSHA rules, employees can refuse to work if it's a dangerous environment. Therefore, employees are not required to return to their old job "if, for example, they had an employer who didn't provide masks or had an unsafe environment."



To view the KHOU 11 news segment and accompanying article, click here.



To speak to the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Addresses Workers' Concerns on KPRC 2 News

As Texas businesses reopen amid the COVID-19 pandemic, some workers are concerned about their employment rights. Employment lawyer Rogge Dunn addressed workers' concerns during a KPRC 2 Houston news segment.




https://vimeo.com/413658525




Here are a few of Dunn's answers from the news segment:



What if I feel healthy, but don't want to go back to work? Do I have to?



Dunn: “If they are healthy and they don’t fit into one of the emergency family medical leave exceptions, they have to go back to work," Dunn said. "Having said that, OSHA laws require employers to provide a safe workplace and there are instances where employees have said the workplace is not safe, that there isn’t PPE and masks and therefore, it is an unsafe condition and I’m refusing to go to work and that obviously has some potential consequences.”



What if the business reopens but I don't have anyone to care for my child?



Dunn: “If you have a child that would have been in school or would have been in daycare and you are a parent taking care of them, the employer can’t force you to come into work."



What if I work in a business that doesn't provide the right protective equipment?



Dunn: "The OSHA law says that if the employer has an unsafe environment, you're supposed to let the employer know. If the employer will not make it safe, then you contact OSHA. And then, if there's not time to act, either through the employer or OSHA, you have the right to walk off the job and refuse to work. If the employer retaliates against you, then you have a legal claim and/or lawsuit."



What if I have an underlying health condition and the business that I work for opens back up? What are my rights?



Dunn: "If that health condition–in the context of the environment they're working–would put them in imminent harm of significant risk or death, then yes, they could walk off."







To view the full news segment and article, visit the KPRC 2 website here. 



To get in touch with the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### Star Local Media Interviews Rogge Dunn on Client's Coronavirus-Related Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

Star Local Media recently published an article covering the wrongful termination lawsuit against Tekin & Associates, a Frisco-based real estate investment and development firm. Former Tekin & Associates employee Amy Reggio filed the wrongful termination lawsuit. Reggio claims her former employer fired her after she said she would not come into work in an effort to comply with shelter-in-place orders. Rogge Dunn Group's Rogge Dunn is representing Reggio.



During an interview with Star Local Media, Rogge Dunn referenced the Dallas County shelter-in-place orders that prohibited anyone from leaving their home unless it's to go to an essential business. “Tekin & Associates is not an essential business,” Dunn said. “Her boss said you need to come to the office, and she said she is following the Dallas County order. So he fired her. Texas law says if an employer fires someone because of their refusal to do something illegal that’s wrongful discharge.”



Dunn said that, to his knowledge, this is the first coronavirus-related wrongful termination lawsuit in Texas. He also added that it's a groundbreaking case. “I can see others like this if someone is subject to the same thing,” Dunn said. “The takeaway is that employers better check before they fire someone when there is a shelter-in-place order,” he continued. “We’re in unchartered territory, and you can’t make decisions without knowing what the law says.”



To read the full article by Star Local Media, click here.



To contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### COVID-19 Employer and Employee Rights: Texas Lawyer Q&A With Rogge Dunn

Many essential employees required to work amid the COVID-19 crisis are concerned about the risks of contracting the virus. They're left with a dilemma: do they keep working as normal even if they feel that certain job tasks are unsafe? Or do they exercise their employee rights under OSHA and walk off the job? Further convoluting the situation is the fact that many employees are unsure of their options when it comes to legal employee rights.



In an article by Texas Lawyer, employment attorney Rogge Dunn answers questions in an effort to help both employees and employers understand their rights and risks as they pertain to COVID-19.



Here are a few of Dunn's key points in response to Texas Lawyer's questions. To read the full article, click here.



Texas Lawyer: Do government workers have the right to walk off their jobs if the working conditions are unsafe due to COVID-19?



Dunn: An OSHA regulation allows employees to refuse to work when serious danger exists that cannot be eliminated. However, employees have to meet four strict requirements in order to be granted workplace safety protections. Because of this, the courts have often ruled in favor of the employer. Government workers can possibly lose their license or face criminal charges if they walk off the job. Therefore, government workers need to proceed carefully. They must weigh the adverse consequences if they refuse to work due to COVID-19 safety concerns.



Texas Lawyer: What about workers in the private sector?



Dunn: The OSHA regulation protection mentioned above applies to public workers as well. However, public workers don't run the risk of losing their license or facing criminal charges if they refuse to work.



Texas Lawyer: Are there any times where no worker has the right to walk off their jobs?



Dunn: Although the OSHA regulation gives workers an absolute right to walk off their jobs, they could still face serious consequences for doing so.



Texas Lawyer: What are some things attorneys in the labor and employment practice area should be doing during the COVID-19 pandemic?



Dunn: They need to prepare employers for a multitude of legal issues and help them stay compliant with the numerous recently passed federal laws. Employers should seek legal advice to understand employee rights before they take any action against an employee. Attorneys representing employees should familiarize themselves with workplace laws, both new and long-standing, and protections available to employees.



Texas Lawyer: If you are an employer or a worker thinking about litigating, what kinds of questions should you be asking?



Dunn: Employers and employees should work together to find common sense resolutions. When issues arise, employees should approach their employer as a unified group. An employer must consider the risks, both from a legal and reputation standpoint, for firing or retaliating against employees who refuse to work.







Rogge Dunn is Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law. To learn more about Rogge Dunn's legal experience, click here. To get in touch with Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### Rogge Dunn on WFAA Regarding COVID-19 Employment Issues

WFAA interviewed Rogge Dunn on COVID-19 employment issues amid the COVID-19 outbreak.



Texas governor Greg Abbott spoke about plans to reopen stores across the state in the next few weeks. The WFAA news segment covered COVID-19 employment issues and employee rights as they pertain to life after the lockdown ends. Employment lawyer Rogge Dunn gave his insight:



"It's been a very interesting time," Dunn said. "The old way of doing business, given the pandemic, is just not going to work."



Under OSHA rules, employers can't force their employees to work if they're under imminent danger, but it's a tough standard to meet. "One of the things I'm a proponent of is having the employer talk to their employees," Dunn said. "Say, 'what do you think?'"



Even though it would be hard for employees to blame their jobs if they contracted the virus after returning to work, Dunn said that "employers would be smart to protect their employees and themselves."



Furthermore, Dunn says the best policy for everyone involved is to have discussions over the matter. "These are very difficult decisions to be made and I think they need to be made carefully," Dunn said.



View the full interview below:




https://vimeo.com/409653084#t=2s








To contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### COVID-19 Guidelines for Restaurants

COVID-19 continues to impact most business operations. While restaurants have largely been deemed essential businesses and allowed to stay open, they are subject to strict and rapidly changing regulations. Following social distancing recommendations and stay at home orders, almost every state has some limitations in place. For the most part, these limitations restrict restaurants to delivery or take-out orders only. States, counties and even cities may have specific COVID-19 guidelines for restaurants. For a list of resources and information by state click here.



FOLLOW LOCAL ANNOUNCEMENTS



Just like almost every aspect of life during the COVID-19 pandemic, guidelines and regulations for restaurants keep changing. Restaurant owners and their employees should closely follow local announcements regarding new regulations and modifications to existing regulations. Face mask requirements for non-healthcare individuals is a perfect example of a quickly-shifting regulations. Dallas County just announced a new regulation for people visiting or working in essential businesses and people riding public transportation. They must wear a cloth covering their face and nose or risk up to a $1,000 fine.



BEST PRACTICES FOR FOOD PICK-UP AND DELIVERY



In addition to following local regulations, restaurants should also be aware of the best practices for maintaining healthy food pick-up and delivery operations at their restaurants. The Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) shared its list of best practices on the topic. The list gives guidelines for operating retail food stores, restaurants, and associated pick-up and delivery services during the COVID-19 pandemic. For the safety of workers and consumers, these are some of the COVID-19 guidelines for restaurants outlined by the FDA:



Observe established food safety practices for time/temp control, preventing cross contamination, cleaning hands, sick workers, and storage of food, etc.Increase the frequency of cleaning and disinfecting of high-touch surfaces such as counter tops and touch pads. In delivery vehicles, wipe down surfaces using a regular household cleaning spray or wipe.Establish designated pick-up zones for customers to help maintain social distancing.



The FDA list is not comprehensive. Use it as guidance in conjunction with other resources, including recommendations from the Center for Disease Control.



CONTINUED RESTRICTIONS WHEN RESTAURANTS RE-OPEN



Opinions differ on when and how dine-in operations will restart. However,  it’s clear that it will not be anything like before the pandemic. For example, California’s Governor alluded to the fact the number of people allowed to eat in a restaurant at any given time will be reduced to provide for appropriate social distancing. In addition, servers and staff will almost definitely be wearing a face mask and gloves. Therefore, restaurants should make necessary preparations. We’ll have to wait and see how each city, county, and state regulates the re-opening of its restaurants. 



RESTAURANT LAWYER



Rogge Dunn Group handles all types of restaurant issues. The Firm represents single-unit operations to Fortune 1000 multi-concept restaurant concerns. Before becoming a restaurant lawyer, many of our Firm’s partners spent their pre-law years learning the restaurant business working as everything from servers to managers. We will continue to monitor COVID-19 related restaurant regulations and other legal issues unique to the restaurant industry. For more information, contact us here. 

### Rogge Dunn Weighs In On Kera News Radio Segment About Janitor Safety During COVID-19

Rogge Dunn was recently interviewed during a Kera News story regarding the concerns over janitor safety during COVID-19. Because janitors and cleaners are on the frontlines of the COVID-19 outbreak, advocates say their jobs are becoming increasingly dangerous. Risks include a lack of protective gear and little to no information about the situation.



Many employees are gearing up to address safety concerns to their employers. In addition, unions, employment attorneys, and business owners are speaking up about the risks janitors face every day at work.



During the interview, Dunn shared his insight on how employees should go about addressing concerns to their employers.



Dunn said employees should express their concerns as a group because "there's safety in numbers."



This reduces the risk of employers singling out an employee. "It's easy to fire or retaliate against one employee and make an example of them to send a shockwave message through the ranks," Dunn said. "But if 10 or 20 employees come forward with legitimate concerns over safety, quite literally the employer probably can't fire them all."



Read the full article about janitor safety during COVID-19 by visiting the Kera News website here.



To learn more about Rogge Dunn's legal experience, click here.



To speak to the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Interviewed on NBC DFW About Employment Issues at Denton Living Center with Dozens of Coronavirus Infections

Employment lawyer Rogge Dunn was interviewed by NBC DFW about the growing concerns inside a Denton State Supported Living Center. The center has the largest cluster of COVID-19 infections in the state of Texas: 50 residents and 25 employees are now infected.



Some healthcare workers at the living center are threatening to walk out due to safety concerns. Rogge Dunn gave insight on how employees should handle the situation. 



"If you all ban together and 80% of the workforce says we're not going in here unless we get protection here, odds are you're going to quickly engage in a conversation. We'll see if it's a win-win for you and your employer."



– Rogge Dunn




https://vimeo.com/403797419




To speak to the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, click here. 



To see the full article and video about the COVID-19 infections in the Denton, Texas Living Center, on NBC DFW's website, click here.

### Essential Business Employees: Rogge Dunn Gives Insight on KPRC NBC Houston Regarding COVID-19 Employment Laws

Rogge Dunn was recently interviewed during a KPRC NBS Houston news segment regarding essential business employees. During the interview, Dunn gave insight on the legality of essential businesses requiring their employees to come to work during the COVID-19 outbreak. Dunn said that essential business employees must have a legal basis for not coming into work.



"Unless you have a legal basis that allows you not to come to work, then you could be fired for insubordination and you probably wouldn’t get an unemployment insurance because they would argue its misconduct."



– Rogge Dunn, Employment Lawyer at Rogge Dunn Group




https://vimeo.com/402278765




To view the full article on Click2Houston's website, click here.



To contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.



For more information on seasoned employment attorney Rogge Dunn, click here.

### What Employers and Employees Should Know About the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

On March 19, 2020, President Trump signed H.R. 6201, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. The Act contains some important provisions affecting the Family Medical Leave Act, paid sick leave, and tax credits for employers who pay sick leave. Its provisions are effective no later than April 3, 2020.







FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT CHANGES



An employee who is unable
to work because that employee’s son or daughter’s school or place of care has
closed due to a COVID-19 related public health emergency is eligible for Family
Medical leave, even if the employee has been employed by the employer for as
little as thirty days prior to requesting the leave. Employees who become ill
with the COVID-19 virus would remain eligible under the “serious health
condition” section of the existing Family Medical Leave Act.



An employee who is
eligible for a “qualifying need related to a public health emergency” as
described above is not entitled to paid leave for the first ten days but may
use accrued leave as a substitute for the unpaid leave provided under the Act.
The Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act, discussed below, provides for paid sick
leave for the first ten-day period.



After the first ten days,
the employer is required to provide paid leave at an amount not less than 2/3
of the employee’s regular rate of pay up to a maximum of $200 per day and
$10,000 in the aggregate. 



EMERGENCY PAID SICK LEAVE ACT



The Families First Coronavirus Response Act also affects paid sick leave. Employers are now required to provide paid sick time to employees who are unable to work for the following reasons:



(1) The employee is subject to a Federal, State, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19.



(2) The employee has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19.



(3) The employee is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis.



(4) The employee is caring for an individual who is subject to an order as described in subparagraph (1) or has been advised as described in paragraph (2).



(5) The employee is caring for a son or daughter of such employee if the school or place of care of the son or daughter has been closed, or the child care provider of such son or daughter is unavailable, due to COVID-19 precautions.



(6) The employee is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor.



Full-time employees are
eligible for a total of 80 hours of paid sick leave. Part-time employees are
entitled to pay for the average number of hours that employee works over a
2-week period.



Paid sick time for an
employee taking leave under categories (1) – (3) above is limited to a maximum
of $511 per day and $5,110 in the aggregate. Paid sick time for an employee
taking leave under categories (4) – (6) above is limited to a maximum of $200
per day and $2,000 in the aggregate.



TAX CREDITS FOR PAID SICK AND PAID FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE



Employers who pay qualified sick leave wages as required by the act are entitled to a credit against the excise taxes on employee wages under Sections 3111(a) and 3221(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Credits are subject to the same $200 per day/$511 per day and $2,000/$5,110 aggregate limits as in the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act. 



An employer may also receive credit for the amount of qualified health plan expenses paid by the employer properly allocable to the qualified sick leave wages.  



Questions About Employee
and Employer Rights During the COVID-19 Pandemic



Rogge Dunn Group will continue to monitor legal developments related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. The employment lawyers at the Rogge Dunn Group have the experience needed to successfully prevent and/or resolve employment disputes. Moreover, three of the firm’s lawyers are Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. For more information, contact the Rogge Dunn Group here.

### Wells Fargo Settles Deferred Compensation Lawsuit For $79 Million

A former financial advisor (“FA”) brought a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo alleging the firm cheated him and other FA’s out of deferred compensation. In February 2014, FA Robert Berry left Wells Fargo to launch his own firm. His agreement with Wells Fargo contained a forfeiture clause. The clause allowed the firm to reclaim deferred compensation from FA’s who joined another firm within three years of leaving Wells Fargo. This lawsuit followed soon thereafter.



Allegations of ERISA Violations



Berry alleged that the Wells Fargo forfeiture clause violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). ERISA governs vesting and non-forfeiture requirements on pension benefit plans. In his complaint, Berry argued that “because the forfeiture clause is unenforceable under ERISA, plaintiff is entitled to his deferred compensation…”



Subsequently, Wells Fargo countered repeatedly ERISA does not cover their compensation plan.



Settlement in the Best Interest of Wells Fargo



The $79 million settlement marks the end of the three-year litigation. Wells Fargo maintains that the ERISA does not cover its plan. It also says it has no plans to make substantive changes to how it handles deferred compensation. After the settlement, a company spokesperson re-iterated Wells Fargo’s position in this regard. However, Wells Fargo stated that “resolving this matter is in the best interest of the company.” The settlement is pending court approval.



Financial Advisor Lawyers Weigh In



Some financial advisor lawyers and industry experts believe Wells Fargo settled partly in order to distance itself from bad press. In previous years, the company suffered from bad press related to consumer banking issues.  Others believe that Wells Fargo recognized it was getting a good deal with the $79 million figure. After attorneys’ fees and distribution among as many as 1400 FA’s, each individual FA is projected to get much less than their forfeited compensation amount.   



Questions about Financial Advisor Deferred Compensation



Rogge Dunn Group handles a variety of matters across the U.S. in the financial industry space. For example, we have taken on and defeated the big firms like Goldman Sachs, Citi, BBVA, Morgan Stanley and UBS.



We transition teams to new firms, handle TROs, fight off non-competes and non-solicits, ensure the following of broker recruiting protocol (for signatories), and defend against promissory note enforcement. In addition, our FINRA arbitration attorneys also help financial advisors, branch managers, RIAs and financial executives. We handle severance, regulatory issues, letters of education and FINRA investigations. For more information, contact us here.

### Rogge Dunn Speaks on NBC DFW About Employment Matters Amid Coronavirus Pandemic

Rogge Dunn joined news anchor Meredith Land on NBC DFW's social media for a live stream to discuss coronavirus employment laws and other employment concerns amid the coronavirus pandemic.








https://vimeo.com/397178837








Questions answered in the video:



For employees, what do we need to know? What are our rights?



Rogge Dunn: one right you have is if you become ill, or a family member becomes ill, you have the right – under the Family Medical Leave Act, a federal law – to go home and take that FMLA leave.



If an employer tells you to go home, does the employer have to pay you?



Rogge Dunn: if the employer sends you home and you're an hourly worker, it should pay you. The flip-side is that if you're an hourly worker and you're sick and you go home, and the employer does not have paid FMLA leave, then they don't have to pay you.



With so many schools starting to cancel class, what do parents do who have to work? Can they take FMLA or still earn money?



Rogge Dunn: unfortunately, the answer is no. Because the FMLA only applies if you are sick or a loved one is. Even if the school sends kids home, the employer does not have to pay you if you stay home too.



Will any sick leave pay increase company insurance premiums?



Rogge Dunn: the answer is yes. If you have more claims, and you're paying out for coronavirus claims, there's a metric that insurance companies look at called The Loss History. Also, the more losses you have relative to the premiums you pay, the insurance companies increase the premium.



What is the biggest concern with coronavirus?



Rogge Dunn: I think FDR said it best. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. If you get consumed by that, you can make emotional or snap decisions that aren't smart economically or for your personal life.















To view the full video on NBC DFW's Facebook page, click here. In addition, for more information on coronavirus employment laws or to speak to the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### Top Employment Law Trends to Watch in 2020 - Insight From an Employment Attorney

From the coronavirus outbreak to a Supreme Court decision on discrimination, 2020 will be another big year for employment law. Here's insight from an employment attorney on a few employment trends to watch for in 2020.



Coronavirus (COVID-19) Challenges to Employee Leave and Workplace Safety Issues



With many experts expecting the spread of coronavirus to continue, employers will likely have to address leave and workplace safety issues on a new level. For example, many are predicting that employees will be directed to stay home because of their own illness, a relative’s illness, concerns they might become ill, or school closings. An employment attorney can advise employers if state or local paid-sick-leave laws cover such situations. Additionally, companies will be well-served to contact an employment attorney to review or draft communicable disease policies and procedures.



Is Sexual Orientation or Transgender Status a Protected Category?



In October 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in three cases related to whether sexual orientation or transgender status fall within Title VII’s ban on sex-based discrimination. The Second Circuit and Eleventh Circuit reached opposite conclusions on the issue.  In addition, the Supreme Court justices appeared divided at oral arguments, making it difficult to predict the ultimate outcome. Whatever the outcome, employment lawyers expect the decisions to have a significant impact on discrimination law.  Look for the opinions in June.  



Continued Pressure to End Mandatory Arbitration 



Recently, Wells Fargo joined a growing number of employers, like Google and Facebook, ending mandatory arbitration of workplace sexual harassment claims. Wells Fargo admitted it reviewed its policies due in large part to external pressure from an investor group. Similarly, Google expanded its ban to include all mandatory arbitration due to continued pressure from its employees. Some states have also passed laws to end mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment claims. Employment attorneys expect to see how challenges to those laws play out in 2020. 



Rogge Dunn Group will continue to monitor emerging employment trends throughout the year. The labor and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group have the experience needed to successfully prevent and/or resolve employment disputes. Moreover, three of the firm’s lawyers are Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. For more information, contact Rogge Dunn Group here.

### D Magazine Publishes Article Written by Rogge Dunn on Creating an Appropriate Work Environment in the #MeToo Era

D Magazine recently published an article written by Rogge Dunn about how employers and employees can create an appropriate work environment amid the widely-known #MeToo movement.







To view the article on D Magazine's website, click here.



To view the article as a PDF, click here.



Key takeaways listed in the article include:



Speak up calmly but firmly, and communicate concerns when you see inappropriate behavior.As your mom warned you: if you can't say anything nice about someone, don't say anything at all.Remember, if you have to ask yourself, should I say or do something – don't do it! Listen to that little voice in the back of your head raising a concern.



Rogge Dunn is an experienced employment litigation attorney and is Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Dunn helps employees pursue claims and assists employers defending claims. His experience with both sides of employment-related cases gives him critical insight into how the other side thinks. Furthermore, Dunn counsels clients on preventative measures and offers practical advice aimed at reducing the chance of lawsuits.



For more information on work environment issues or other employment matters, click here. In addition, if you'd like to contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### The Role of the Business Judgment Rule in Shareholder Disputes

What is the Business Judgment Rule?



Corporate directors owe fiduciary duties to the corporation. The Business Judgment Rule (BJR) is the legal presumption that corporate directors using their business judgment have acted, or are acting, within their fiduciary duties unless there is evidence of fraud, bad faith, or gross disregard of their responsibilities. The concept is based on the principle that directors of a corporation are motivated in their conduct by a bona fide regard for the interests of the corporation. In other words, the BJR assumes that directors are trying to do the right thing for the corporation. 







State Laws Concerning the Business Judgement Rule



Most states have some version of the BJR for evaluating director decisions. Given that Delaware is home to most major U.S. corporations, a number of states follow Delaware precedent. It serves as a good framework for BJR inquiries but does not necessarily reflect the law in every state. 







Practical Application of the BJR



If a filed lawsuit relates to a shareholder dispute involving director decisions, the BJR often functions as a “front end” legal protection. This is routinely used to ask for an early dismissal of director defendants. Since the presumption is that the directors acted in good faith, plaintiffs bear the burden of rebutting the presumption in order to survive a motion to dismiss. Although the underlying notion of the BJR presumes that directors are making decisions in the best interests of the company, that isn’t always the case (i.e. cases of self-dealing).







Shareholder Dispute Lawyers and BJR



To combat potential allegations that a director’s actions fall outside the scope of the BJR presumption, it is a good business practice to document business decisions. These documents should show that the director: 



(1) Acted in good faith, 



(2) On a fully informed basis, and 



(3) Can justify how he/she expects the ultimate outcome to be beneficial to the company. This is especially important when the short-term impact is not necessarily beneficial.



In the event of a filed lawsuit, a shareholder dispute lawyer can help determine which BJR analysis is applicable. This depends on the location of the business's incorporation. A shareholder dispute lawyer can also assess the actions of the director. Finally, this lawyer can evaluate whether they fall within the protections of the BJR.







Questions About a Shareholder Dispute?



Rogge Dunn Group has shareholder dispute lawyers familiar with the wide range of potential, and often complex, litigation. The Firm’s plaintiff clients include minority shareholders (both individuals and groups) and limited partners. Oftentimes, they assert claims based on minority shareholder oppression and breach of fiduciary duty against majority owners in control of corporate entities and partnerships. The Firm also represents and protects the rights of majority and controlling shareholders, corporate officers, directors, managers, and general partners against claims by those holding minority interests and other issues inherent in a “business divorce.”  



For more information, contact the Rogge Dunn Group here.

### How to Avoid and Resolve a Partnership Dispute

Business partnerships are like most relationships: they require time and effort to be successful. A partnership dispute can arise for any number of reasons. Common disputes include breach of a fiduciary duty, unclear or unfair division of responsibility and workloads, and conflict over distributions or the allocation of resources. 



Avoiding a Partnership Dispute



Clearly, partners want to avoid disruptions to business operations and other detrimental effects to the success of their business caused by partnership disputes. The easiest way to avoid or quickly resolve a partnership dispute is to be proactive.  From the outset of a partnership, set expectations and plan for future complications by working with a lawyer familiar with partnership litigation so that they can draft a partnership agreement to deal with such issues should they arise. 



The Importance of Having a Well-Written Partnership Agreement



Every partnership, whether a small business with family or a large multi-partner business can benefit from a well-written partnership agreement. An experienced lawyer who has handled partnership litigation can advise partners about general partnership issues. A lawyer can also advise on issues in specific partnership situations, despite best intentions at the start of the partnership. A partnership agreement should clearly define roles, ownership interests, debt and capital responsibilities, and an exit plan if necessary. For example, should a partner die or choose to leave the business, having a written plan already in place ensures buy-out terms and other details regarding withdrawal of a partnership interest are fair and equitable. It also removes the added headache and heartbreak of attempting to negotiate in the moment.



Resolving the Conflict



Unfortunately, partnership disputes can still arise even with the best of intentions and proper planning. In the event of a dispute, business lawyers with partnership litigation experience can guide partners through the steps to resolve the conflict. This first step is typically identifying any controlling or guiding documents, like a partnership agreement or other contracts. In addition, a lawyer can help work through alternative dispute resolution options or requirements like mediation or arbitration. A partnership agreement may explicitly require the resolution process where the agreement in silent or ambiguous. A partnership litigation attorney can advise on the best approach. Mediation is often preferred as the initial resolution route. It is less adversarial, allows for more cooperative solutions, and keeps the dispute private. 



Whatever resolution process or processes that the parties attempt, it is valuable to have a lawyer familiar with the process, partnership disputes, and the related documents to facilitate the best possible outcome. If you need legal help avoiding or resolving a partnership dispute, contact the business lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group today.

### Do I Need A Trade Secret Lawyer?

What is a trade secret and do I need a trade secret lawyer? If you find yourself looking for the answers to these or similar questions, the answer is most likely yes!



What Are Trade Secrets?



Trade secrets are a form of intellectual property. Trade secrets essentially include any business information or data that is kept secret or “confidential” by you or your company. If disclosed to others, this trade secret would give another company a competitive advantage. The confidential information or “secret sauce” could include something as simple as a secret family recipe that is used at a restaurant or in the manufacturing of food products. On the other hand, it could include the most complex business formulas, techniques, strategies, or processes. Although trade secrets have been around for a very long time, recent federal laws and a general shift in business concerns are creating an increased focus on trade secret protection and litigation of any unauthorized disclosure.



Protecting Trade Secrets



An experienced trade secret lawyer can assist in properly protecting trade secret information from unlawful disclosure. This could include drafting and advising on non-compete agreements, non-disclosure agreements, and non-solicitation agreements. All of these may include provisions designed to protect against unlawful disclosure of your company’s trade secret information to others. A trade secret lawyer can also advise on best practices to maintain the confidential nature of trade secret information. This reduces the risk of inadvertent disclosure. Among other things, this could include accurate identification of trade secrets, addressing security and monitoring of trade secret information, and employee training and policies with regard to trade secret protection.



How Can a Trade Secret Lawyer Help?



In the event someone has obtained your company’s trade secret information unlawfully, a trade secret lawyer can help. They will help you take the necessary steps to prevent further disclosure and/or seek recovery of damages to your company.  In the event of disclosure, time is often of the essence. A lawyer familiar with the process can initiate a lawsuit seeking to enjoin or restrict others, including your company’s former employees, from disclosing or using your company’s trade secret information. Additionally, quick assessment and advice regarding maintaining and/or searching for forensic evidence related to an unlawful disclosure can be essential for subsequent trade secret litigation. Ultimately, a trade secret lawyer can also seek to recover any damages you or your company has suffered from unauthorized use of your trade secrets.



Lastly, on the flip side, employees are increasingly more mobile and change jobs more frequently. And, it's often within the same industry and among competitors. In this environment, a company runs the risk of allegations of trade secret misappropriation. This is especially true if a new employee previously worked for a competitor. An experienced trade secret lawyer can evaluate allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets and rigorously defend your company should it develop into a lawsuit.



Rogge Dunn Group’s trade secret lawyers have extensive experience advising on trade secret protection issues and litigating trade secret disputes. To contact the business lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Group Honored as Elite Trial Lawyers Law Firm of the Year

The Dallas-based litigation law firm Rogge Dunn Group PC earned honors from the National Law Journal and The National Trial Lawyers (NTL). The firm earned the 2020 Elite Trial Lawyers Law Firm of the Year award for its gender discrimination cases. Moreover, NTL gave the awards to firms with innovative trial successes in various practice areas. The ceremony took place during the NTL Summit in Miami Beach, Florida.



Rogge Dunn Group was one of only three firms in the nation selected as finalists in the gender discrimination category. The firm won National Law Firm of the Year for enforcing gender discrimination laws for female executives and winning multimillion-dollar settlements for them in the energy, finance, and medical industries.



Furthermore, they pursued claims involving glass ceilings, denial of promotions, sexual harassment, and whistleblowing.



"Society and corporate boardrooms have come a long way in preventing gender discrimination. But, it still occurs in many companies and in the C-suites," said Rogge Dunn, founder of Rogge Dunn Group. "Protecting women's workplace rights is an important and a rewarding part of our legal work. This prestigious award acknowledges that our firm's work is helping ensure the rights and remedies for women who have suffered workplace discrimination."



Rogge Dunn Group has built a well-deserved reputation for aggressive litigation, outstanding results and attentive client service. Led by founding partner Rogge Dunn, the firm is well-known for successfully trying high-profile business and employment disputes. Certainly, this trial experience fosters innovative strategies to obtain effective settlements and minimize litigation risks for corporate and individual clients. Based in Dallas, the firm tries cases in state and federal courts in Texas and throughout the United States. Learn more about the firm at roggedunngroup.com.

### Do You Need A Financial Advisor Expungement Lawyer?

The Expungement Process



Whether you are new to the financial industry or a seasoned financial advisor, a negative mark or complaint on a regulatory report can have a detrimental impact on your career. With respect to customer complaints, a FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) regulated brokerage firm is required to report complaints without regard to the merits. This essentially allows potentially false information to become public record unless and until the financial advisor challenges the complaint. A financial advisor expungement lawyer is familiar with the expungement process. Hence, they know the necessary steps needed to remove an unjustified complaint from your record if the need arises. In order to contest an unwarranted mark or complaint, a financial advisor must file a petition for expungement with FINRA and attend an arbitration. 



FINRA's Expungement Guidelines



FINRA provides specific guidelines and procedures for its arbitrators regarding expungement. These procedures “ensure that expungement occurs only when the arbitrators find and document one of the narrow grounds.” This is specified in FINRA Rule 2080:




the claim, allegation or information is factually impossible or clearly erroneous;



the registered person was not involved in the alleged investment-related sales practice violation, forgery, theft, misappropriation, or conversion of funds; or



the claim, allegation, or information is false.




The Future of the Expungement Process



FINRA further cautions its arbitrators that expungement is to be an extraordinary remedy. Nevertheless, a financial advisor expungement lawyer experienced in assessing the record(s) at hand can help determine the likelihood of success on a petition for expungement. If the record is expunged, it is permanently deleted. It is no longer available to the investing public, regulators, or prospective employers.



Looking forward, FINRA has proposed plans to change the expungement process. One such change is to only use arbitrators with enhanced training and experience to hear expungement arbitrations. FINRA also proposed changing the timeframe a financial advisor can seek expungement, and requiring unanimous consent to grant expungement. FINRA released the proposed changes in 2017. They will likely undergo at least some changes before formal submission to the SEC. Whatever the future holds, an experienced financial advisor expungement lawyer is familiar with FINRA rules and regulations regarding expungement and can advise a financial advisor throughout the process.



Rogge Dunn Group's FINRA arbitration attorneys have extensive experience handling expungement arbitrations. The lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group have represented more than a dozen of Barron’s national top 100 financial advisors. To contact an attorney at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### The EEOC Process and Determining When to Contact an EEOC Lawyer

What exactly is the EEOC?



The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws that prohibit discrimination. The laws apply to job applicants and employees alike. Discrimination can be based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic information. Such laws also protect people who complain about discrimination, file a charge of discrimination, or participate in investigations or lawsuits. An EEOC lawyer can often help a client navigate the ever-changing EEOC process.



When does the EEOC get involved?



Most federal discrimination laws require an applicant or employee to file a charge with the EEOC before filing a lawsuit. Once a charge is filed, the employer is notified within 10 days and an EEOC investigation into the claim begins.  The investigation may include a request for a statement of the employer’s position regarding the charge, a request for additional information from the company including contact information for other employees as potential witnesses, or even an on-site visit.



What happens after an EEOC investigation?



Upon the completion of its investigation, the EEOC makes a determination regarding the claim. If it finds no reasonable evidence to support the charge, the employee receives a Dismissal and Notice of Rights. This indicates that the EEOC will not pursue the charge but that the employee still has a right to file a lawsuit in federal court. On the other hand, if the EEOC finds reasonable support for the charge, it issues a Letter of Determination. This invites the parties to participate in an informal resolution process. If a charge is not resolved informally, the EEOC can choose to litigate the claim or issue a Notice of Right to Sue. This notifies the employee that he or she can file a lawsuit in federal court.



When does an employer need an EEOC lawyer?



An employer clearly benefits from having an EEOC lawyer throughout the charge investigation process, but an experienced EEOC lawyer can also provide invaluable advice before any EEOC involvement. For example, an EEOC lawyer can advise the employer on policies and procedures regarding hiring, accommodating or terminating employees to ensure compliance with federal discrimination laws. Additionally, the lawyer can provide guidance and training to employers on proper implementation of such policies and procedures. An EEOC lawyer can also help analyze specific situations and scenarios to advise employers of possible discrimination concerns. 



When does an employee need an EEOC lawyer?



An employee can also benefit from hiring an experienced EEOC lawyer both before and after an EEOC charge is filed. As noted above, most federal discrimination claims must go through the EEOC. But, before filing a charge, an EEOC lawyer can evaluate potential state and federal claim. This helps to determine the best route given the employee’s specific issue. In addition, if an EEOC charge is the best course of action, an EEOC lawyer can assist in drafting the charge and can represent the employee during the EEOC investigation. After the completion of an EEOC investigation, an EEOC lawyer can  advise the employee during the informal resolution process and prepare and file the lawsuit if a resolution is not reached.



Rogge Dunn Group's employment lawyers have extensive experience working with both employers and employees through all aspects of the EEOC process. For more information contact us here.

### National Law Journal Names Rogge Dunn Group as Finalist for Five 2020 “Elite Trial Lawyers” Awards

Rogge Dunn Group is honored to announce that the firm has been named a finalist in five categories by the National Law Journal for the 2020 Elite Trial Lawyers Awards.



Rogge Dunn Group is a finalist for Law Firm of the Year in the areas of Business Torts Law, Employment Rights Law, Financial Products Law, Gender Discrimination Law, and Sports Entertainment Media Law. The National Law Journal recognized the firm’s “cutting-edge work on behalf of plaintiffs over the last 15 months,” in addition to a “solid track record of client wins over the past three to five years.”



Editors and reporters from the National Law Journal, ALM Media, and Law.com reviewed more than 300 submissions across over 20 categories to select the winners and finalists for the 2020 Elite Trial Lawyer awards.



The 2020 ETL awards ceremony will be held during the National Trial Lawyers Summit taking place January 20-22, 2020 at Loews Miami Beach Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida.  The winners of each category will be announced at the 2020 Elite Trial Lawyers awards ceremony on January 20, 2020.



Rogge Dunn Group would like to thank the National Trial Lawyers and ALM Media for this recognition.



Edit: The firm earned the 2020 Elite Trial Lawyers Law Firm of the Year award for its gender discrimination cases.

### Using A FINRA Attorney to Smoothly Part Ways Within the Financial Industry

Using U-5 Forms As a Weapon



Parting ways is never easy, but in the financial industry it brings along an added layer of difficulty. When a financial advisor leaves a firm, for any reason, the U-5 must be submitted within 30-days of the departure. A FINRA attorney will warn advisors that firms may mark a U-5 form in a misleading manner for a number of reasons. But, the resulting defamation or disparagement is a serious violation of the FINRA rules. Using a U-5 as a weapon is actionable and can carry severe sanctions. For example, in Ulrich v. Wharton Whitaker and Eaton Vance Distributors, a NASD arbitration, a financial advisor/broker was awarded $625,000 in actual damages. Plus, he was awarded $1,250,000 in punitive damages and attorneys' fees because his U-4 and U-5 were improperly marked with defamatory statements. 



Examples of Condemnations



There are other condemnations of using a U-5 form as a weapon to defame or disparage a departing financial advisor. Recently, a FINRA arbitration panel ordered UBS Financial to pay more than $11 million to a market operations supervisor. The FA alleged defamation on his U-5 form. UBS fired Mark Munizzi, the market operations supervisor, in April 2018. He claimed that UBS’ U-5 description of his termination was defamatory and kept him from finding another job in the financial industry. The FINRA arbitration panel agreed. In addition to the award, the panel ordered changing his U-5 to reflect his termination without cause. The award also included compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and interest on a portion of the damages as severance pay. 



The Aggressive Use of U-5 Forms



FINRA arbitrators are clearly taking issue with aggressive use of the U-5 form. Firms should caution those employees responsible for U-5 marking to complete the U-5 with accurate information and no other agenda. On the other hand, financial advisors should be proactive in trying to determine how a firm will mark their U-5. They should negotiate with the firm before the filing a U-5, should it appear a misleading mark. FINRA attorneys agree that it's easier to address inaccuracies before filing a U-5 than to undergo a lengthy expungement process.  In either event, an experienced FINRA attorney can guide a financial advisor through the process. 



Rogge Dunn Group, an experienced FINRA arbitration attorney,  has extensive experience working with financial advisors across the country on an entire array of industry issues, including transitioning from prior firms. To contact us about legal issues surrounding the financial industry, click here.

### Private Equity Litigation Predicted to Increase in 2020

Why Has Private Equity Litigation Been Historically Uncommon?



Current trends in private equity point to an increase in private equity litigation in 2020. Historically, while disputes existed, litigation was infrequent for at least two reasons. First, General Partners (GPs) and Limited Partners (LPs) rely on their reputation in the industry to raise funds and commit capital respectively. Therefore, it has typically benefitted both GPs and LPs to resolve conflicts privately. And second, LPs, who often lack surplus resources, must cover their own legal expenses. Enter litigation funding, where investors raise funds to cover litigation expenses in exchange for a share of any recovery. 



The Recent Increase in Litigation Frequency



Litigation funding has evolved from its class action roots to more creative and extensive uses, including private equity litigation. Indeed, litigation funding has grown exponentially in the past decade. Most private equity (PE) experts point to this as a main factor in the likelihood of increased litigation in the PE arena in 2020 and beyond. In short, litigation funding is providing LPs with an additional source of capital to pursue claims. Moreover, although the current market is benefitting the industry, in the event of an economic downturn where investors start losing money, even LPs reluctant to litigate have a fiduciary duty to make claims against a GP where it is warranted.



Another factor pointing to a likely uptick in private equity litigation is the increased interest and involvement of regulators in the private equity industry. PE analysts identify conflicts of interest and valuations as areas that were traditionally addressed privately between the GPs and LPs. However, they are garnering more attention from regulators as private equity firms grow and diversify. This also adds a level of complexity in the management of funds and of the private equity firm itself. This increased complexity creates more chances for mistakes and additional tensions between GPs and LPs, which ultimately results in increased litigation. These factors, among others, suggest an increase in private equity litigation for the upcoming year. 



With increased litigation comes the need for an experienced litigator. Rogge Dunn Group has extensive experience in both financial and private equity industries. Connect with us here to learn more.

### Rogge Dunn Discusses Financial Advisor's End Game for Transitioning to "Newco"

Rogge Dunn, a seasoned attorney for financial advisors, was recently interviewed about his keynote speech at the AdvisorHub Summit. Weighing in on the challenges and avenues that should be taken during this process, Rogge points out just how important it is to make sure that when financial advisors transition to a new firm, it should always be done in the right way.



Transition the Right Way



When you and your team decide to transition from Oldco to Newco, do it in the correct way. This helps avoid any unnecessary conflicts and ensures that the transition will be beneficial to your clients. When asked what the first course of action should be, Rogge pointed out that you should first bring the “end game” into consideration. What is your team’s goal for your clients and how will this transition benefit them?  Rogge emphasized that “many folks focus just on the money right away, instead of looking if the new firm is a good fit for their clients." The transition from the Oldco to Newco should in no way be rushed. "If you know what your end game is, think about that, and then take the time to plan," says Rogge. “Don’t rush!”



Taking time to carefully consider your team’s plan of action and gather any necessary documents. In addition, gaining advice from experts in the field will enable you to ensure that the transition goes smoothly. Ensuring that you have access to sound legal counsel is vital. Make sure that you select a lawyer well versed in FINRA arbitration. 



Rogge Dunn has ample experience helping financial advisors transition to a new firm. Every year, Dunn aids approximately 10 teams during their transition to new firms. He helps protect relationships, reputations, and handles any disputes that may arise.



Watch Rogge Dunn's interview with Asset TV during the AdvisorHub Summit event to hear his full insight into how to make the transition smooth and why it matters.




https://vimeo.com/380263679

### Compliance Insight From a Lawyer for Financial Advisors

Compliance today, gone tomorrow. Today’s financial advisors face complex and ever-changing compliance issues. With the help of a lawyer for financial advisors, many compliance pitfalls are avoidable. Certainly change is inevitable, and in today’s world it can happen quickly. There are two main types of change that ultimately affect compliance within the financial industry. Firstly, external changes occur as societal expectations, norms, and technology evolve. Lastly, internal changes come from legislation and/or regulation frequently aimed at addressing an emerging external issue.  



External Change in the Financial Marketplace



One recent example of an external change is the digitalization of the financial marketplace. It introduced an entirely new component of compliance issues related to online activities like client communications, advertising, and social media.  For instance, anything a financial advisor does online that advertises or solicits prospective clients, whether in a blog, tweet, or Instagram post, is considered “advertising,” and may be subject to compliance review under FINRA.  This area, just like technology itself, is constantly evolving. As a result, it raises new compliance questions for financial advisors that may not always have a clear answer.



Internal Change in the Financial Marketplace



One new internal change is Regulation Best Interest (“Reg BI”), passed by the SEC in September 2019. Reg BI was designed to raise the broker-investment standard from suitability to best-interest. However, critics and even supporters of Reg BI acknowledge that the principles-based rule does not define “best-interest,” and leaves ambiguity in its enforcement.  Seven states and the District of Columbia have filed suit against the SEC in an effort to overturn Reg BI. These states argue that the SEC violated the Administrative Procedure Act. To sum up, while the general consensus is that the lawsuits will ultimately prove unsuccessful in overturning Reg BI, the short-term take away for a financial advisor (who operates as a broker) is that regardless of the lawsuits, FINRA expects enforcement of Reg BI to happen in July 2020.   



The Role of a Lawyer for Financial Advisors



Indeed, change is inevitable, but an experienced lawyer for financial advisors can help navigate compliance issues in fast-developing areas like technology and ambiguous areas of regulatory enforcement. 



The Rogge Dunn Group has extensive experience helping financial advisors across the U.S. with a variety of matters, including compliance and regulatory issues. To contact us about legal issues surrounding the financial industry, click here.

### D Magazine Publishes Article by Rogge Dunn on How to Avoid Company Liability at Holiday Parties

D Magazine published an article written by Rogge Dunn about how to prevent company liability at holiday parties.







These days, people can easily videotape using their cell phones. Because of this, most companies adhere to a zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual innuendos, boorish acts and out of control behavior at holiday parties. Indeed, failure to adopt such policies can open up the door to lawsuits against the company.



In the article, Dunn recommends adopting five policies that can lower the risk of legal trouble and company liability after holiday parties. Possible legal trouble includes sexual harassment and personal injury lawsuits. Those five policies are listed below:



Limit the Impact of Alcohol: eliminate a "free pour" environment and limit the number of drink tickets per employee.Prohibit the Use of Drugs: even in states where marijuana is legal, it's best to prohibit the use of drugs.Check Your Insurance: ensure company insurance covers on-site and off-site holiday parties.Manage Transportation: require employees to utilize Lyft, Uber, etc.Keep the Environment and Location Professional: the right location can promote professional behavior and reduce the risk of employees becoming inebriated.



Rogge Dunn is Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Furthermore, Dunn is an experienced employment litigation attorney and often counsels his clients on how to prevent problems before they occur and how to minimize litigation risks.



To view the full article published by D Magazine, click here. 



To contact the Rogge Dunn Group about employment law issues, click here.

### June 1, 2020: Rogge Dunn To Speak at FINRA Webinar Regarding FINRA Regulatory Notice 19-31

Notice: this webcast was originally scheduled for May 14, 2020. It has been rescheduled for June 1, 2020.



Rogge Dunn will be speaking in The Knowledge Group's live webinar regarding FINRA Regulatory Notice 19-31. The webinar, titled "FINRA Compliance Guide: Key Takeaways from Common Mistakes," will address regulatory notice and disclosure issues for advertisements and public communications. It will take place on Monday, June 1, 2020 from 3:00pm – 4:30pm (ET).



Dunn will be discussing the recent notice released by FINRA, Regulatory Notice 19-31, as well as critical issues and common pitfalls of the FINRA compliance guide.



The live webcast will discuss the following key provisions:



Regulatory Notice 19-31: An Overview



Other Trends and Developments



Common Risks and Pitfalls



Compliance Tools



Best Compliance Practices



For more information about the webinar, click here.



To learn more about Rogge Dunn's experience with significant matters in the financial industry, click here.

### Feb. 27, 2020: Rogge Dunn Group to Sponsor and Host Dallas Business Journal 40 Under 40 VIP Cocktail Reception

Rogge Dunn Group is proud to sponsor and host the Dallas Business Journal 40 under 40 VIP Cocktail Reception on February 27, 2020 honoring the top 40 North Texas men and women under the age of 40 who are making their mark in business and in the community.  The event will take place at the Firm's office.

### Dec. 13, 2019: Rogge Dunn To Speak at The Knowledge Group's Live Webcast, "FINRA Arbitration Hot Topics for 2020: Updates You Should Know."

Rogge Dunn on FINRA Trends: Don't Miss The Knowledge Group's Live Webcast on December 13



Rogge Dunn will speak at at The Knowledge Group's Live webcast on December 13, 2019 at 3:00pm ET. The webcast is titled, "FINRA Arbitration Hot Topics for 2020: Updates You Should Know."



Rogge Dunn handles significant matters in the financial industry, including regulatory issues, wrongful discharge, moving teams, OTRs, and non-competes. Dunn has twice set the largest wrongful discharge arbitration award against Goldman Sachs for FAs in California. Most recently, he obtained a $7.5 million award against Goldman Sachs in a FINRA arbitration in Los Angeles.



For the December 13 webcast, Dunn will join a seasoned panel of thought leaders and professionals brought together by The Knowledge Group to discuss FINRA trends, issues, and updates.



The Knowledge Group is the leading producer of regulatory focused webcasts. Their mission is to produce unbiased, objective, and educational live webinars that examine industry trends and regulatory changes from a variety of different perspectives.



The webcast will address FINRA trends and issues as well as recent developments and updates in FINRA arbitration. The webcast will present and analyze the following key topics:



FINRA Arbitration – Trends and UpdatesPublished NoticesNew Rules and Proposed Rule ChangesBest PracticesWhat Lies Ahead



Registration



Course fee: registration is FREE courtesy of Rogge Dunn Group, PC.



Can't attend? Register anyway and get the recording.



For more information, visit The Knowledge Group's website, call 1.800.578.4370 or email info@theknowledgegroup.org.

### Rogge Dunn Interviewed on WFAA About Texas Law for Workers' Compensation

Rogge Dunn was interviewed during a WFAA segment that covered the new Texas law that makes it easier for firefighters to file for workers' compensation and helps them pay for cancer treatment.



The new Texas Law on Workers' Compensation, called Senate Bill 2551, covers 11 cancers:





StomachColonRectumSkinProstateTestes





BrainNon-Hodgkin's LymphomaMultiple MyelomaMalignant MelanomaRenal Cell Carcinoma









Eligibility



In order to be eligible under SB 2551, a firefighter must meet five requirements. First, he/she must be diagnosed during employment. Second, he/she must be a firefighter for at least five years. Third, he/she must be free of cancer when they started the job. Fourth, he/she must respond regularly to fire, radiation or carcinogenic calls. Lastly, a firefighter must not smoke or be married to a smoker. If a firefighter meets all five requirements, he/she is eligible to file for workers' compensation benefits.



The Old Law vs The New Law



The newly enacted Senate Bill 2551 is a revision of a state law passed in 2005. The old law made it difficult for firefighters and EMTs to win workers' compensation claims. According to the Texas Department of Insurance, 168 firefighters and EMTs filed cancer claims from 2012–2018. Of those, 146 were denied.



"There are a number of differences between the old law and the new law. For example, before, there was a question about what types of cancers would be covered or not covered."  –Rogge Dunn



In short, Senate Bill 2551 contains many revisions to the old law that make it easier for firefighters diagnosed with cancer to receive the health benefits they need. One of the most notable revisions is that it clarifies the covered cancers. In addition, it establishes a more efficient procedure to file claims.



Watch a portion of the WFAA segment below, or view the full video and article here.




https://vimeo.com/375409127




To contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Group Hosts D CEO's Commercial Real Estate Networking Event

Rogge Dunn Group hosted D CEO's Commercial Real Estate Networking Event at their office on November 11, 2019.









"Top developers, brokers, and other industry execs joined us at one of the most interesting offices in Dallas."



– D CEO Article





The Firm welcomed some of the biggest names in North Texas commercial real estate for the exclusive event. Furthermore, the occasion was held in Rogge Dunn's eclectic art gallery. The gallery is located inside the Rogge Dunn Group office on the 19th floor of Ross Tower in downtown Dallas.









"Despite plunging temperatures, some of the biggest names in North Texas commercial real estate made their way to downtown Dallas on Nov. 19, for an industry networking event hosted by D CEO, in partnership with Rogge Dunn Group. Along with a one-of-a-kind balcony, the law firm’s space on the 19th floor of Ross Tower features an eclectic collection of art. We appreciate Rogge Dunn Group for hosting then event, and are also grateful to our premier sponsor, Downtown Dallas Inc. whose CEO Kourtny Garrett gave the crowd an update on real estate activity in the city."



– D CEO Article





The article published by D CEO recaps the event:



Read Article















D CEO Commercial Real Estate Networking Event: Photo Recap







































































Photography by Ryan O'Dawd

### Rogge Dunn Group Recognized by U.S. News - Best Lawyers® as a "Best Law Firm" of 2020

Rogge Dunn Group has received three rankings in Dallas/Fort Worth by U.S. News - Best Lawyers® "Best Law Firms" for 2020. Rogge Dunn Group was named a Tier 2 "Best Law Firm" for Employment Law - Management. The firm was also named a Tier 3 "Best Law Firm" for two practice areas: Commercial Litigation and Labor & Employment Litigation. 











According to U.S. News - Best Lawyers®, firms that received the recognition have demonstrated professional excellence with consistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. The 2020 rankings are the result of 7.8 million evaluations of over 110,000 individual leading lawyers from more than 15,000 firms.

### Rogge Dunn Interviewed on CBS This Morning Regarding Title IX Issues

Rogge Dunn appeared on CBS This Morning with client Patty Crawford, former Title IX Coordinator at Baylor University, to discuss the institution's violation of Title IX and surrounding issues.



"In a desperate attempt to smear Patty, what [Baylor University has] done is violated Texas law...We choose to follow the law, unlike Baylor University."



-Rogge Dunn on Baylor University and Title IX issues







Watch the CBS This Morning news segment below:




https://vimeo.com/270746124

### California Law Affects Student Athlete Compensation

California just passed a law significantly impacting student athlete compensation for college athletics and Title IX athletes.



The California law gives student-athletes the right to monetize their likeness with endorsements, YouTube videos and merchandising. In addition, they will be able to be paid for teaching at coaching clinics. 



The long runway of this new law, which does not take effect until January 1, 2023, gives other states time to pass similar laws.



The Impact on College Recruiting



This law will have a major impact on college recruiting as top recruits can accept scholarships at any California college (other than community colleges) and make significant endorsement monies. Yet, if athletes go to colleges in other states, they will not be paid such monies. Sports law attorneys predict other state legislatures will likely pass similar laws, so the schools in their states will not be at a recruiting disadvantage.



Athletes Gain More Rights



While many people have focused on the money that star athletes will make in the major sports, other athletes will benefit as well. For instance, female athletes and athletes in less glamorous sports such as equestrian and Olympic sports will also benefit.



Since student athletes currently do not receive any pay, this law is a big step forward. Even small endorsement deals and being paid for teaching at camps will likely benefit NCAA athletes competing in Olympic and other sports.



The NCAA has threatened to bar schools that allow these endorsements.  Most sports law attorneys doubt the NCAA has the leverage and power to follow through with its threat.



In any event, this sports law will likely spark the end of NCAA’s prohibition on student athlete compensation. For example, it ends the probation on making money off of their likeness and marketability. And, it’s the beginning of the end of universities’ monopoly on making money on college athletics. 



This development, along with the new transfer portal, proves the shift has begun. Athletes are gaining more rights over the NCAA and universities. 



Sports and entertainment law firm Rogge Dunn Group has extensive experience helping college and pro athletes. Our clients include professional and college athletes, an Olympic gold medalist, college and pro coaches and college administrators. Connect with us if you have questions on sports and entertainment issues. 

### Overtime Rule Updates - Will They Affect You?

The Department of Labor's September 24, 2019 new rule increased the minimum salary­ level threshold for employees who are exempt from overtime. Certainly, this is a significant change in employment law. Effective January 1, 2020, the salary-level threshold will increase from $455 a week to $684. In short, employees earning less than $35,500 per year will now receive mandatory overtime pay.



Additionally, the rule requires businesses to pay overtime wages to a larger group of employees who work more than 40 hours per week. DOL officials estimate that the new threshold will result in overtime pay to an additional 1.3 million employees. 



Moreover, the new rule increases the minimum annual exemption salary threshold for "highly compensated employees." 



Employers and employees alike should familiarize themselves with the new overtime rule and how it could affect them. 



Overtime Rule Summary



Raises the "standard salary level" from the currently enforced level of $455 to $684 per week;Raises the total annual compensation level for "highly compensated employees" from the currently-enforced level of $100,000 to $107,432 per year;Allows employers to use non-discretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) at least annually to satisfy up to 10% of the standard salary level; andRevises the special salary levels for workers in US territories. Similarly, it revises the salary levels for workers in the motion picture industry as well.



The full text of the 2020 Final Overtime Rule is available on the DOL website. 



The employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group has extensive experience prosecuting and defending against cases with overtime issues. Connect with us to discuss your obligations as an employer or rights as an employee.

### Office Tour: Go Inside Rogge Dunn's Space at Ross Tower

Dallas Business Journal wrote an article featuring Rogge Dunn Group's office space as well as Rogge Dunn's art gallery . Read the article below or click here to read it on Dallas Business Journal's website.











Office Tour - Rogge Dunn's Office at Ross Tower - Dallas Business JournalDownload



To view the photo gallery from Dallas Business Journal, click here.







Photo credit: bizjournals.com

### Rogge Dunn Quoted In D Magazine Article About FINRA’s Proposed Rule and the Resulting Obligations on Firms with a History of Misconduct

See below for an excerpt of the article.







To see the full article, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in AdvisorHub Article - "FINRA Suspends Ex-Wells Fargo Broker over Personal Email Use"

The article reads: 



The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has slapped a veteran independent broker in Virginia with a fine and suspension for using his personal email and computer to communicate with clients in violation of industry rules.



Raleigh Kraft, who is now with independent brokerage H. Beck Inc. in Front Royal, Virginia, agreed to a two-month suspension and $5,000 fine for violating Finra’s wide-ranging Rule 2010 requiring brokers and firms to maintain “high standards of commercial honor,” as well as Wells’ policies on client communication.



To see the full article, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in AdvisorHub Article Regarding Arbitration Claim Filed By His Client

AdvisorHub published an article covering an arbitration claim filed by a veteran broker against UBS Financial Services. The claim, filed by Peter de Castro, alleges UBS "failed to credit him" for revenue involving his separately managed accounts.



Rogge Dunn is representing Castro and gave a statement regarding the claim to AdvisorHub:



"Advisors cannot properly advise clients if they don't know where the fees are going."



Read the full article by AdvisorHub here.

### Rogge Dunn Group Receives The Finalist Award For 2018 Elite Trial Lawyers From The National Law Journal

Out of more than 300 law firm submissions, Rogge Dunn Group placed in the top five in the Business Torts Category for exemplary performance in cutting-edge work on behalf of plaintiffs.



© 2018 ALM Media Properties, LLC

### Fair Compensation for Female Executives: Insight from an Executive Compensation Attorney

The Toughest of Glass Ceilings



Take it from an executive compensation attorney – women's struggle for fairness in the workplace is not yet behind them. Especially for female c-level executives. Out of 500 S&P 500 companies, what is a reasonable percentage of those with a female CEO?  50%, 45%, 33 1/3%?  Currently, there are only 25 female CEOs of S&P 500 companies--a paltry 5%. Certainly, there are more than 25 female executives throughout the U.S. qualified to lead S&P 500 companies.  



Given women’s tremendous accomplishments around the world from being rulers of the economic juggernaut of Europe (Germany), the financial center of the world (Britain) and the world’s second most populated country (India), so many forget that in 2019 female executives in the U.S. face strong institutional barriers to fair executive compensation and the toughest of glass ceilings. 



Until recently, not all S&P 500 companies had at least one woman on its Board of Directors. In July of 2019, the last S&P 500 company without a woman on its Board of Directors (Copart) relented. They placed a female on the Board. 



Employment Laws Are Critical For Women's Rights



Any executive compensation attorney should be well aware of the challenges faced by women in the workplace. Commentators can say what they want, but evaluating the statistics in the “cold light of day” provides irrefutable proof that women’s struggle for equality in the workplace, and especially the Boardroom, is far from over. Employment laws are still a critical tool that women need to obtain executive compensation on par with their male counterparts.



Such gender discrimination and pay equality laws protect women’s rights and assist them in obtaining fair executive compensation. Companies who violate these laws are at risk for expensive lawsuits, paying substantial monetary damages and suffering significant injury to their reputation. Hopefully, these employment laws will soon lead to an even playing field for female executives throughout the U.S.



An Executive Compensation Attorney Can Help



If you need an executive compensation attorney, contact Rogge Dunn Group. Our seasoned executive contract lawyers have the expertise, the enthusiasm, and the business-oriented approach required to win cases and ensure fair compensation for female executives.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in SportsDay Article on the use of LLCs by College Football Coaches

Rogge Dunn was quoted in article by Dallas News SportsDay regarding the use of LLCs by college football coaches. 



Rogge Dunn, a Dallas-based attorney, said he once set up a similar company for a coach to operate summer camps. If something disastrous happened, the corporation was liable to get sued, not the coach himself. While an individual could lose millions or other assets in a civil cuit, a corporation generally doesn't have any assets to forfeit, even if a judge rules the camp or its affiliates were at fault."They just close down the corporation and start a new one two weeks later under a different name," Dunn said. "That's a huge difference."sportsday.dallasnews.com



See an excerpt of the article below.























To see the full article, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in AdvisorHub Article - Schwab Pursues Nebraska Broker Who Went Independent

The article reads: 



Charles Schwab & Co. has filed another lawsuit in an attempt to block a departing broker from contacting former clients.



The San Francisco-based discount brokerage pioneer, which has been moving into full-service advice, on Friday asked a federal court in Nebraska to issue a preliminary injunction against David Joseph Spiess.
The advisor had spent his entire 22-year brokerage career with Schwab before resigning on August 16 to start his own investment firm, according to a complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, Omaha Division.



Spiess, whose BrokerCheck record does not yet record his departure from Schwab, did not respond to requests for comment. The Schwab complaint does not name the business he reputedly is starting.



To see the full article, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Interviewed About Common Mistakes Made During the Transition From Oldco to Newco

Rogge Dunn was interviewed at the 2018 AdvisorHub Summit about common mistakes that financial teams make when transitioning from Oldco to Newco.



In the interview, Dunn states that the first mistake many teams make when transitioning to a new company is failing to do it in a professional manner. Dunn emphasized that despite the measures a team’s current company may or may not have in place, “the protocol [for leaving], whether they go from one protocol firm to another, you still need to leave the right way.”



It is also important for a team consider their plan of action for the transition. Additional copies of documents such as: an existing non-compete agreement, offer letter, any existing arbitration agreement, and the current contract should be gathered and reviewed prior to making the transition. The team should also ensure that each action is taken for the benefit of their clients.



For more insight on how teams can avoid common mistakes during firm transitions, view the video below.




https://vimeo.com/380361182




 Rogge Dunn has years of experience serving as a lawyer for financial advisors. If your team is looking for additional support during the transition period, you have come to the right law firm. Contact our firm today about a consultation concerning team transitioning.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in AdvisorHub Article on Credit Suisse Doubling Down on Broker Litigation

To see the full article, click here.

### D Magazine Publishes Article by Rogge Dunn Covering FINRA Regulations That Stress Firm Transparency

D Magazine published an article written by Rogge Dunn covering FINRA's recent regulatory notice that stresses firm transparency in all communications with the investing public and clients, specifically when it involves departing FAs. Read the article below, or click here to read it on D Magazine's website.







The article in D Magazine reads:



FINRA’s enforcement efforts, SEC rules and securities laws stress transparency in all communications and interactions with investors. This transparency is not limited to providing investment advice and managing portfolios. Transparency is expected in allcommunications with the investing public and clients—including FAs who have left a firm.



FINRA has long required a firm to be honest about an FA’s departure so “customers can make a timely and informed choice about where to maintain their assets when their registered representative… leaves… [a firm].” Last month FINRA issued a regulatory notice stressing obligations that firms (“Oldco”) have regarding departing financial advisors (“FA”): FINRA Regulatory Notice No. 19-10 (April 5, 2019). FINRA’s rationale for imposing these obligations is “so customers may make informed decisions about their accounts.” 



Firm’s obligations under the FINRA Notice 19-10 include:



1. Oldco “should promptly and clearly communicate to affected customers how their accounts will continue to be serviced.”



2. Oldco “should provide customers with timely and complete answers…. when the customer asks questions about a departing registered representative.”



3. Oldco should “clarify that the customer has the choice to retain his or her assets at [Oldco] and be serviced by the newly assigned registered representative, or a different registered representative or transfer the assets to another firm.”



4. If the FA leaving “has consented to disclosure of his or her contact information to customers, [Oldco should] provide reasonable contact information, such as phone number, email address or mailing address, of the departing representative.”



5. Oldco “should communicate clearly, and without obfuscation, when asked questions by customers about the departing registered representative….”



FINRA has made it clear that Oldco–and FAs at Oldco trying to keep AUM from following the departing FA to a new firm–should not play games. FINRA warned in the Regulatory Notice that “ as with all communications with customers, information provided by [Oldco] about the departing registered [FA] must be fair, balanced and not misleading.”



The SEC has held that: “The entry of accurate information in firm records is the foundation for FINRA’s regulatory oversight of its members and ‘[i]t is critical that associated persons, as well as firms, comply with this basic requirement.’” In the matter of the Application of Saad at 7 (quoting Charles E. Kutz, 52 S.E.C. 730, 734). FINRA and Panels of Arbitrators have recognized that using the marking of a U-5 as a weapon is improper. A firm’s failure to honestly and accurately mark a U-5 is not only wrong, it’s actionable by the FA who is defamed. For example, an FA was awarded $625,000 in actual damages, plus $1,250,000 in punitive damages and attorneys’ fees by a FINRA arbitration panel because his U-4 and U-5 were improperly marked with false, defamatory statements. Ulrich v. Wharton Whitaker and Eaton Vance Distributors. Numerous FAs have won sizable arbitration awards against their old firms for negative oral comments made by Oldco’s branch managers and FAs trying to keep AUM at Oldco.



 What Firms Should Do Regarding Departing FAs



Firms get into trouble where they disparage departing FAs, play dumb, give misleading answers to investor’s questions or use the marking of a U-5 as a tactic to discourage investors from ACATing their investments to the departing FA’s new firm. Oldco’s compliance Department should send a notice to all employees in the department where the departing FA worked reminding them not to make misleading statements about the formerly employed FA and to answer clients’ questions truthfully and provide the new contact information when the departing FA has authorized Oldco to provide same. The compliance department should warn Oldco employees that violation of this procedure could lead to serious discipline, including termination of their employment. The marking of the departing FA’s U5 should be honest and accurate and never used as a weapon or as leverage to seek repayment of a promissory note or leverage to achieve other goals.



What Departing FAs Should Do to Protect Themselves



FINRA does not expect Oldco to affirmatively ask departing FAs for their new contact information. That is why any FA who resigns or is fired should send the Branch Manager at Oldco an email asking it to provide their new contact information to any client who calls for them. An FA should ask Oldco what boxes they are going to check on the U-5 and what narrative statements they are going to make. It’s much easier to negotiate what Oldoc will put on the U-5 before it makes a final decision and files the U-5. Prompt action is a must as Oldco is supposed to file the U-5 no later than 30 days after an FA’s employment ends. Once the U-5 is filed and an FA disputes the language on their U-5, the FA must commence the expensive expungement process, which can take a long time. A departing FA should also check the CRD every day until they learn how Oldco marked their U-5. 



Resources available to Firms and FAs include contacting FINRA’s office of General Counsel:Philip Shaikun, Associate General Counsel, (202) 728-8451,Philip.Shaikun@finra.orgJeanette Wingler, Associate General Counsel, (202) 728-8013, jeanette.wingler@finra.org



In addition, FINRA Rule 2210 is informative.

### Summary of Texas Employment Laws: Commission and Bonus Laws

In most states, companies have substantial discretion to change their commission structures and or bonuses. However, issues arise when those changes reduce commissions on deals that have closed, which arguably the employee or independent contractor has already earned. The employer can get into trouble and/or be liable for payment of those “earned” commissions. This applies to the state of Texas, as outlined in Texas employment laws.



Disputes Pertaining to Texas Employment Laws



Disputes also arise when an employer’s bonus/commission plan states that you forfeit your right to payment of commissions or bonuses. This happens if you are not employed/an independent contractor on the payment due date.  This is typically called a “you must be present to win” provision as stated in Texas employment laws.



Issues arise when an employee or contractor continues working after a company announces changes to its payment structure that reduce commissions. If the salesperson does not object in writing and continues to work after notice of the changes, many times the salesperson will waive his or her rights to the old, higher commission structure.



Potential Factors of Legal Obligation



There are several other situations that can lead to disputes and legal claims pertaining to Texas employment laws. One such situation occurs when an employer fires a salesperson or the salesperson quits prior to the time that commissions/bonuses have been paid. There are several relevant factors regarding whether or not there is a legal obligation to pay a commission/bonus:




Is the plan in writing?



Are the terms on how you earn and are paid commission/bonuses unequivocal or ambiguous?



How are the earning of commissions or bonuses defined?



What facts determine whether or not a sale is final and the commission is earned?



Are there any claw back provisions, such as sales, that were initially made and later canceled by the customer?




Commissions may be legally owed if there has been a long-standing custom, pattern or practice of paying commissions or bonuses under particular circumstances. Even if was not in writing! If an employer consistently makes payments and then doesn’t pay one particular individual, that could lead to the employer being liable for illegal discrimination.  These cases can become time-consuming and unpredictable because they are often based on the particular facts of a particular situation. This will vary between companies paying commissions and also very over time within a particular company.



Principles of Fairness and Equity



Even if a plan is clear, under certain circumstances, a contractor or employee may be able to recover the commissions or a cash equivalent under other legal theories. These legal theories are based on the principles of fairness and equity. The legal terms are recovering damages under causes of action for  "promissory estoppel,"  "unjust enrichment" and/or "quantum meruit."



In addition, if a company is intentionally acting in bad faith and/or trying to trick salespeople regarding a commission or bonus plan, a salesperson may be able to pursue a fraud claim. However, it is more difficult generally to win a fraud claim than a claim based on fairness and equity.



Six  Key Takeaways




If you are a company paying commissions or bonuses, put your plan in writing. This decreases the chances of a misunderstanding, confusion or mistakes.



Obtain a copy of the plan if you are entitled to receive commissions or bonuses. Similarly, if the metrics or provisions are unclear, get a manager to clarify – in writing – any uncertainties.



If you resign prior to the date the commission is paid, you are at risk for not receiving your commissions.



Poorly worded or confusing metrics and provisions about payment of commissions/bonuses can be held against a company. That is, if the company wrote the plan. Because of this, companies should take the time to get it right.



A company should be consistent with regard to payment of commissions and bonuses. Inconsistencies can subject the employer to liability for discrimination claims.



Companies should have a clearly written plan. Otherwise, they may unwittingly become liable to pay bonuses and commissions based on custom, pattern or practice.

### Rogge Dunn Featured in CBS 11 Story About Southwest Airlines Dispute

Rogge Dunn was featured in a CBS 11 news story covering the intensifying dispute between Southwest Airlines and their mechanics union, AMFA. The airline filed a lawsuit against AMFA on Thursday, February 28th, accusing the union of disrupting operations.
“Surely, if the union can show that these are truly safety concerns that involve passenger safety and that they’re just doing their job, the union could defeat the lawsuit," said Dunn.
Watch the full video below, or read the story by CBS 11 here.

### Rogge Dunn Group Fights to Take Mark Cuban's Deposition

Rogge Dunn Group is fighting to depose Mark Cuban in a discrimination case. An American Airlines Center employee testified in court on Friday, February 15 about finding a hangman's noose in the building and Cuban's subsequent lack of action regarding the situation.

In reference to the employee's testimonial, Fox 4 News stated, "Attorney Rogge Dunn argued that this is one example of Cuban showing disregard for concerns about racial discrimination."

To read the full article by Fox 4 News, click here, or watch the video below.


https://roggedunngroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Attorney_for_ex_AAC_employee_wants_to_depose_Mar_536650_1800-1.mp4

### Rogge Dunn Group Hosts D CEO Real Estate Annual Release Party

Rogge Dunn Group hosted the D CEO Real Estate Annual Release party in the firm's office in Downtown Dallas. See the article below that featured the event in D CEO Magazine.  







 The article in D CEO Magazine reads: “Top industry professionals gathered at Ross Tower in January to celebrate the 2019 edition of D CEO’s Real Estate Annual. The Rogge and Cathy Dunn Art Gallery provided an exceptional setting for the event, and its unique 19th-floor balcony offered terrific views of the city. Editor Christine Perez gave a preview of D CEO’s coverage plans for the coming year, and introduced Real Estate Editor Jeremiah Jensen and the rest of the magazine’s editorial team. Special thanks to our hosts, Rogge and Cathy Dunn, and signature sponsor, HPI Commercial Real Estate LLC.”

### Workplace Romance is a Recipe for Disaster

Anti-Dating Policies: A New Era for C-Level Execs



When McDonald’s learned its 52-year-old CEO Steve Easterbrook was “Lovin’ It” with a subordinate, it quickly fired him and forced his resignation from the board of directors. This was not a matter of sexual harassment or a superior forcing themselves onto a subordinate. The CEO and the subordinate entered into a consensual dating relationship. And, it's not just McDonald's that prohibits employee fraternization. In the last few years, even CEO/C-Level execs at Intel,  Hewlett Packard, Boeing, Priceline and BestBuy have been fired for dating company employees. In the #MeToo era, the trend is for companies to adopt anti-dating policies against romantic relationships between supervisors and subordinates. 



A study by the Society for Human Resource Management determined that approximately half of U.S. companies have instituted formal policies against certain consensual relationships, or anti-dating policies. This total is up 25% from 2005.  



And, CEOs and other C-suite execs, no matter how valuable to the company, are no longer untouchable in today's environment. That's because if a company ignores violations by its C-suite leaders, how can it enforce any of its policies against the rest of its employees?  



Employees dating one another, even managers dating employees they supervise isn’t illegal. However, most employment attorneys advise companies to adopt strict “no-dating” policies (anti-fraternization policies). Such policies reduce sexual harassment claims and allegations of favoritism. And, even if a consensual relationship doesn’t lead to a sexual harassment or hostile environment claim, it can create workplace tension. Such situations could arise when the "couple" has a disagreement at work, brings their "off-site" relationship squabbles to work or they break up.



Implementing and Enforcing Anti-Dating Policies



Companies concerned about fraternization issues can customize their policies to meet their goals. For example, anti-dating policies can permit dating by co-workers, but prohibit managers/direct reports from dating. 



Companies adopting anti-dating should distribute the policy in their Code of Conduct or employee handbook.  And, they should regularly remind employees of the policy. Finally, companies should consistently enforce such a policy. 



Rogge Dunn Group's business and employment attorneys have extensive experience assisting companies when they implement policies to reduce workplace liability. Connect with us to discuss how proactive policies can reduce risk and limit employers' liability.

### Rogge Dunn Weighs In During Fox 4 Story About Mount Vernon Hiring Former Baylor Football Coach Art Briles

Rogge Dunn was interviewed during a Fox 4 news story covering the recent decision by Mount Vernon ISD to hire Art Briles as head football coach, which has garnered negative attention nationally. In 2016, Briles was fired from his position as the head football coach of Baylor University. Read the full article by Fox 4 below:



The superintendent of the school district that hired disgraced former Baylor football head coach Art Briles defended the district’s decision in a brief interview with media members on Tuesday.



Briles was named head football coach at Mount Vernon High School late Friday and was signed for a two-year contract. Briles was fired from Baylor in 2016 after an investigation found that, during his tenure, at least 17 women had been sexually assaulted by 19 Baylor football players.



 Mount Vernon ISD quickly became the object of national derision for its decision to let Briles return to coaching. MVISD Superintendent Jason McCullough admitted Tuesday in a three-minute media session that nobody from Mount Vernon talked with any of the Baylor sexual assault victims during the vetting process. 



When asked if they spoke to any NCAA officials about Briles, McCullough said the district only spoke with former Baylor coach Grant Teaff. Teaff was never an NCAA employee.



“As we went into this process, we knew it was going to come with some negativity and some attention. I can tell you that we believe in our community,” McCullough said. “We believe in our kids and we believe in the parents we have. We believe the process we went through that we had vetted this person. We vetted Coach Briles to the best of our ability.”



McCullough ended the news conference after just a few minutes.



“I appreciate your time. Thanks so much. I have other places to be,” he said as he walked away while reporters were still asking questions.



Rogge Dunn is a Dallas attorney who represented multiple people who challenged Baylor University in the scandal. That includes Patty Crawford, a former title 9 coordinator who stepped down after she said the university stood in her way.



“He’s basically said I reported it up the chain and then I washed my hands of it,” Dunn said. “Well, a true leader, someone who truly cared about these issues, would take action. And certainly, Art Briles was in a position to take action. Until you admit you're at fault, you really can't take the next step towards redemption.”



Briles, now 63, had lots of success on the field at Baylor. But on his watch, a sexual assault scandal rocked the school and Briles has claimed he was not aware of the problem.



Since being forced out at Baylor, he's had trouble finding a job. He’s currently concluding a coaching stint overseas in Italy. Before being hired in Mount Vernon, he tried to get a job at Southern Miss earlier this year but a backlash led administrators to halt the process.



He previously won four state titles at Stephenville High School. Mount Vernon is a 3A school in a town of about 2,600.

### Rogge Dunn Featured in CBS 11 Story About American Airlines Suing Mechanics Union

Rogge Dunn was featured during a CBS 11 story covering the emerging lawsuit between American Airlines and its mechanics union. Watch the news segment below, or click here to see the story on CBS 11.







The article on CBS 11 reads: 



FORT WORTH (CBSDFW.COM) – Fort Worth-based American Airlines has filed a lawsuit against its mechanics unions, accusing them of an illegal slowdown campaign. The airline is asking a federal judge to order the unions to stop.



In its complaint, the airline says between February and May 13, the unions’ actions have caused 644 flight cancellations and 270 maintenance delays two hours or longer.



The airline says that affected 125,000 customers, and warns an additional 3,400 passengers each day could be impacted.



In a statement, the Transport Workers Union of America and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the TWU/IAM deny wrongdoing. “Allegations of a slowdown are unfounded. This is an intimidation tactic by AA because the union is fighting back against their efforts to offshore thousands of solid blue collar jet mechanics jobs into South America…”



The union says members have worked without a new contract for nearly three and a half months. “We are also standing strong against cuts to our medical benefits and retirement security. The Association is ready and willing to get back to the bargaining table at any time.”



When asked who has the upper hand, Rogge Dunn, a labor law attorney in Dallas said, “I tend to think in these situations, the union has the upper hand because the damages are so significant. In other words, if they continue the slow down, it can cripple an airline.”



The lawsuit comes as the airline is entering its busy summer travel season.



Dunn explains what the judge will have to consider. “The judge wants to look at whether or not the slow down was legitimate or whether it was a planned en-masse action by the union to gain leverage over their employer.”



American’s customers say they don’t want to be delayed by maintenance issues — unless the plane has a serious mechanical issue.



Shelby Timothy says, “It’s a huge concern especially if you have connecting flights or if you have right when you get in, you have something that’s scheduled.”



Another passenger, Erik Aguayo says, “It needs to be efficient and make things better for the people who are ultimately paying for it: paying for those flights and it’s the passengers.”



American’s pilots union announced it’s supporting the mechanics unions.



The FAA says any time there’s tension between labor and management, it steps up oversight of the airline’s maintenance.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in AdvisorHub Article - Credit Suisse Wins $9 Million in UBS Raiding Case

The article reads:



A Finra arbitration panel on Tuesday ordered UBS AG’s U.S. brokerage unit to pay Credit Suisse $9 million to resolve a “raiding” claim.



The rare claim was filed in December 2015 after Credit Suisse announced two months earlier that it was shuttering its U.S. brokerage operations and encouraging its brokers to join Wells Fargo Advisors. 



UBS responded to the announcement with an aggressive recruiting push, hiring just over 100 of Credit Suisse’s 336 brokers, second only to the 111 who joined Wells Fargo, according to a document reviewed by AdvisorHub.  



To see the full article, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in AdvisorHub on Award Against Credit Suisse to Pay Two Brokers at Least $6.7 Million

To see the full article, click here.

### Nov. 19, 2019: Rogge Dunn Will Be a Keynote Speaker at AdvisorHub's Financial Advisor Summit in NYC

Rogge Dunn will be one of the Keynote Speakers at AdvisorHub’s Financial Advisor Summit in NYC



AdvisorHub: An Industry in Transition Financial Advisor Summit



November 19th, 2019



The University Club, 1 W. 54th street, New York City



8:00 AM - 4:30 PM, followed by cocktails



The Summit will address some of the hot issues affecting advisors: 



Broker Protocol developmentsThe impending SEC best-interest rulesBig firms vs. RIAsThe growth of independent channels, including FiNet offered by a traditional firm like Wells Fargo. 



Speakers will discuss best practices for managing your team, growth and extracting equity from your practice as you approach retirement. 

### Nov. 18, 2019: Rogge Dunn To Speak at Belo Mansion For Dallas Bar Association Event

On November 18, Rogge Dunn will be speaking at the Labor & Employment Law Section by the Dallas Bar Association. The event will be held at Belo Mansion in Dallas, Texas.



Rogge will speak on the topic, "Captivating the Jury and Winning Employment Cases at Trial."

### Nov. 14, 2019: Rogge Dunn Group Hosting Fall Fundraiser for Cure Glaucoma Foundation

Rogge Dunn Group will be hosting the fall fundraiser for the Cure Glaucoma Foundation. The event will take place on November 14 at our office. 



"Donations will help fund research to find a cure and help glaucoma patients preserve their sight."



https://www.cureglaucoma.org

### Can the New EEOC Regulations Affect Your Company's Wellness Program?

When Should You Reach Out To An EEOC Lawyer?



Court Vacates EEOC Wellness Regulations and Program Incentives, Effective January 1, 2019.



If you are unsure about future compliance of your workplace wellness program, you’re not alone. Businesses nationwide must make changes to their existing wellness plans following a recent court ruling in which the courts vacated 2016 EEOC wellness regulations. This is effective January 1, 2019. If you're unsure about the transition for your business, it may be time to reach out to an EEOC Lawyer.



What’s in the ruling?



The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) protect against the disclosure of an employee’s health and genetic information. There is, however, an exception in both laws permitting the collection of this information. Employers can collect this information as part of an employer wellness program, so long as the employee voluntarily provides the information.



In 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a new rule that employers could implement penalties or rewards up to 30 percent of the cost of self-only coverage in an effort to encourage employees’ disclosure of ADA or GINA-protected information. 



American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) filed a suit suggesting the new rule was invalid because the incentive/penalty rendered the employee’s disclosure of protected health information involuntary. Employees often didn't have a choice in disclosing this information. Employees who couldn't afford to pay 30% of the coverage cost were forced to provide health or genetic information. 



Last summer, the court agreed with AARP and sent the regulations back to EEOC for revisions. At the time, the rule was not vacated because the court assumed the EEOC could provide revised regulations in a timely matter. AARP filed another motion to amend the judgement. The court agreed that employers still had time to develop wellness plans for 2019, when the rule was not in effect. Therefore the EEOC vacated those wellness regulations, effective January 1, 2019.



What does this mean for your business?



Employers designing and maintaining wellness programs should continue to monitor developments. This includes the issuance of any new wellness program regulations. Employers should work with employee benefits counsel to ensure their wellness programs comply with all applicable laws. Previously, the EEOC wellness regulations were slated for a proposed update by January 2019. However, the most recent agenda sets a new date of June 2019. 



In light of these changes, employers have just under one year to revise their wellness programs. As part of these revisions, employers must remove the premium penalties associated with refusal to share health information. Safeguard especially sensitive, personally identifiable employee information and require requests for health details on a voluntary basis. Employees are under no obligation to provide health data on exams or questionnaires for your organization’s employee wellness program. 



Do you have questions about the new regulations and how they may affect your organization’s wellness program? Contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group PC to consult with an EEOC lawyer. We'll help you decide how you should structure your employee wellness program to comply with current EEOC regulations.

### Texas Overtime Laws: Should You File a Claim For Unpaid Wages?

Stiffed by your employer? The Fair Labor Standards Act is the federal law that sets minimum wage, overtime and minimum age requirements for all employers and employees. 



If...



Your employer fails to pay minimum wage or the agreed wage for the hours you worked (wage theft), orYou are a victim of unlawful deductions or shorted hours, or You are forced to work off the clock,



...Then you have the right to file a claim for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 



Employees who are not appropriately compensated for time worked may file a lawsuit in court. Furthermore, they can file an administrative claim with the state’s labor department. The Texas Workforce Commission administers the Texas Payday Law. This sets the procedures employers must follow in paying employees, such as paying employees in full and on time-based on regularly scheduled paydays. Hence, withholding pay or promising pay at a later date is a violation of the Texas Payday Law.



Any employer who violates labor and wage laws may be subject to a fine or even prison time for multiple offenses. On the other hand, employees who bring a false claim against their employer may also be subject to fine. 



Texas Legislature is currently considering three bills that would expand an employee’s rights to recover unpaid wages.







399



Texas House Bill 399 extends the deadline for employees to file a claim for unpaid wages with the Texas Workforce Commission. Consequently, the deadline would go from the current 180 days to 365 days. 







106



Texas House Bill 106 prohibits an employer from retaliating against employees who seek recovery of unpaid wages. 







48



Texas House Bill 48 creates a database of all employers penalized for failure to pay wages or convicted of certain offenses involving wage theft. 







If you believe you may be a victim of wage theft, hire an unpaid wages attorney to handle your case. On the other hand, if you are an employer who has had a lawsuit or claim brought against you, hire an attorney that can help you navigate Texas employment laws. The lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group regularly handle litigation relating to Texas overtime laws, wage/hour claims and class action lawsuits. We work with our corporate clients to design payroll procedures that minimize the risk of overtime or minimum wage claims. 



Contact the labor and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group today.

### Nov. 11, 2019: Rogge Dunn Group Hosting D CEO Real Estate Reception

Rogge Dunn Group will be hosting the D CEO Real Estate Reception on Monday, November 11.

### Seven Questions with Tony Sirianni: Rogge Dunn Group’s Rogge Dunn

The article reads: 



AdvisorHub’s CEO Tony Sirianni sat down with Rogge Dunn, Managing Partner at Rogge Dunn Group, and talked about the industry. Tony sits with established leaders of the largest firms, as well as up and coming disruptors, and asks them more or less the same questions, so Advisors can get a sense of how each firm addresses the same issues from different perspectives. Taken together, they are a very interesting collection of influential points of view, and display the diversity of opinions and conclusions in Wealth Management today. You may even get to know these industry leaders on a more personal level.



To see the full article, click here.

### Forming Partnerships, Joint Ventures and Business Entities: Six Key Considerations From a Texas Partnership Lawyer

Failure to put all material terms and conditions of a business venture in writing is fool hardy. Memories fade, circumstances change and businesses encounter unforeseen circumstances. Worse yet, some unscrupulous partners have convenient memories designed to maximize their return at your expense. These six quick tips from a Texas partnership lawyer can ensure your fair treatment, instead of an expensive legal battle.



Put it in Writing



Most legal disputes can be avoided if agreements, obligations and responsibilities are confirmed in a writing signed by all parties involved.  If it is promised, obtain confirmation of all the details. It also helps you remember what you agreed to do. Even a short and sweet writing can protect you. For instance, recall the case in Dallas where a partner obtained a $1 million settlement for his equity based on a couple of sentences scrawled on a cocktail napkin.



Certainly, handshake deals and oral agreements result in “I said/they said” frustrating swearing matches like what we saw in the Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearings.



Use Plain English and Give Examples



Do not use legal terms or fancy language. Such language may have unintended meanings or connotations to judges, jurors and arbitrators. Use short sentences and simple grade school language.



Additionally, give examples of what is supposed to occur. In other words, “show the math” of how profits, commissions, equity awards, bonuses, or deferred compensation will be treated.



Address all Possible Scenarios of Any Deal or Legal Matter



Will you receive a pro rata payment of bonuses or commissions if you quit, become disabled or are fired? Also, if you are fired without cause, will vesting of stock options or equity accelerate?



What happens if a change in control occurs? Are you indemnified if you are sued for actions you took in the course and scope of your employment; Is D&O or other insurance in place to protect you and your equity investment?



Safeguard All Documents You Send or Receive Regarding Any Legal Issues



Executives or partners are often fired or voted out without warning or when they are out of town. Safeguard a copy of all contracts, correspondence and key documents regarding any legal matters in your house with extra copies in a safe deposit box.



Don’t Use Old Legal Forms



Using a contract, partnership agreement or other legal document as a form that you or a business acquaintance used in another matter because it worked in that situation, is like taking a friend’s expired, prescribed medicine because you think you have the same type of medical ailment.



Consult an Attorney Before Signing Any Agreements



Signing contracts without consulting a business lawyer is like venturing into an African jungle without a guide or self-treating a serious medical condition without seeing a doctor. Before you enter into legal obligations, you need to understand the ramifications of doing so and whether you are getting a good deal, or are exposed to potential liability or other risks. Contact a Texas partnership lawyer, like the ones at Rogge Dunn Group, to minimize the legal risks of forming new business ventures.



Connect with Rogge Dunn here.



View a pdf version of the article:



Rogge Dunn Guest Commentary - D Magazine (03/29/19)

### Rogge Dunn and Greg Clift Recognized in The Best Lawyers® in America 2019

Best Lawyers recognized attorney partners Rogge Dunn and Gregory M. Clift in The Best Lawyers in America for 2019. Rogge Dunn was recognized in the publication for his work in Commercial Litigation and Employment Law, and Gregory M. Clift was recognized for his work in Labor and Employment Litigation. Both attorneys have been featured in the publication since 2016.

The rankings published by Best Lawyers every year are considered indicators of legal merit among the legal industry. Rogge Dunn Group, Rogge Dunn, and Gregory M. Clift are pleased to receive recognition for their excellent work and legal expertise.

### Outback Steakhouse Honors Rogge Dunn

Outback Steakhouse Honors Rogge Dunn: Dunn wins service award for the 8th time



Rogge Dunn (center) receiving the Multi-Concept Purveyor of the Year Award at Outback Steakhouse's annual partner's conference in Nashville, Tennessee. Standing left to right are Bill Allen, OSI CEO; Tim Gannon, OSI Sr. VP; Rogge Dunn; Trudy Cooper, OSI Sr. VP; Paul Avery, OSI COO.



Outback Steakhouse honors Rogge Dunn once again with the Multi-Concept Purveyor of the Year Award. The parent company for Outback Steakhouse and other successful restaurant chains presented the award to Dallas trial attorney Rogge Dunn based on his exemplary legal work for the company during the previous year.



At the 2009 annual partner’s conference in Miami, Fla., OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC, recognized Mr. Dunn as a 2009 Purveyor of the Year.



Since 2001, Mr. Dunn has earned the award eight times for his work on behalf of Outback Steakhouse and its affiliated restaurants. The distinguished award is presented annually to Outback service providers such as Mr. Dunn who have significantly assisted the company in furthering its business goals. Mr. Dunn has represented Outback for 15+ years. Moreover, his work for the company includes handling matters involving trade secrets, non-compete agreements, and employment issues.



Tampa, Florida-based OSI Restaurant Partners is the third-largest casual dining restaurant chain in the United States. The company has more than 1,500 restaurants located in 49 states and 24 countries.



Rogge has been recognized many times by OSI Restaurant Partners since 2001:



2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005: Purveyor of the Year, Multi-Concept Outback Steakhouse



2004: Purveyor of the Year, Outback Steakhouse



2004: Purveyor of the Year, Carrabba’s Italian Grill



2002: Purveyor of the Year, Outback Steakhouse



2002: Purveyor of the Year, Carrabba’s Italian Grill



2001: Purveyor of the Year, Outback Steakhouse



To learn more about Dunn's work as a restaurant lawyer, click here. 



To contact Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Weighs in During WFAA Story on Southwest Airlines

Rogge Dunn was featured in a WFAA Channel 8 story about Southwest Airlines' ongoing labor dispute and the airline's computer glitch that happened over the weekend. The glitch caused hundreds of flights to be grounded on Friday morning, adding to the growing public concern around the dispute between Southwest and its labor union, AMFA.

As a labor attorney in Dallas, Rogge Dunn contributed legal insight and expert commentary to the story on WFAA.

"As a company and as a union, you owe it to your customers and your members to try to get together and work extremely hard to mediate and collaborate and do everything you can to solve it before you go to this nuclear option," said Dunn, regarding the dispute.

To see the full story, click here. To read the article by WFAA, click here.

### Rogge Dunn Featured on KTVT CBS Story About Southwest Airlines

Rogge Dunn was recently featured on a KTVT CBS story covering the operational emergency declared by Southwest Airlines amid the ongoing fracas between the airline and its mechanics union (AMFA).

"This is the labor law equivalent of a very important game of chicken," said Dunn, in reference to the dispute.

Watch the full story below.

FAA Steps Up Enforcement

### Rogge Dunn Featured in KTVT CBS 11 Story About Super Bowl Betting Pools in the Workplace

Rogge Dunn was featured in a news story on KTVT CBS 11 about the legality of partaking in Super Bowl betting pools in the workplace.



With Super Bowl LIII only days away, many people are placing bets on who will win and who will lose. Super Bowl betting pools in the workplace are legal. However, there are a few best practices to follow so you don't fall into any legal trouble. Rogge Dunn speaks about these best practices during the story on KTVT CBS 11.



"Office pool bets are legal as long as no one takes a percentage or cut of the bet," said Rogge.



Watch the full video here.

### Rogge Dunn Explains Prop Bets on Super Bowl LIII

DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) –January 31, 2019 at 3:59 pm
Super Bowl LIII Prop Bets Explained, Get in While You Can
There’s something for everyone in the Super Bowl — including placing side bets – often called proposition bets.

These prop bets are usually placed before or during the game for things that have very little to with the direct outcome of the game.

“It’s anything and everything from how long a singer sings the National Anthem to how many yards are gained on the very first play to how many yards are gained during the second half,” explained attorney Rogge Dunn.

But Dunn said prop bets can create legal issues if the players or singers are in on the bet.

Thus, the NFL is asking congress to outright ban prop bets, fearing match fixing.

Click here for Article

Link to CBSDFW.COM

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in D Magazine Article About FINRA Crackdown

Rogge Dunn, a partner at financial advisor law firm Rogge Dunn Group, was quoted in an article by D Magazine. The article covers the recent crackdown by the FINRA on rogue financial advisors, brokers, and Registered Representatives (RR).



The FINRA rule states that those subject to the obligations "present heightened risk of harm to investors and their activities may undermine confidence in the securities markets as a whole." In addition, the rule will "further promote investor protection and market integrity." At the same time, it will also give FINRA additional tools to incentivize regulatory compliance.



FINRA's New Exam



Recently, FINRA established a new exam identifying high-risk brokers and RRs. The new exam unit is based in New York City. It will identify and monitor 100 to 200 financial advisors and RRs deemed possibly dangerous to investors. Although FINRA will concentrate primarily on repeat offenders, they stated that they are not relying on one single definition of a high risk RR. Therefore, every RR should take vigilant steps to ensure compliance.



A Compliance-Focused Approach



Financial advisor law firm attorney Rogge Dunn says RRs should prepare for an increase in FINRA examinations and investigations. While FINRA has announced new crackdowns many times in the past, they historically do not bring about any noticeable change in FINRA's enforcement efforts. However, this time, Dunn's impression is different. FINRA is devoting more resources and energy into identifying and taking action against high-risk RRs.



RRs and brokers should take a compliance-focused approach and contact a financial advisor law firm that understands the compliance rules.



“While it remains to be seen just how aggressive FINRA will be, my impression from RRs and firms who have been investigated is that this time FINRA is devoting more resources and energy into disciplining high-risk RRs. Therefore, every RR needs to be prepared," said Dunn.



You can read the full article here.




https://www.dmagazine.com/sponsored/2019/01/finras-crackdown/

### Deferred Compensation Award: Rogge Dunn quoted in AdvisorHub on "Credit Suisse Seeks to Vacate Broker's $975.5K Deferred Comp Award"

AdvisorHub reports on Credit Suisse's extended battle with former brokers. These brokers are trying to collect deferred compensation in the wake of its 2015 decision to close its U.S. Wealth Business.



Dozens of brokers have filed claims against Credit Suisse. They claim they were terminated without cause before they were able to collect on deferred compensation. However, Credit Suisse claims that the brokers who went to other firms after the 2015 shutdown were compensated by their new firms for money left behind, likely through forgivable loans or other forms of payment.



Rogge Dunn is an attorney specializing in Texas employment laws and FINRA arbitration. Furthermore, he represents several former Credit Suisse brokers in deferred compensation claims. Recently, Dunn spoke about the Suisse bank U.S. broker-dealer that filed a petition to vacate an almost $1 million award. Furthermore, the FINRA arbitration panel made this award in November 2018 to a New York City broker.



Dunn said:



“The only explanation for the vacate petition is that they want people to know they’re going to have spend more time and money fighting this.”



“They are only delaying the inevitable, in my humble opinion. Also, trying to vacate any arbitration award, much less a FINRA award that doesn’t require a ‘reasoned’ decision, is the longest of long shots.”



If you want to read the full article, click here:  Credit Suisse Seeks to Vacate Broker’s $975.5K Deferred Comp Award - AdvisorHub



AdvisorHub site



To get more information from the experienced employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group on deferred compensation, contact us today.

### Rogge Dunn Speaking in Live Webcast | FINRA'S Heightened Sanction Guidelines: What to Expect in 2019

Rogge Dunn will be speaking on FINRA sanction guidelines during a live webcast hosted by Knowledge Group on January 16, 2019 at 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. (ET). 



The title of the webcast is "FINRA’s Heightened Sanction Guidelines: What To Expect in 2019"



Register Here



Rogge Dunn will cover the updated FINRA sanction guidelines and what to expect moving forward.



Key topics include:



FINRA's Sanction Guidelines:  An OverviewRecent Trends and Developments in FINRA's Sanction GuidelinesCommon Pitfalls and Risk IssuesRisk Mitigation Techniques and Best PracticesWhat Lies Ahead



Please note, complimentary passes are available for the first 30 registrants. Once all of the passes are used, attendees can register for the deeply discounted rate of $25 each courtesy of Rogge Dunn Group, PC.



Discount code ROGGEDUNN147607



 Register Now!

### Rogge Dunn Speaking in Live Webcast| FINRA's Crackdown on High-Risk Brokers

Rogge Dunn will be speaking in a live webcast hosted by Knowledge Group on December 11, 2018 at 12:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. (ET) on "FINRA's Crackdown on High-Risk Brokers:  Recent Trends and Developments You Can't Ignore"  Register here

Key topics include:

 	FINRA’s Guidance on High-Risk Brokers: Overview
 	Recent Enforcement Trends
 	Overlap with State Regulatory Focus
 	Regulatory Updates
 	Emerging Pitfalls and Risks
 	Best Practices: Supervision and Compliance

Please note, complimentary passes are available for the first 30 registrants. Once all of the passes are used, attendees can register for the deeply discounted rate of $25 each courtesy of Rogge Dunn Group, PC.

Discount code ROGGEDUNN147549 

 "Register Now."

### STORMY NO MORE:  Trump Saved by Texas Anti-Slapp Statute

The scope and power of Texas’ Anti-SLAPP statute seems boundless. To wit, the POTUS himself, Donald J. Trump, was saved the ignominy of an embarrassing and salacious trial against his arch-rival and former paramour Stormy Daniels and her PR-loving attorney, Michael Avenatti.

The wild case (link to opinion below), Stephanie Clifford v. Donald J. Trump, started in New York federal court, transferred to California federal court, and was ultimately dismissed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (“TCPA”), the lone-star state’s version of an Anti-SLAPP law meant to protect the right to free speech, free association, and freedom to petition the government.

In a concise and well-written opinion, Judge Otero analyzes Ms. Clifford’s (aka Stormy Daniels) defamation-related claims against President Trump under the TCPA. The TCPA effectively requires the plaintiff to prove each element of each claim before conducting any discovery, except under some limited circumstances. Defamation claims are very difficult to prove with many defenses and loopholes, requiring a plaintiff to have his or her “ducks in a row” or face a very expensive dismissal with prejudice. President Trump defeated Ms. Clifford’s defamation claims with standard defenses of opinion/hyperbole (as opposed to factual assertion) and that Ms. Clifford suffered no real damages, an element of almost all civil claims.

As this case shows, defamation claims are especially perilous and subject to dismissal under the TCPA, and should be carefully pled - - if pled at all. Failure to do so could result in mandatory sanctions and reimbursement of the defendant’s attorneys’ fees, which can easily exceed $100,000. Stormy will likely owe President Trump well in excess of $100,000 in attorneys’ fees and sanctions.

The Rogge Dunn Group has extensive experience prosecuting and defending against cases with Anti-SLAPP implications. Even if POTUS isn’t a party, please contact us if you are involved in any Anti-SLAPP dispute.

Stephanie Clifford v. Donald J. Trump, CV 18-06893 SJO (Oct. 2018)

### Rogge Dunn Quoted In Article Regarding Office Pools For Jackpot

Ahead of Tuesday's $1.6 billion Mega Millions jackpot, Rogge Dunn had some expert advice on office pools. Rogge Dunn was quoted in an article by CNBC that details the dangers of joining an office pool to increase your chances of winning the lottery. In the article, Dunn advises groups pooling their money to set some ground rules in advance and detail them in a document. That way, the group is spared possible legal trouble in the future. "It's a little bit of work on the front end to avoid an expensive lawsuit on the backend," said Dunn.

Visit this link to read the full article!

### Rogge Dunn Speaking at AdvisorHub Annual Advisor Summit

Rogge Dunn will be speaking as a panelist tomorrow 10/11/18 at the AdvisorHub | 2018 Annual Advisor Summit | An Industry in Transition: Money in Motion | Noon to 5:00 p.m. at the Essex House in New York City.  Addressing hot topics in the Financial Industry affecting FAs

https://advisorhub.com/five-reasons-to-not-miss-the-advisorhub-industry-in-transition-summit/
NEW YORK CITY: An Industry in Transition Change, Challenges & Evolution
Essex House
New York, NY

October 11, 2018 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Register Now

### Appearance Matters: The Importance of Being Prepared in Trial

Experienced trial lawyers know that witnesses are a crucial part of the trial process. Because many witnesses can be nervous or unsure about testifying, trial preparation is a challenge that should be tackled early on. Whether a dispute is decided by a judge, jury or arbitrator, a witness’s appearance matters. Time and again, the experienced trial lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group have found that the way an individual comes across to a jury can change how they vote.

 
Be Genuine
If a witness doesn’t seem genuine or sincere, the jury might perceive the witness as untrustworthy. The trial lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group educate those they represent on the effects of their observable appearance. If a witness appears aloof, cold or robotic, it can rub the jury the wrong way. Through extensive trial preparation, our clients learn how to exude an appropriate body language. In doing this, we reduce the chances that the jury will make a decision based on their perception of the demeanor of those we put on the stand.
Be Articulate
It’s no secret that the cross-examination of witnesses on the stand can be unpredictable and erratic. The experienced trial lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group know that a testimony can be sabotaged by uncontrolled, ill-prepared deliveries. If trial lawyers don’t prepare their witnesses to be verbally articulate, the result can be unfavorable for the client. Working with our clients during trial preparation ensures they are equipped to answer any question on the stand. We reduce the possibility of the witness appearing vulnerable through behaviors such as diverting eye contact, making unsure facial expressions, and exhibiting unconfident posture.
Be Well Versed
Having full knowledge of all aspects of a case will increase the credibility of a testimony. The experienced trial lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group listen to their clients to learn their goals and develop a game plan to win the conflict. In order for our lawyers to pick the best course of action for a case, we need to be knowledgeable about all information. This requires a higher level of preparation, like personalized attention to detail, in depth research and collaborative relationships.
 

The experienced trial lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group strive to be genuine, articulate, and well versed in every case. Our preparation leads to favorable results for our clients. A recent example of this is as follows.

The Plaintiff was the former CEO of GEMSA, a joint venture between GE Capital and CBRE Capital Markets, that managed a $120 billion commercial loan portfolio.  After the CEO was fired, he sued CBRE for $827,000 plus attorneys’ fees. We won a summary Judgment against the Plaintiff on all his causes of action except alleged ERISA violations. After the trial, the Judge ruled in CBRE’s favor on the Plaintiff’s ERISA claims. Particularly important was the Judge’s finding that the Plaintiff’s “testimony was not credible.”

The lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group win cases because we come prepared. Last year, we won a $7.9 million JAMS arbitration award for a client against Acis, LP, an affiliate of Highland Capital Management. In that ruling, the arbitrators noted that Highland Capital Management’s Chief Compliance Officer’s testimony “begs credibility.” In an examination of two of the witnesses in this trial, we were able to see that the amount of preparation by each side’s lawyer was a deciding factor of the verdict. The opposing side’s witness had long, evasive and combative answers. When compared to our witness’s precise answers, it made the other side’s witness look bad and lose credibility. Their poor performance on the stand contributed to the verdict in favor of our clients. In this case and in countless others, our preparation allowed us to take advantage of the lack of preparation of others, resulting in favorable results for our clients.

The take away:  being prepared, genuine and sincere are critically important traits on the witness stand.

### Negotiating Win/Win Severance Packages

CXOs and other high-level executives are likely to transition to other companies over the next few years – who's choosing is the only real variable.  Many executives do not consider employment exit strategies when accepting a new position.  A merger, reduction in force, or asset purchase, among other reasons, thrust the issue upon the executive.  Negotiating win/win severance packages are more than maximizing a cash payment.  The short list of considerations below will assist with the separation.



What are your goals?



At the outset, set out in writing your goals.  For example, do you plan on remaining in the same industry?  The same geographical area?  How you separate from a regional employer, and how that is communicated, may impact you more if you plan to stay local.  Further, if your industry allows you to move to a supplier, reseller, marketer, or some other group within your former employer’s industry, consider restraints on your future activity (e.g., noncompete agreements).



What can you provide your former employer on the way out the door?



While difficult for many to fathom after a termination, yes, this is the second thing to consider, and it is important.  As Eddie Temple summed it up in Layer Cake, “The art of good business is being a good middleman. Putting people together.”  As a departing executive, you can continue to provide value to the company – value that may equate to consideration returning to you.  For example, agreeing to provide transition assistance (training your replacement; providing personal introductions to key vendors) in exchange for maintaining a company phone number/voicemail/email during your severance period may prove valuable. The appearance of continued employment during the severance period may be more attractive to new employers.



Keeping in mind that many employers want a clean break, offering to assist the company during the severance may develop goodwill to use during the negotiations, may provide helpful evidence if a lawsuit should arise, and provide an employee “throw aways” during any negotiation, even if not accepted.



Do your detective work



Prior to entering substantive negotiations, contact former employees who were severed out.  Confidentiality agreements may prohibit them from speaking about specific agreement terms, but the negotiation process may be open for discussion.  Who did the employee work with on the separation?  Did that person actually have authority to reach an agreement, or did it get sent up the chain?  Were any issues more important to the employer (e.g., releases, confirmation of noncompetition obligations)?  The initial leg work will provide a better view of the field of play.



Determine what is owed, and by whom.



Evaluate what you are owed, and when.  Salary, commissions, bonuses, stock options, deferred compensation benefits, expense reimbursement and any other compensation or reimbursement must be part of the discussion.  Also consider what you may owe the company.  Are you subject to relocation or education claw backs, for example?  The starting positions of you and the company will frame the negotiation.



Agreement terms



When discussing a separation agreement, consider the following terms.  For example, how will your separation be announced?  Many higher-level executives prefer a press release and website posting espousing the amicable separation, and good wishes for all.  Other executives may consider a simple company-wide announcement.  Along the same lines, you may consider whether a termination, resignation, or retirement announcement is preferable.  Keep in mind, how you separate may affect your right to unemployment.



While career changes are stressful events, proper planning and investigation may prove fruitful.  These are just some of the considerations in negotiating win/win severance packages, and you should, of course, ensure you obtain complete and accurate information regarding your rights.



For more information on negotiating win/win severance packages, contact Gregory M. Clift at 214.239.2777 or clift@RoggeDunnGroup.com.

### Intended Expansion Fails to Support Noncompete Agreement

Noncompete agreements generally must include reasonable geographical limitations. To determine whether geographical limitations are reasonable, employers need to look at a number of factors including their business and the role of the employee entering the noncompete agreement.



Noncompete Agreement Case Study



In Cobb v. Caye Publishing Group, the parties entered a noncompete agreement that failed to include any geographical limitations. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals analyzed whether the trial court imposed proper geographical limitations in reforming the noncompete agreement.



Cobb, an independent contractor, agreed not to work for a competing publishing company or start a publication the same as he was selling for Caye Publishing if he left. Cobb eventually resigned and began publishing and distributing a similar publication outside of where he worked for Caye Publishing. Caye Publishing sued Cobb and obtained a temporary injunction preventing Cobb from distributing a competing publication in Johnson County and the cities of Aledo and Weatherford. Cobb appealed contending, in part, the temporary injunction’s geographical limitations were too broad.



The court of appeals first noted a reasonable area restriction in a noncompete generally includes where the employee worked. Cobb worked in Johnson County, only. Caye Publishing contended Aledo and Weatherford were appropriate restrictions since it intended to expand to those cities.



The court of appeals noted no case previously held an area targeted for future expansion alone was a reasonable restriction. It then observed, as a result of not entering those markets, including no substantive preparations, Caye Publishing possessed no customer goodwill to protect. Therefore, the court of appeals dissolved the temporary injunction as to Aledo and Weatherford.



The case is an important reminder to employers to focus on including supportable restrictions in any noncompete. Furthermore, the noncompetes should focus on protecting legitimate business interests.



For more information regarding protecting your business interests, contact the business lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group or Gregory M. Clift at 214.239.2777 or clift@RoggeDunnGroup.com.

### Disguising Dividends as Bonuses Evidences Minority Shareholder Oppression

Minority shareholder oppression scenarios are typical. An individual joins a closely-held business as a minority owner and employee. The understanding is that the benefits of ownership will compensate for the below-market salary. The company terminates the individual and, either during or after employment, the majority shareholders take actions to deprive him of the reasonably expected benefits of ownership. This often includes lining their pockets.



Minority Shareholder Oppression Cases



Minority shareholder oppression case litigation often requires analyzing the salary, dividends and bonuses paid—or not paid—to the employees and shareholders. The terminated minority shareholder/employee will no longer receive salary or bonuses. Meanwhile, the majority shareholders continue to pay themselves substantial salaries, loan themselves money at below-market rates, and pay themselves substantial bonuses.



Case Study



In White, an individual joined a start-up business as an 8% shareholder and employee. Several years later, the company fired him. Prior to his termination the company never paid significant bonuses. After his termination, he sued for oppression. He claimed the majority shareholder was taking interest-free loans and paying substantial bonuses (while not declaring dividends). After paying substantial bonuses, this majority shareholder was forcing a capital call to dilute his interests.



Among other holdings, the bankruptcy court found the bonuses were disguised dividends. The court considered two factors in their findings. Firstly, the company declared the bonuses at year-end after knowing reported earnings. Lastly, the court considered the corporate tax benefit that declared bonuses instead of dividends.



The disguised dividends, personal loans, and imposition of a post-bonus-payment capital call, led the court to find shareholder oppression and award damages. The company was ordered, at the election of the minority shareholder, to either buy out the minority shareholder or be subjected to an injunction dictating how compensation of any kind may be paid.



Protecting Your Business Interests



For more information regarding minority shareholder oppression actions and protecting your business interests, contact Rogge Dunn Group business lawyer Gregory M. Clift at 214.239.2777 or clift@RoggeDunnGroup.com.

### Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and Pre-Suit Investigations

The federal courts have heightened the specificity with which plaintiffs must plead their cases, notably when it involves trade secret litigation.  A recent misappropriation of trade secrets decision serves as a warning that pre-filing investigations of departing employees’ actions are vitally important.



In U.S. Bank v. Parker, a former employee from the Bank’s wealth management group resigned and joined a competing group. The employee signed a Confidentiality and Non-Solicitation Agreement while at the Bank.  The agreement barred her for one year from contacting the Bank's clients to solicit business. She was also obligated to immediately return all confidential information concerning the Bank’s clients and business when she resigned.



The Bank filed suit for breach of contract, tortious interference with business, and misappropriation of trade secrets. It alleged “on information and belief” Parker violated her agreement by contacting clients. The bank also claimed Parker failed to return the Bank’s confidential information.



The Bank immediately faced problems. Because its complaint failed to allege specific instances of Parker contacting clients or identify the confidential information she misappropriated, the court granted Parker’s Motion to Dismiss the case. The court held merely “believing” Parker may have violated the agreement was too speculative.



Comprehensive trade secret programs, substantive exit interviews, and pre-suit investigations are vitally important to trade secret protection and protecting other confidential business information. Furthermore, with the heightened pleading standards, employers must develop facts supporting misappropriation, and not rely on speculation.



For more information regarding trade secret litigation and protecting your business and its confidential information, contact a trade secret lawyer or business lawyer at Rogge Dunn Group.

### Disclosure of Company Secrets to Attorney Breaches Agreement

Departing employees oftentimes consult with counsel regarding separation agreements or potential legal action. A recent Houston Court of Appeals case regarding workplace employment issues provides employees a stern warning to adhere stringently to confidentiality agreements.



In Vaughan, an ex-employee sued his former employer seeking unpaid compensation. His employer responded contending Vaughan materially breached the confidentiality provision of an employment agreement he entered years before, thereby absolving it of any obligation to pay.  Basically, it alleged Vaughan misappropriated confidential documents and disclosed them.



Vaughan presented commonly-heard reasons for his actions:



In the event of a regulatory investigation, he wanted the documents and files to protect himself; andWhile he admitted disclosing the documents, he contended he only disclosed them to his attorney.



The court determined sufficient evidence existed whereby the jury could find Vaughan materially breached the employment agreement’s confidentiality provision. Therefore, the court excused the employer from further performance – in this case, paying compensation.



The case presents a number of points to both practitioners and departing employees.  For the practitioner, it's important to note the appellate court analyzed the jury’s determination of material breach based on a jury question that failed to include a legal definition of material.  Instead, it looked to the common meaning. This determined whether the jury’s decision was legally sufficient.



For the departing employee, the decision indicates courts will not develop legal carve-outs from a negotiated confidentiality provision. Stated another way, while an employee’s interest in protecting himself from investigations, or even in consulting with counsel, are logical, such will not trump an employee’s obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the employer’s information.



For more information regarding workplace employment issues, contact employment lawyer Gregory M. Clift at 214.239.2777 or clift@RoggeDunnGroup.com.

### ADA Laws Pose New Challenges in the Workplace

Suppose an employee comes to work with a boa constrictor wrapped around their body and says, "this snake is my emotional support animal. I need this snake at work and I know my rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act," ("ADA"). What do you do?



Historically, employers have found the ADA to be a difficult anti-discrimination law to understand. As ADA lawyers, we know that ADA claims can be dangerous, high-dollar matters. Disability discrimination cases are among the easiest cases for employees to win. For an example of this, see our blog about an employer who violated the ADA and ended up paying an employee $725,000 for a bottle of orange juice.



A New Challenge for Employers



A new challenge under the ADA is dealing with employees who have disabilities and need either a service animal or an emotional support animal. ADA lawyers can provide support for employers that are concerned about how to follow the ADA guidelines.



Disability cases typically present compelling facts, which often motivates jurors to find employers liable and award punitive damages. A Plaintiff’s lawyer can make the compelling argument that all a disabled employee wants is to be a productive member of society. Instead of sitting at home and collecting welfare or a disability check, which disabled people could find demeaning, all they want is a job—a right many of us take for granted.



Is the Employee's Request Reasonable?



The ADA requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees who have disabilities but are otherwise qualified for the job. This realm of reasonable accommodations includes service and emotional support animals.



Service animals are not limited to dogs. They include many types of animals: monkeys, ferrets, mini horses, parrots, potbelly pigs and boa constrictors. Yes, even a boa constrictor is recognized as a permissible service animal.



A disabled employee in Shelton, Washington suffers from seizures. His boa constrictor can sense when he is about to have a seizure and tightly squeezes him. This gives him enough time to take his medication or other precautions until his seizure passes. Imagine the consternation and disruption in a workplace when one of your employees strolls around the office with a boa constrictor wrapped around their body. Yet, forbidding an employee from bringing a boa constrictor service animal to work may create significant ADA liability for an employer.



Proceed Cautiously With the Help of an ADA Lawyer



Because this is a cutting-edge area of the law, ADA Lawyers advise careful analysis and caution. Only recently have employees (other than blind employees) begun asking to bring service or emotional support animals into the workplace. Some requests for an emotional support animal may trigger ADA laws and some may not. Since there is little guidance from the Courts, an employer or employee should contact an ADA lawyer. They can help analyze the situation on the front end when the request is first made.



Determining whether or not an employer made a reasonable accommodation is a judgement call. There is no mathematical formula or clear guidelines from the EEOC as to what accommodations an employer must make. Therefore, all parties concerned need to proceed cautiously with the help of an ADA lawyer when it comes to service or emotional support animal concerns.

### Rogge Dunn Group PC Named as Law Firm 500 Honoree

Rogge Dunn Group, PC is honored to be ranked one of the top fastest growing firms in the United States in the 2018 Law Firm 500 Honorees list.

Recipients are honored for the velocity of their growth, strategic vision, and unwavering commitment to succeed.

The published list recognizes law firms that have achieved significant growth in revenues. Each nominee was evaluated by an outside accounting firm, and subjected to an identical review process. The award honorees are a beacon of light for the legal industry demonstrating innovation, operational excellence, and a commitment to client service.

Thank you all for your continued support.

### Finnish Co. Can't Dodge Arbitration With Rogge Dunn Group Client Over Engine Failure

Two Dallas arbitration attorneys of Rogge Dunn Group PC, Rogge Dunn and Brian P. Shaw, have another success story to share. A Texas federal judge has ruled in their favor for their client, Hartford Steam Boiler, when Finnish Manufacturer Wärtsilä North America Inc. attempted to circumvent an arbitration agreement following an explosion of faulty equipment. Wärtsilä claimed that the arbitrators did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute, but after review of all legal documents, Dunn and Shaw have successfully defended their client to receive the desired outcome.



By Christopher Crosby
Law360
Published August 16, 2018

Law360 has reported that a Texas Federal judge refused to break up arbitration launched by a client of Rogge Dunn Group over a malfunctioning power plant engine.

To see the full article, click here. 

### The Story of the $725,000 Bottle of Orange Juice- An EEOC Case

The Importance of an EEOC Attorney



Employers have an obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), to provide accommodations to employees with known medical disabilities.



Employers also have an obligation to train their employees and management staff about its reasonable accommodation policy.



There are times when employers over overlook this and it affects individuals. When that time comes, both employers and employees will need the an experienced EEOC Attorney. One who fully understands Equal Employment Opportunity Commission laws and regulations.



The $725,000 Bottle of Orange Juice



On August 7th, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict the EEOC won against Dollar General for ADA discrimination against an employee with diabetes.  How did Dollar General violate the ADA? It fired the employee for drinking orange juice at her register before paying for it during a hypoglycemic attack.  The cashier paid the $1.69 for the juice as soon as her medical emergency passed.



Dollar General had an ADA accommodation policy in place, but the store’s employees were unaware of it. Despite the policy, the district manager and loss prevention manager fired the cashier for drinking juice at the register before paying for it. However, Dollar General knew about her diabetes and her request for accommodation to keep juice near the register.



The employee was awarded $27,565 in back pay, $250,000 for emotional distress $446,322 in attorneys’ fees and $1,676.95 in costs for a total award of $725,563.95.  Dollar General was also ordered to change its policies, send notices to employees, conduct expensive and time-consuming training on ADA accommodations and be monitored by the EEOC for three years.



And, to top it all off, the EEOC distributed a press release detailing Dollar General’s mistakes and punishment.  The media picked up the story nationwide.



Insight From an EEOC Attorney



EEOC Attorney Faye Williams stated, "This case highlights another employer who failed to train its employees on the reasonable accommodation requirements under the ADA. Dollar General represents one of the largest variety retailers in the country. Yet it failed to ensure that its employees and management staff knew about its reasonable accommodation policy.  It was as if Dollar General had no policy at all. We hope this jury verdict sends a message to employers to train your employees on the ADA."



Employers should be aware of the triggers to engage in an interactive process and should know when disciplinary measures cross the line into violating the ADA.



And, employees should know their rights and how to receive appropriate accommodations for known disabilities.



We help executives and employees pursue claims and assist employers defending claims. Our experience of seeing these cases from both sides gives the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group insight into what the other side is thinking and enables us to implement effective strategies and tactics.



Companies have hired us to provide sensitivity and other training to comply with training ordered by the EEOC.



For more information, contact us at 214-888-5000 or info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in DrugWatcher.org on Keys to Winning Mass Torts

Rogge Dunn has paved his way at a notable mass tort attorney. In this article, he is recognized as one of "America's Top Trial Lawyers". Rogge says that the most important advice to any mass tort attorney is "driving home the message to the jury that they are setting safety standards for consumers everywhere." Visit the article below to learn more from other experts!

11 of America's Top Trial Lawyers Share Their Biggest Mass Tort Win

https://www.drugwatcher.org/mass-tort/
See Full Article here
DrugWatcher.org

### Rogge Dunn Group selected as Finalist for Elite Trial Lawyers Award

The National Law Journal  has selected Rogge Dunn Group, PC as a finalist for the Nationwide 2018 Elite Trial Lawyers Award in the Business Torts category.

The law firm finalists were selected from 300 submissions made by The National Law Journal editors and reporters  for performing “exemplary and cutting-edge work on behalf of Plaintiffs.”   Factors considered included: performance in significant cases, verdict  amounts, novelty of the claims pursued, firm size in relation to impact or recovery amount, and willingness to take on large cases and persevere in the face of adversity.

Rogge Dunn Group, PC is one of only five law firms in the entire country honored as a finalist in the Business Torts category.

Rogge Dunn Group is grateful to The National Law Journal for recognizing  its success in helping clients; and, including it with other respected and successful law firms from around the country.

 

### Dunn quoted on "Ex-Ameriprise Broker Seeks to Vacate FINRA Panel’s ‘Note’ Award"

Published July 11, 2018
by Jed Horowitz
AdvisorHub

A California broker who last month lost a $287,000 arbitration battle over promissory note balances owed to Ameriprise Financial Services has asked a court to vacate the award, citing procedural errors by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

The self-regulator violated its own dispute resolution rules by re-classifying the chairman of a three-person arbitration panel as a “non-public” arbitrator after lawyers for each side had completed their review-and-ranking process for selecting arbitrators, according to a petition filed on July 6 in federal court in the southern district of New York.

...

“I think that the case has legs,” said Rogge Dunn, an employment lawyer in Dallas, Tex., who often represents brokers. But he cautioned that the rigid arbitration review standards make vacating the award “still an uphill battle.”

Click here to read the entire article

AdvisorHub site

### Dunn Testifies Before the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission on Discrimination Within the Texas Department of Public Safety

To see the entire streaming webcast of the May 23, 2018 meeting click here.

To see the Agenda for the May 23, 2018 meeting click here.

### Rogge Dunn quoted in Houston Chronicle on "Ex-Baylor athletic director: Black athletes made scapegoats"

Dallas attorney Rogge Dunn, who represents former Baylor Title IX coordinator Patty Crawford and former Title IX office staff member Gabrielle Lyons, was quoted in a Houston Chronicle article regarding the Baylor sexual assault scandal. Dunn said McCaw's comments as quoted in the motion filed Wednesday vindicates Crawford's complaints about the attitude of Baylor regents toward the plague of sexual assaults on the Baylor Campus.

To read more, see the full article here

Houston Chronicle


2016 Fox4 News Interview with Rogge Dunn and Patty Crawford

### Dunn Quoted "Morgan Stanley Zeroes In on a Manager's Communications Style in Exit Notice

by AdvisorHub Staff
Published June 12, 2018

A Morgan Stanley filing with state securities regulators about the abrupt departure last month of a former complex manager suggests that managers have to be more careful than ever about their behavior, but leaves many questions about particulars.

Richard Frick, a 21-year securities industry veteran who had been with the wirehouse since 2011 and was overseeing its Philadelphia advisors, left on May 2  as part of a “mutually agreed resignation stemming from employee’s manner of communications,” according to a U-5 separation agreement reviewed by AdvisorHub.

The notice to regulators that firms are required to file to explain “separations” by registered persons said the issues did not relate to sales and trading but otherwise provided no details about the communications issues. The wording of such notices are carefully negotiated by firm legal departments and employment lawyers representing advisors since it can determine compensation and future job opportunities.

Frick, who started his career at Salomon Smith Barney in 1995 before embarking in 1999 to Prudential Securities and its successor firm Wells Fargo Advisors, could not be reached for comment. He has not registered with a new firm, according to BrokerCheck.

Several employment lawyers who represent brokers said the Frick “manner of communications” language is unusual phraseology and likely reflects the heightened scrutiny of managers and brokers by companies sensitive to potential human resources issues.

“That’s a cutting-edge disclosure,” said Rogge Dunn, an employment lawyer in Dallas, Texas, who said he was not familiar with Frick’s case but is seeing firms demanding more collaborative relationships between managers and field employees and messages and “sensitive” communication.

Every case is unique and fact-dependent, of course, but at least one other wirehouse employee who sources said was dismissed last month over a sensitive human-resources issue has found a new job.

Brett R. Henderson, a $600,000 producer at a UBS Wealth Management Americas branch in Beverly Hills, abruptly left the firm last month after nine years  at the wirehouse and four earlier years at Merrill Lynch.

Though his BrokerCheck history records him as still at UBS, he has launched Henderson Wealth Management, a registered investment advisory firm in Manhattan Beach that is affiliated with Resources Investment Advisors, an RIA rollup firm.

Reached on his cellphone, Henderson declined to comment on his departure and his new firm.

Resources Investment, based in Overland Park, Kansas, has $10.4 billion in assets under management, $8.4 billion of which are managed on a discretionary basis, according to its ADV filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission in March.

View a pdf version of the article here:

Morgan Stanley Zeroes In on a Manager’s Communications Style in Exit Notice 2018-06-13~

### Partnership Breakups: It Doesn't Have to be Hard

by Rogge DunnTexas Lawyer online 5/23/18



Partnership breakups can be challenging, but they can also be amicable.



When law partnerships end, breaking up is often difficult: finding new space, building a new website, planning your SEO...and this is just the tip of the iceberg. The breakup can be acrimonious, or worse, lead to expensive and time-consuming litigation. But it doesn’t have to be that way.



Valuable Lessons



My former law partner of 16 years and I are living proof. Amid our recent decision to go our own ways, we followed valuable lessons that can assist others who choose to split up.



The first of these is that partnership breakups are similar to the end of a marriage. And just as in personal matters, listening, diplomacy and flexibility can be the difference between a messy split and a smooth and cordial separation. Be fair. No, be more than fair. We checked our trial lawyer egos at the door. Each of us gave the other things we knew were important to the other.



This lesson goes back to the very beginning of a business relationship. Most management experts believe a law firm, or any other partnership, must have a well-defined written partnership agreement. The agreement should detail what happens if one or more partners decide to leave. That’s the advice I give my clients.



Handshake Agreement



Ironically, that’s not what my law partner and I did when we joined forces. Rather than follow conventional wisdom, we operated on a handshake agreement rooted in my fifth-generation Texas hubris. The handshake approach works only when you know your partner’s character and heart. If you go the handshake route, be sure you have experience with and absolute trust in your law partner.



Our handshake agreement meant that by the time we reached a decision to dissolve our firm, we had no established process on how to dissolve the firm. Legally we were bound, of course, by the default provisions of the Texas Business Organizations Code. As a result of our unique business partnership, we needed to discuss an array of issues. These included everything from how to transition attorneys and administrative staff to who would retain our firm’s website, phone numbers and office space.



Our collaborative work also included how to inform clients. Rather than let clients hear about our decision through dueling separate announcements, we chose to talk about it publicly and together. Our public disclosure included placing a joint announcement in the Dallas Bar Association’s Headnotes. In short, we were able to work together – even at the end – in a friendly, fair and orderly manner.



High Profile Law Firm Partnership Breakups



That was certainly not the case in a high profile law firm split in 2017 involving New York’s Cellino & Barnes. In that train wreck, Above The Law reported that Barnes accused Cellino of poaching the firm’s attorneys. He called Cellino’s behavior “reprehensible” and claimed that Cellino told firm attorneys that “the ‘Cellino’ name was ‘better’ than the ‘Barnes’ name – analogizing the firm to Harley-Davidson and saying ‘no one ever calls their motorcycle a Davidson.’”



As a Texas partnership lawyer, I’ve represented lawyers in more than a dozen law firm partnership breakups, including partners fighting over a $4 million fee.  As plenty of Texas partnership lawsuits and trials prove, the consequences of a bitter fight can be economically disastrous for one partner, the other or both. See Gary Cruciani vs. Baron & Budd.  ($8.8 million verdict).



The Zeughauser Group recently released a study of law firm mergers and competition. It revealed that 84% of law firm leaders in Texas are optimistic about their firms’ future. However, the harsh reality is that most partnerships won’t last. A recent study by the CMO Council, a global network of executives dedicated to the exchange of business issues, determined that the failure rate for strategic partnerships was 60% or more.  Therefore, an optimistic outlook is no guarantee that a partnership will not have to be dissolved sooner than anyone thinks.



Address the Split



While the topic of a possible split is not the cheeriest of things to discuss, it’s important to address the dissolution issues early and know how you will dissolve your partnership. Doing so ensures that you and your law partners can be optimistic about your firm’s future, and focus on providing excellent counsel to your clients.



Rogge Dunn Guest Commentary - Breaking Up Texas Lawyer 5-23-18



PDF Version

### A Properly Worded Arbitration Agreement Can Significantly Reduce Employer Liability

Done correctly, an arbitration agreement could save employers time and money. Did you know a single disgruntled employee can bring a class action on behalf of all similarly- situated employees for unpaid overtime and unpaid benefits? Depending upon the size of the class and the claims involved, class action suits can pose a serious threat to your business.



For several years, the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group have advised our clients on arbitration agreements. Indeed, a properly worded arbitration agreement could preclude such class action claims.



On May 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court validated our advice. They held that arbitration agreements requiring each employee to arbitrate disputes individually are enforceable. Furthermore, agreements which do not permit arbitration of class claims are also enforceable.



Whether such an arbitration agreement is right for your business (and the scope of any such agreement) deserves careful consideration.



At Rogge Dunn Group, PC, we can help you evaluate whether an arbitration agreement makes sense for your business. Moreover, if it does, we can assist you in drafting and implementing your agreement to most effectively protect your company and its assets.



For more information or to speak with an employment lawyer about employment arbitration issues, visit our contact page

### Dunn quoted on Former Texan Cheerleader Lawsuit

Dallas attorney Rogge Dunn said the case highlights the challenges that employers face in a digital workplace as employees have constant access to work product and, as alleged in the Texans case, are encouraged to be on the job even when they're not at the office.

"If an employee turns on his computer on a Saturday, is he working? If so, he needs to be paid, and then does that push the employee over 40 hours?" Dunn said. "It's emblematic of an employer's worst nightmare in the digital age. How do you record time spent checking e-mail? If you're required to check your phone every 10 minutes, it starts to add up."

Click here to read the Houston Chronicle Article in its entirety

Houston Chronicle

 

### Sports Betting Legislation Overturned

Sports Betting Legislation Overturned
Monday, May 14, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned legislation (Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA) 28 U.S.C. § 3701 et seq.) prohibiting states from enacting laws to allow betting on sports events. Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic An., 584 U. S. ____ (2018)  This law does not mean that sports gambling is immediately legal everywhere.  It means that individual states can exercise their state’s rights to pass laws allowing sports gambling pursuant to state court regulations.

Many experts predict that within several years more than half the states in the US will pass laws permitting sports gambling.  Literally within hours after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a law maker in Minnesota introduced a bill to make gambling based on competitive sporting events legal in Minnesota, effective that same day.

Murphy v NCAA - Sports Betting Opinion

### Noted Dallas Attorney Rogge Dunn Launches New Firm

NOTED DALLAS ATTORNEY ROGGE DUNN LAUNCHES NEW FIRM
April 23, 2018 11:00 am
Contact:
Barry Pound
800-559-4534
barry@androvett.com

DALLAS – Veteran Dallas attorney Rogge Dunn has established a new firm, the Rogge Dunn Group, PC, further capitalizing on his experience and success in representing executives, companies and brokers in business litigation, employment disputes and claims involving the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).


Joining Mr. Dunn at the firm are partners Gregory Clift, Bryan Collins, and Brian Shaw, and attorneys David Gross and John Lynch. All were previously with the firm of Rogge Dunn Group in Dallas.

“The timing was right to make this move, and my colleagues and I are excited about the opportunity to showcase our expertise, flexibility, and innovative approaches to resolving contentious disputes, both in the courtroom and at the bargaining table,” says Mr. Dunn. “We have a team of lawyers with big firm talent without the bureaucratic constraints.”

Mr. Dunn holds the rare distinction of being certified in both Civil Trial Law and Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, and has been repeatedly honored among the state’s top litigators by his peers and a wide range of legal publications. He has been recognized on multiple occasions as one of the top 100 attorneys in Texas on the Texas Super Lawyers list, and has been repeatedly selected to DMagazine’s Best Lawyers in Dallas list.

Well-known for his legal representation in high-profile matters, Mr. Dunn has litigated claims on behalf of a number of high net worth individuals and Fortune 500 executives, as well as professional athletes, coaches, judges and corporate general counsel. While several of these cases have garnered national and international attention, Mr. Dunn has successfully resolved numerous other matters on a confidential basis.

Mr. Dunn earned his law degree with honors from The University of Texas School of Law, where he was a member of the Law Review and the school’s Board of Advocates. He received his undergraduate degree with honors from Southern Methodist University, and currently serves on the Associate Board of SMU’s Cox School of Business, as a member of the SMU Digital Accelerator Advisory Board, and as an adjunct professor of the school’s MBA program.

The attorneys of The Rogge Dunn Group have built a well-deserved reputation for aggressive litigation, outstanding results and attentive client service. Led by founding partner Rogge Dunn, the firm is well-known for successfully trying high-profile employment disputes and complex commercial lawsuits, and this trial experience supports innovative strategies to identify meaningful solutions, complete effective settlements and minimize litigation risks for corporate and individual clients. Based in Dallas, the firm tries cases in state and federal courts in Texas and throughout the United States. Learn more about the firm at www.roggedunngroup.com.

Contact:
Barry Pound
800-559-4534
barry@androvett.com

Noted Dallas Attorney Rogge Dunn Launches New Firm 2018-04-23

### Former Employee Accuses Mark Cuban of Racial Discrimination

WBAP News Talk 820 AM
Scott Sidway
March 29, 2018

Attorney Rogge Dunn and Michelle Newsome

Former Employee Accuses Mark Cuban of Racial Discrimination

DALLAS (WBAP/KLIF News) —  Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has been accused by a former American Airlines Center employee of racial discrimination and sweeping a “threat of violence against African Americans” under the rug.

Michelle Newsome and her attorney spoke with WBAP Thursday morning, announcing that they have filed a request for a deposition against Cuban. Newsome says she was fired without cause based on race and sex, despite being a successful sales executive. Newsome said she was consistently harassed by co-workers for being a black woman, referencing a time she was told she was only hired because of affirmative action.

See Full Article here Former Employee Accuses Mark Cuban of Racial Discrimination _ News Talk WBAP-AM 2018-03-29~

### Rogge Dunn in D Magazine Partner Content feature on High Level Execs

Are You a High-Level Exec?  You may need an executive contract
DMagazine
3/26/2018

C-level executives, and those aspiring to get there, need to understand and prepare for legal issues that impact their job mobility and the deferred compensation they have worked so hard to earn.  Any aspiring executive who does not have a contract protecting their deferred and incentive compensation is vulnerable to losing that compensation.

See Full Article Here

### Workplace Harassment Lawyer Rogge Dunn Interviewed on CBS 11 Regarding "#MeToo Era"

By: Robbie OwensCBS11
 Click here for video
DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) – From Hollywood to Capitol Hill to the nation’s newsrooms, the #MeToo movement has exposed former power brokers as abusers. Now, the Dallas Mavericks organization has come under scrutiny. Specifically, former team president and CEO Terdema Ussery has been publicly accused of sexually harassing female employees.
“It’s in every level of life we live, and a lot of people get away with,” said Reginald Hilliard, who explained that he supports the sense of reckoning ushered in by the #MeToo movement. “So, I’m not surprised,” he said, when asked about the accusations depicted in a Sports Illustrated investigation. “Disappointed, absolutely. But, not surprised.”
So, what do you do if you’re being harassed and the situation isn’t likely to become national news?
“Do the same things that the companies do,” said Dallas business and employment attorney Rogge Dunn, “document, document, document.”
Still, Dunn admitted that waging a battle to prove harassment is difficult, and the fear of retaliation is huge. “It’s very real,” said Dunn. “That puts an individual in the worst possible dilemma. Do I put up with illegal and annoying and harassing comments, or making passes and gestures? If no, at the same time, I risk putting my family [financially] at risk. Who has the courage to do that?”
Dunn said, if possible, reach out to human resources. If such a move seems like too much of a risk, he suggested sending a “gentle” email to the tormentor — one that’s not intended to anger. But declining an inappropriate request in writing documents the exchange.
At the very least, Dunn said, send timestamped emails to yourself to document incidents of offensive or harassing behavior. And seek out co-workers who may also have witnessed or been victims of harassment. Dunn said that one person may be dismissed as an outlier. If several people come forward, complaints will be more difficult to ignore.
Finally, discreetly record conversations if possible — the more spontaneous the better. “If someone is saying vulgar things to you that they’re going to deny,” Dunn said, “a tape recording is a great way to avoid a he said/she said swearing later.”
Dunn also has some advice for the C-suite. “Watch what you say,” he added. “If it doesn’t pass the mom, daughter or “60 Minutes” test, don’t say it and don’t do it! It’s just that simple for executives!”
Newscast video

### Harassment Attorney Rogge Dunn quoted in Ft. Worth Star Telegram "Cuban, Mavericks 'on the legal hot seat' over sexual harassment claims"

Cuban, Mavericks 'on the legal hot seat' over sexual harassment claims


BY DREW DAVISON
 February 22, 2018 04:09 PM
 Updated February 23, 2018 06:29 AM

DALLAS 



It took Under Armour less than two months to part ways with a high-profile employee, Terdema Ussery, after a co-worker complained of sexual harassment.

The Dallas Mavericks kept Ussery employed for almost two decades at the highest level despite multiple complaints to human resources about his behavior, according to a Sports Illustrated investigation.

Although he is not accused of sexual harassment himself, owner Mark Cuban and the Mavericks became the latest high-profile entity caught in the #MeToo movement as SI painted a disturbing pattern of sexual misconduct within the organization. Ussery, the former team president, reportedly told a female employee that he envisioned her being “gang banged,” among other similar episodes.

Ussery denied such actions to SI, but multiple female employees brought complaints to the Mavericks’ human relations department. After Under Armour received a complaint about Ussery, the company removed him.

“It really shows two different approaches in corporate America,” said Jason Smith, a Fort Worth-based employment lawyer who in 1999 won the first sexual harassment jury verdict in Tarrant County. “One is 'we’re not going to stand for sexual harassment.' The other is 'we’re going to let those in power get away with it and turn a blind eye.'

“The fact that Under Armour, after only a few months, said 'we’re not doing this' and, by comparison, what the Mavs did? It’s really going to put the Mavericks on the legal hot seat.”

Another Mavericks employee, Mavs.com writer Earl K. Sneed, had multiple domestic violence incidents and remained employed until this week, according to SI. One of the incidents involved a team employee he was dating at the time.

Employees generally have 300 days to file a sexual harassment complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Employees subjected to unwanted touching, as has been accused with Ussery, have two years to file.

Rodney Klein, an outreach and education manager for federal agency, declined to comment on the Mavericks' situation. But a continuance of that sort of environment could put the Mavericks in legal trouble, as Smith said.

“It appears that the Mavericks didn’t have an effective program to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace,” Smith said.

The SI report provides disturbing issues on every level, particularly with Ussery and Sneed. The Mavericks have taken steps being made aware of the report. They issued a statement before the SI story was published, and then later announced an independent investigation to examine the issues. The Mavericks hired attorneys Evan Krutoy and Anne Milgrim to lead the investigation.

In a statement, the team said investigators “will be holding confidential interviews with all Mavericks staff members, as well as previously employed individuals who wish to speak, to help better understand and fix the issues.”

The #MeToo movement sweeping the nation has cost the jobs and reputations of high-profile men like Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, comedian Louis C.K., national TV host Matt Lauer and U.S. Sen. Al Franken.

“Our society is getting a wake-up call on taking seriously how women are mistreated in the workplace,” Smith, the employment lawyer, said. “The Mavericks, as an organization, appear to have fallen way short. All they can do now is take serious steps to improve their environment.

"Sexual harassment is a big problem for employers because it gets in the way of their productivity," he added. "No wonder the Mavericks have been losing the last couple of seasons with this kind of distraction in their back office.”

Cuban admitted in an ESPN interview that he made a “horrible mistake” in keeping Sneed employed after learning of his domestic violence history. He refused to comment on the Ussery allegations.

Aside from possible legal issues, the scandal is a significant blow to Cuban's and the Mavericks' reputations. If Cuban were harboring thoughts about running for president in 2020, this could make things more difficult.

“I think it’ll depend if this is a one-off or if it was a cultural endemic,” Dallas-based harassment attorney Rogge Dunn said. “People will say, ‘Hey, when he ran a big, important billion-dollar enterprise, he was asleep at the controls.’ Running for office and the presidency is about leadership. If you can’t lead a company, how are you going to lead the country?

“If this is one-off? Maybe. But if other people have the guts to come forward, I think he’ll be in for real reputational risk.”

But Smith and Dunn also understand the precarious situation employees can put their employer in. Cuban might, for example, have had good intentions by giving Sneed a chance to seek counseling.

“I think the real issue isn’t whether they give him a second chance or not, it’s if the organization is going to send a message that they have a strong stance against sexual harassment, [that they] take action immediately upon it occurring,” Smith said. “Not so much what an employee brings from their personal life so much as it is what the company does to prevent it in the workplace.”

Added Dunn: “I think it’s a case-by-case basis. My personal opinion, obviously from a PR standpoint, the safest thing for a company to do is fire somebody. On the other hand, if a person admits they have a problem and are seeking counseling, maybe you give them a second chance.

"Sometimes you might consult the victim and talk with them about how you don’t want him or her to lose a job. Being fired and on the street is not exactly going to help them with this problem.”

There could also be more fallout. Multiple emails to ABC regarding Cuban’s status on the reality show "Shark Tank" were not returned.

Cuban appears determined to get the organization fixed, though he’s admitted he was “embarrassed” by the scandal.And the NBA said it’s going to “closely monitor" the independent investigation.

“This alleged conduct runs counter to the steadfast commitment of the NBA and its teams to foster safe, respectful and welcoming workplaces for all employees,” the league said in a statement.

Fort Worth Star Telegram

See Article

### What's next for Mark Cuban, Mavs? 'Real chance' NBA could come down hard, legal expert Rogge Dunn says

What's next for Mark Cuban, Mavs? 'Real chance' NBA could come down hard, legal expert says
By: Eddie SefkoPublished: February 22, 2018Dallas Morning News
Smiley N. Pool/Staff Photographer/The Dallas Morning News
LOS ANGELES -- So, what is next for Mark Cuban and the Mavericks?
We know there will be a lengthy investigation by the people hired to find out exactly what's what in the sexual misconduct scandal that has rocked the franchise.
That already has begun, sources said, as investigators Anne Milgrim and Evan Krutoy arrived in Dallas to begin their research. It could take a month, with more than 100 people to interview.
We know there will be repercussions -- but to what extent?
At least one benchmark case could provide insight as to where this is headed.
Maybe the best parallel to the Mavericks' case involved the New York Knicks in 2007 when Isiah Thomas was the team's coach and president of basketball operations. A female employee complained of a hostile workplace environment that included sexual harassment by Thomas. The employee said she later was fired for filing her complaint.
In that case, a jury awarded the former employee an $11.6 million settlement paid by Knicks owner Madison Square Garden and James Dolan, chairman of parent company MSG.
The circumstances of the Mavericks case are not radically different from the ones in New York and could open a wide array of possible sanctions.

"There's a real chance the NBA could come down hard on the Mavericks -- up to and including their [2018 first-round] draft pick," said Rogge Dunn, a legal expert who has extensive experience dealing with workplace misconduct in the world of sports. "The major risk is if Mark Cuban was found to have covered anything up. That could impact sponsors, attendance, other legal ramifications and public opinion, of course."
Interestingly in the Knicks case, then-Commissioner David Stern elected to impose no further sanctions on the franchise other than what was court-ordered.


At the time, Stern issued this statement: "In light of the settlement, which I strongly supported, I have decided to take no further action. Instead, we are going to continue to focus our attention on a league-wide program ensuring that all teams have appropriate policies, clearly communicated to their employees, focusing on respect in the workplace, including the prohibition of sexual harassment."
Either the Mavericks never got that memo or chose not to abide by it because they have now landed in this uncharted territory.
Terdema Ussery, their former president and CEO, is accused of improper sexual behavior in the workplace, with several former Mavericks employees telling Sports Illustrated that they received unwanted advances from Ussery.
Ussery denied the allegations in a statement to SI. He left the organization in 2015 and parted ways at his next job, with Under Armour, just three months after being hired amid reports of improper conduct with a female co-worker in an elevator.

It's far too early to know what financial penalty is headed toward Cuban and the Mavericks, but that might be getting off light -- if their prized draft pick survives.


Dunn, who has worked in numerous high-profile sports-related cases -- including representing Texas Tech's president against former football coach Mike Leach -- said the possibility of civil suits is unlikely but not impossible.
"In terms of legal claims, most of them are time-barred," Dunn said of lawsuits from individuals. "However, even if they have gotten rid of the main harasser, there could be legal risk if that sort of culture still runs deep.
"If there's a bad culture there now, it will come out in the investigation."
Dunn added that the Mavericks already are having to spend a large sum of money on the investigation itself and that the economic impact on the organization could be far-reaching.
What remains unanswered, but certainly will come out in the investigation, is just how much Cuban knew -- and when -- about the 1998 internal investigation into complaints against Ussery.
What investigators and the Mavericks know for sure is that, on Thursday, a memo was sent out to all 30 teams by Commissioner Adam Silver that said there would be a confidential hotline in place to report workplace misconduct. It is part of the league's "Respect in the Workplace" initiative, ESPN reported.
Dallas Morning News SportsDay


See Article

### Dunn quoted in Star Telegram "TCU football: Legal experts review Listenbee, TCU case"

TCU football: Legal experts review Listenbee, TCU case
By: Drew Davison Published February 5, 2018 Star Telegram
Kolby Listenbee’s personal injury lawsuit against TCU, football coach Gary Patterson and others has created a firestorm of opinions.
A few of his former teammates have ripped Listenbee for filing the lawsuit, while others have voiced their support. Some believe Listenbee, an Arlington Bowie product, is just trying to find an excuse for what’s been a failed NFL career to this point.
But experts believe this legal battle could turn into a high-stakes game for all involved.
“One of the big issues right now in all of athletics is Toradol and other injections like that which are given to players before every game when they’re only supposed to be used once every three months,” said Rogge Dunn, a Dallas-based attorney who successfully represented Texas Tech in the $12.5 million wrongful termination lawsuit filed by former football coach Mike Leach in 2010.
“This is prevalent and this lawsuit can have merit. Coaches telling kids to play through injuries, bullying kids into playing by saying, ‘You’re not tough enough. The sissy line is over there.’ It’s a real problem.”
The problem for Listenbee, though, is building a strong enough case. People following this case will likely hear the word “causation” hundreds of times.
Listenbee has to prove causation in three areas, Dunn said.
First, he has to find a medical expert to side with him that he was rushed back to the field. Listenbee sustained a pelvis injury in September 2015, but claims TCU coaches and staff didn’t give him adequate time to let the injury heal. The injury, according to Listenbee’s attorneys, should’ve been given six months to heal.
Instead, Listenbee played after three weeks.
“You’re going to need a doctor to say, ‘He should’ve sat on the sideline and been given time to allow the injury to naturally heal as opposed to rushing him back and giving him drugs to mask the pain,’ ” Dunn said.
If Listenbee makes a compelling case for this, it could become an even larger issue for TCU and Patterson. NCAA rules prohibit “knowingly providing medications to student-athletes contrary to medical licensure, commonly accepted standards of care in sports medicine practice, or state and federal law.”
The NCAA’s Sports Medicine Handbook discourages extensive use of corticosteroids and numbing agents.
The handbook states, “Injectable corticosteroids should be administered only after more conservative treatments, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, rest, ice, ultrasound and various treatment modalities, have been exhausted. Repeated corticosteroid injections at a specific site should be done only after the consequences and benefits of the injections have been thoroughly evaluated.”
After that, Listenbee and his attorneys would need to find a medical expert who agrees permanent damage had been done with him returning too soon and that is the likely cause of why he had to undergo surgery to repair two sports hernias.
Finally, Listenbee would have to have an NFL general manager or player personnel guru state that his injuries caused him to fall in the draft. This becomes even more precarious given the number of players drafted in the NFL who go through a similar career path as Listenbee has gone through.
In other words, it’s hard to predict a prospect’s success in the NFL.
“It’s tough to prove causation all the way around — the injuries and that he would have made it even without them,” Georgetown law professor Brad Snyder said.
Dunn agreed that the causation points are “three big hurdles he has to clear,” but doesn’t view it as far-fetched as others might think.
At the end of the day, Listenbee and his attorneys simply have to win over a jury. If each side has experts expressing differing opinions on the medical and NFL issues, a jury might side with Listenbee if he’s able to show that TCU and Patterson bullied him to play through an injury.
Patterson already has an unfavorable past in this department. In 2010, former team physician Samuel Haraldson told the American Medical News that Patterson “verbally accosted” him when refusing to allow running back Ed Wesley back into a game with a head injury that Haraldson diagnosed as a concussion.
In his lawsuit, Listenbee paints Patterson in that sort of light too. He claims Patterson and other assistants threatened to tell NFL scouts that Listenbee’s “not tough enough” to play in the NFL.
“The bullying thing could be a big plus for him (Listenbee),” Dunn said. “Let’s say it’s a close call on everything, so then the little things are what can persuade a jury. Let’s say it’s a close call for the jury, but Patterson comes across as a bully. They’re going to rule in the kid’s favor even if the kid really wasn’t rushed back too quickly just because Patterson’s a bully.
“A lawsuit is like a play or a dramatic movie where the jury is trying to figure out who the good guy is and the bad guy is. One expert says he was rushed back, one expert says he wasn’t. One says he would’ve made it in NFL, one says he wouldn’t. So the jury doesn’t know who to side with.
“But, if the one thing they know is Patterson is a jerk, or Patterson is a great granddad to these kids, that could be the determining factor. How are they going to view Patterson?”
On the flip side, Patterson and the school could poke holes in Listenbee’s case. An interview Listenbee did during his pro day at the school had him raving about the coaching staff and medical staff at TCU.
The injuries also didn’t stop Listenbee from posting the second fastest 40-yard dash time (4.39 seconds) among all wide receivers at the NFL Scouting Combine. Plus, the Buffalo Bills used a sixth-round draft pick on him in the 2016 draft and the Indianapolis Colts signed him to a reserve/future deal last month.
This has the makings of becoming a high-stakes game. TCU, Patterson and the rest of the defendants likely don’t want to settle this lawsuit and possibly open themselves up to more players suing them.
It’s not unheard of, though. The University of Illinois reached a $250,000 settlement last spring with former offensive lineman Simon Cvijanovic. Cvijanovic said former Illini coach Tim Beckman forced him to play through knee and shoulder injuries.
That might be a better option than possibly losing in court even if TCU, Patterson and the other defendants feel strongly about their side.
As Dunn said, “The flip side is you get popped for $1 million and now other players are like, ‘Wow, we’re going to be able to use that as a precedent when they’re acting bad again.’ It’s high stakes for TCU and coach Patterson and anybody else.”
See article
Star Telegram Site

### Lawyers Explain Key Factors in Kolby Listenbee Lawsuit Against Gary Patterson, TCU

Cox Media Group
The DieHards Network
Matt Jennings
Published 02/06/2018
Lawyers Explain Key Factors in Kolby Listenbee Lawsuit Against Gary Patterson, TCU
The Kolby Listenbee lawsuit against Gary Patterson and TCU will come down to whether the former Horned Frog Receiver can prove causation in three key areas, according to Dallas attorney Rogge Dunn.

See full article here

 

### WFAA Dunn live interview on Colin Kaepernick Collusion Case

81059 WFAA 2017-11-03 1603 Rogge Dunn 04m06s from Rogge Dunn on Vimeo.

### Dunn Quoted on "Credit Suisse 'Raid' Case Against UBS Americas Marches On"

Credit Suisse 'Raid' Case Against UBS Americas Marches On

By Jed Horowitz
 Published December 14, 2017
 Advisor Hub

An unusual “raiding” claim that Credit Suisse Securities (USA) filed against UBS Financial Services two years ago as it was shuttering its U.S. brokerage business is proceeding before a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel.

Hearings have been scheduled from January 16 through March 2 in New York City, according to lawyers who are representing some former Credit Suisse brokers in separate pay-related arbitrations with their former employer.

Raiding cases are rare since the burden of proof is high on the accusing party to prove severe economic impact, and usually involves specific branches or complexes. The Credit Suisse allegations have raised eyebrows further in the securities industry because the Swiss bank announced in October 2015 that it was closing the doors or its U.S. retail brokerage business after reaching an “exclusive recruiting arrangement” to guide its more than 300 brokers to Wells Fargo Advisors.

“A raiding case when someone is shutting down the whole business is absurd and unheard of,” said Rogge Dunn an employment lawyer in Dallas who is representing several former Credit Suisse advisers seeking to receive deferred pay withheld by the Swiss bank and to retain pay that it is trying to claw back.

UBS Wealth Management Americas hired just over 100 of Credit Suisse’s 336 brokers, second only to the 111 who joined Wells Fargo, according to a document reviewed by AdvisorHub.

“Credit Suisse filed it as a brushback pitch to try and scare advisors to go to Wells Fargo,” which was not offering as much upfront  money as UBS and other rivals, Dunn said.

Another attorney representing former Credit Suisse brokers said it is difficult to imagine what sort of damages the Swiss bank could claim given their shuttering of the business. Officials at Credit Suisse and Wells Fargo have not disclosed terms of their recruiting arrangement.

Credit Suisse may have hoped that UBS would pressure its new brokers to drop their individual arbitration claims, Dunn speculated, and may be continuing the raiding case as a tactical effort to gain documentation in discovery that it can use  in the individual cases.

Some brokers who took the Wells Fargo Advisors deal have complained in recent weeks that the firms have reneged on an arrangement that was to have given them near-exclusive retail syndicate access to equity and debt offerings led by Credit Suisse.

Stephen Kramarksy, a lawyer at Dewey Pegno & Kramarsky in New York who is representing Credit Suisse in the raiding and some related suits, did not return a call for comment, nor did a Credit Suisse spokeswoman.

Carl Mills, a lawyer at Hughes Hubbard & Reed who is representing UBS in the raiding claim, also did not respond to a request for comment.

See the article in its entirety

Advisor Hub site

 

### Bryan Collins Wins Take Nothing Judgment for Credit Union

Pension and ERISA benefits are one of employers’ most expensive components of labor and capital costs.  Former employees of the Union Square Credit Union  sued our client claiming that they had been promised retirement and ERISA plan “benefits for life.”  Their suit alleged our client violated ERISA and defrauded them and sought potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.

Based on Collins’ Motion to Dismiss, a Dallas Federal Judge dismissed the entire lawsuit with prejudice.  The Court held that the Plaintiffs failed to state a viable claim that the Credit Union's retiree benefits policy was subject to ERISA.

This decision should help employers delineate between benefit plans and policies that are subject to ERISA laws (which require mandatory reporting and disclosure obligations as well as fines for not doing so) and benefit plans and policies that are not subject to ERISA.

Should you have questions about whether your company’s policies or procedures have unwittingly created an ERISA covered plan, please contact Bryan directly at (214) 239-2762.

### Highland Capital Used False Pretexts in Ousting of Dunn Client Portfolio Manager - Wall Street Journal

Wall Street Journal Reports Highland Capital used false pretexts in ousting of Portfolio Manager, Panel Finds

By
 Matt Wirz
 Published 11/26/17
 Wall Street Journal

An arbitration panel found that fund management company Highland Capital Management used pretexts and false allegations of a sexual relationship with a coworker to fire a portfolio manager without paying millions of dollars it owed him.

The finding is one of several legal reversals over the past several years for the Dallas-based firm, which has been fighting in court with former investors, former employees and trading partners since the financial crisis.

Highland’s founder, James Dondero, fired the firm’s most productive portfolio manager, Josh Terry, in June 2016 after Mr. Terry opposed a plan by Mr. Dondero to transfer funds between Highland investment vehicles and to delay repaying money owed to Highland investors, the Dallas arbitration panel determined in October. Mr. Terry believed the plan was a breach of his fiduciary duty to Highland clients and an external lawyer hired by the firm sided with him against Mr. Dondero, according to the panel.

“Dondero was simply angry and realized Terry was not a ‘yes man’ willing to let Dondero have his wrongheaded way,” the panel found in its ruling. “So Dondero fired Terry on the spot and later sought to characterize Terry’s termination of employment ‘for cause’.”

The panel also found Mr. Terry “did not prove that the sole reason for his termination was his refusal to commit an illegal act.” The panel didn’t rule on whether Mr. Dondero’s plan would constitute a breach of fiduciary duty.

Three months after it fired him, Highland sued Mr. Terry, who had been trying to collect retirement investments from his former employer. Highland alleged Mr. Terry had acted against the interests of investors in a fund he managed and that he had sexual relationships with several subordinates. The court ordered the two parties to arbitration.

Mr. Terry never caused damage or loss to the fund Highland alleged he mismanaged, according to the arbitration ruling. The arbitration panel, made up of three former Texas district court judges, also determined that Highland’s accusation that Mr. Terry had sex with a junior lawyer at the firm and involved her in alleged financial improprieties was “offensive.”

The relationship never happened and “this allegation was based solely on someone’s fantasy related to costumes they wore to an office Halloween party,” the panel stated. Two other sexual relationships Highland alleged Mr. Terry had with coworkers were insignificant in one case and unproven in the other, according to the arbitrators.

The panel said Mr. Dondero retrospectively constructed a pretext for the firing to justify not paying Mr. Terry $5.7 million he was owed by Highland. Arbitrators awarded Mr. Terry $7.9 million in damages and interest.

“The arbitration award speaks for itself,” said Rogge Dunn, Mr. Terry’s attorney.

The decision was made public last week in a lawsuit filed by Mr. Terry in Dallas County District Court to recover the award, as the money can’t be automatically collected with just an arbitration ruling. The two sides are expected to continue their battle in the district court.

See the Article in its entirety 

Wall Street Journal site 

### KXAS NBC5 Dunn live interview on National Anthem Debate - Free Speech in the NFL

80940 KXAS 2017-10-15 0807 NFL Players Kneeling - Dunn Interview 01m53s from Rogge Dunn on Vimeo.

### Dunn quoted on KXAS NBC DFW - Legal Expert: On Kneeling Issue, Law on Jerry Jones' Side, Players Have No Free Speech Protections in Workplace

By: Tim Ciesco
Published at 8:14 PM CDT on Oct 15, 2017
KXAS NBC DFW 5 - Blue Star
The firestorm continues over Jerry Jones' remarks that he would bench any player who does not stand during the National Anthem.
Some have praised his stance while others have slammed it as misguided, accusing the Cowboys owner of trampling on his players First Amendment rights.
But legal experts say on this particular matter, the law is on Jones' side.
"This surprises a lot of people," said Rogge Dunn, a founding partner of Rogge Dunn Group in Dallas, which specializes in employment and labor law. "But you don't have free speech rights in your place of private employment."
Dunn says in a court of law, free speech is only protected when dealing with the government or a public agency. Within a private workplace, employers have the legal right to set standards for their employees, and discipline those who do not abide by them.
"If you have players kneeling, that presents an image that Mr. Jones may or may not want," said Dunn. "Some of the other [NFL] owners may say that's an image I do want, and I'm glad that you're kneeling. But certainly the law allows a business owner to set the tone for how they want their employees to appear in the workplace and in the public."
Dunn says employees do have a legal protections when it comes to job terms and conditions, which include things like pay and working environment.
But because players across the NFL are kneeling as a form of political protest, he believes it falls outside that scope, which is why he thinks any legal action against Jones, including a recent complaint filed with the National Labor Relations Board, will ultimately fail.
"That's political speech, not workplace speech," said Dunn. "What would be interesting is if someone said I'm kneeling in solidarity with Colin Kaepernick, or I'm kneeling because Colin Kaepernick doesn't have a job and he's a former employee, then that connects the dots to make it a work related issue. I still think that would be a stretch, but that's a possibility."
So far, none of the Cowboys players have taken a knee during the National Anthem.
See the Article in its entirety

KXAS NBC DFW 5 - Blue Star site

### Dunn Quoted in Star-Telegram on Legality of Jerry Jones' Anthem Stance

Is Jerry Jones' anthem stance legal? 
Here's what labor lawyers say
by Drew Davison, October 11, 2017

Star-Telegram site

Jerry Jones is free to bench his players if, in his mind, they “disrespect the flag” during the national anthem, according to legal experts.
The Dallas Cowboys owner announced his intention to bench players after Sunday’s loss against the Green Bay Packers. Jones became the first NFL owner to publicly state an organizational policy that includes discipline if players protest during the national anthem.
Dallas-based labor lawyer Rogge Dunn of Rogge Dunn Group: “Jones can do what he wants. Private employers always have the right to control the language and the speech, just like they can impose a dress code and ethical performance obligations. In other words, if you get arrested for DUI or arrested for a crime even though you weren’t at work and it had nothing to do with work, an employer can fire you.”
See the Article in its entirety
Star-Telegram site

### Dunn Quoted in Dallas Morning News - Baylor University

Update:  About Art Briles new job in Canada?  Nevermind
Sharon Grigsby, Editorial Writer
Dallas News

"Nothing bad ever happens at Baylor — and, if it does, we're gonna ignore it." That's the deeply ingrained culture that new
President Linda Livingstone must jack-hammer out of Pat Neff Hall.

...

It's been a busy day elsewhere on the Baylor beat as well: Tonight also brought word that former Baylor Title IX staffer Gabrielle Lyons, who has previously filed a complaint against the school with the Office of Civil Rights, is suing the university. Her lawyer, Rogge Dunn of Dallas, told me the following just after he filed the case in federal court in Waco:
"This lawsuit is different from the other lawsuits pending against Baylor because it involves the wrongful discharge claims of an investigator working inside Baylor's Title IX office. When the Title IX investigator complained to Baylor that it was violating its Title IX obligations, Baylor retaliated and the investigator was forced to resign."

Dunn continued:

"This lawsuit is particularly significant because it was filed by someone inside the Baylor administration and provides facts supporting the women who have filed suit against Baylor for sexual assault and rape."

Another reminder of Baylor's attitude — "Women being raped? That can't be." — is last week's announcement that senior vice president and chief operating officer Reagan Ramsower will be leaving his powerful position in May 2018 to return to teaching. It's probably coincidental, but no doubt interesting, that his job change comes just before the Lyons' lawsuit with its accusations of discrimination.

Click here to see the article in its entirety

Update_ About  Art Briles' new job in Canada_ Nevermind  _ Commentary _ Dallas News 2017-08-28

Click here for webpage:

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/08/28/art-briles-new-job-reminds-us-nothing-bad-ever-happens-baylor

### Dunn quoted in Advisor Hub - "Brokers Sue FINRA, Credit Suisse over Arbitration Shopping"

Brokers Sue Finra, Credit Suisse over Arbitration Shopping
by Jed Horowitz, June 2, 2017


Advisor Hub site


In a scenario that Kafka might have created had he ever thought about the retail brokerage industry, nine advisors in Chicago have sued the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in an attempt to have it declare its authority in arbitrating disputes between them and their former employer.

The spark for the suit, filed in Illinois state court on Friday, was a “blizzard” of previously unreported correspondence that Credit Suisse Securities (USA) sent to former brokers in mid-May seeking return of alleged overpayments they collected before they moved to other firms and/or payment due on promissory notes, according to Nicholas Iavarone, a lawyer for the brokers.

The disputes follow Credit Suisse’s decision last year to shutter its U.S. brokerage operations and steer its approximately 250 advisors to Wells Fargo Advisors. When scores of brokers went to rivals, it withheld deferred compensation they had accumulated and filed a raiding complaint against UBS’s U.S. broker-dealer.

In Texas, meanwhile, another lawyer representing 15 former Credit Suisse advisors said his clients also have tired of waiting for Finra.

“I’ve filed six suits, three in Houston and three in Dallas, to have my clients’ disputes resolved exclusively through a Finra arbitration because it doesn’t look like Finra is going to act on this anytime soon,” said Rogge Dunn, an employment lawyer at Rogge Dunn Group in Dallas. His clients now work at UBS, Merrill Lynch and even Wells Fargo Advisors, he said.

See the Article in its entirety
Advisor Hub site

### Dunn Quoted in Houston Chronicle on Suit Against Methodist Hospital over Alleged Secret Taping of Patient Calls

Methodist Hospital sued over alleged secret taping of patient calls
Methodist says it's 'saddened and surprised' by doctor's lawsuit
By L.M. Sixel Thursday, June 8, 2017
Invasion of privacy

Rogge Dunn, an employment lawyer who handles privacy and wiretapping claims in Dallas, said that secret taping without the knowledge of either party is an invasion of privacy and a violation of wiretapping laws. If there were retaliation against the doctor who exposed the practice, it would make the situation "doubly appalling," he said.

Dunn said it's difficult to know why Methodist, a sophisticated organization, might tape calls between patients and providers. It could be for quality control purposes, defense against malpractice claims or to gather evidence to refute harassment or other allegations, he said.

But, he added, "You just can't do that."

See the article in its entirety:

Methodist Hospital sued over alleged secret taping of patient calls - Houston Chronicle 2017-06-08 - pdf

### Plagiarism:  Following the Rules Can Prevent Litigation

Plagiarism Following the Rules Can Prevent Litigation _ Texas Lawyer

### Rogge Dunn Quoted in D Magazine Article- "Forming Partnerships, Joint Ventures, and Business Entities: Six Key Considerations"

The article reads:



Failure to put all material terms and conditions of a business venture in writing is foolhardy.  Memories fade, circumstances change and businesses encounter unforeseen circumstances.  Worse yet, some unscrupulous partners have convenient memories designed to maximize their return at your expense.  Six quick tips can ensure your fair treatment, instead of an expensive legal battle.



To see the full article, click here.

### Dunn Quoted in AdvisorHub on Impact of DOL Conflict-of-Interest Rule on Financial Advisors

DOL Prohibits Deferred Recruiting Bonuses Under New Rule


by Mason Braswell - Advisor Hub 02/06/2017




Recruiting bonuses will face a major overhaul as a result of new guidance that the Department of Labor issued on its impending conflict-of-interest rule on Thursday.

In a long-anticipated list of 34 “Frequently Asked Questions,” the DOL said upfront signing bonuses will be permitted as long as they are paid as a fixed sum and are tied to length of stay. However, payment contingent on meeting particular asset or sales targets —as most are today—can create “acute conflicts of interest” and will be impermissible, the DOL said in the 22-page update.

“[B]ack-end awards commonly result in large amounts of income to the adviser that are paid on an ‘all or nothing’ basis, contingent on the adviser’s satisfaction of revenue or asset targets,” the DOL wrote. “Such disproportional amounts of compensation significantly increase conflicts of interest for advisers making recommendations to investors, particularly as the adviser approaches the target.”

The interpretation will dramatically change recruiting packages going forward, and could lead some firms to try to restructure existing deals, said Rogge Dunn, an employment lawyer with Rogge Dunn Group in Dallas.

“The old school model won’t work,” he wrote in an email. “There will be more scrutiny of [an] FA’s book, as future bonuses can’t be tied to production metrics.”

Deferred contingent bonuses already in place will be permitted under grandfathering provisions once the rule becomes effective on April 10, 2017, but firms will have to subject brokers receiving them to higher levels of scrutiny.

“To the extent the financial institution chooses to honor these pre-existing arrangements, however, it must adopt special policies and procedures specifically aimed at the conflicts of interest introduced by the arrangements and designed to protect investors from harm,” the FAQ says. “These policies and procedures should establish an especially strict system of supervision and monitoring of conflicts of interest, particularly as the adviser approaches sales targets.”

The payments will be subject to the conflict-of-interest rule’s Best Interest Contract Exemption, which permits customers to sue brokers who put their own interests ahead of their customers.

In another key interpretation, the Labor Department said brokerage firms can continue to compensate brokers with variable payouts based on production, but only if such variable grid structures “are not intended or reasonably expected to cause advisers to make recommendations that are not in the best interest of retirement investors and…do not cause advisers to violate the reasonable compensation standard.”

Brokerage firms “must take special care in developing and monitoring compensation systems to ensure that they do not run counter to the fundamental obligation to provide advice that is in the customer’s best interest,” the DOL said.

As an example of conflict-tainted grid payouts, the DOL said that firms cannot give payouts for selling mutual funds that pay firms more for distribution than others.

”If, for example, different mutual fund complexes pay different commission rates to the firm, the grid cannot pass along this conflict of interest to advisers by paying the adviser more for the higher commission funds and less for the lower commission funds (e.g., by giving the adviser a set percentage of the commission generated for the firm),” the DOL said.

DOL Prohibits Deferred Recruiting Bonuses Under New Rule - AdvisorHub 2017-02-06

https://advisorhub.com/dol-prohibits-deferred-recruiting-bonuses-new-rule/

### USA Today reports Dunn Client Accuses Baylor of Employment Discrimination

Nancy Armour , USA TODAY Sports1:55 p.m. ET Jan. 19, 2017
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/big12/2017/01/19/former-title-9-officer-gabrielle-lyons-accuses-baylor-discrimination-intimidation/96779182/

Baylor is facing additional complaints from a former Title IX investigation over the way the school handled sexual violence.

Gabrielle Lyons accused Baylor of employment discrimination in a complaint filed Dec. 8, 2016, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that school officials tried to intimidate her from investigating certain cases. That follows a Title IX complaint filed April 27, 2016, on Lyons’ behalf with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

Baylor is already facing a Title IX investigation by the Department of Education following a complaint to the OCR by Patty Crawford, who resigned in October 2016 as the school’s Title IX coordinator. Crawford accused school administrators of undermining her and preventing her from doing her job, saying she had been set up to fail.

An independent investigation last year by Pepper Hamilton found that Baylor had failed to comply with Title IX in its response to reports of sexual violence, even going so far as to discourage reporting in some cases. Pepper Hamilton made 105 recommendations designed to address the school’s shortcomings, and the school adopted all of them.

Football coach Art Briles was fired as a result of the report, and university chancellor Kenneth Starr was demoted. He later resigned. Athletic director Ian McCaw was placed on probation before he, too, resigned.

### Dunn Client, Second Former Title IX Officer, Accuses Baylor of Discrimination, Intimidation

(Mark LoMoglio/Icon Sportswire)

© 2016 Paula Lavigne - ESPN Staff Writer

http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/18509557/former-title-ix-officer-accuses-baylor-bears-discrimination-intimidation

A second former Title IX officer at Baylor University has filed complaints with federal officials saying she faced discriminatory treatment and intimidation while she tried to investigate sexual assault cases -- especially those involving football players -- during her seven months at the university.

Gabrielle Lyons told Outside the Lines this week that she left Baylor in November 2015 after senior administrators ignored her and other investigators' complaints that they were short staffed and needed mental health services to cope with the emotional stress of having to hear so many stories of abuse.

Last spring, Lyons reached out to a campus sexual assault advocacy group called End Rape on Campus to file a Title IX complaint against Baylor on her behalf to the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. She worked with the group rather than file her own complaint because at the time, she feared retaliation and hoped to remain anonymous.

The filing, on April 27, 2016, came about a month before Baylor released top-line findings from an internal investigation by Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton that revealed failures to implement Title IX and other laws pertaining to the university's handling of sexual assault and other sexual violence cases, including violations specific to the school's football program.

The Baylor Board of Regents fired head football coach Art Briles, demoted President Ken Starr and sanctioned athletic director Ian McCaw; Starr and McCaw would later leave the university altogether. In December 2016, Briles sued three regents and a top Baylor administrator for libel and conspiracy in keeping him from getting another coaching job.

In October 2016, Baylor's Title IX coordinator, Patty Crawford, resigned after filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, claiming that Baylor was continuing to violate Title IX provisions despite a commitment to enact recommended changes after the Pepper Hamilton investigation. She stated that senior leaders, specifically senior vice president for operations and chief financial officer Reagan Ramsower, stood in her way of implementing Title IX and did not adequately fund her office.

Ramsower and Baylor have refuted Crawford's claims, pointing to several instances in which they increased the Title IX budget and Crawford's own salary. Baylor officials have said that Crawford struggled to manage her office and, in a timeline posted on the school's website in November, noted that a Title IX investigator had resigned "after expressing frustration working for Baylor and Crawford in particular."

That investigator was Lyons, and she told Outside the Lines this week she, "was hurt and in disbelief" when she read that statement because she said she left "because of Baylor's noncompliance. If anything, I always asked for more support for Patty and the Office."

Baylor issued a statement to Outside the Lines that said during her time at Baylor, Lyons "never raised with Baylor the complaints that she is now making," and pointed out that she left in November 2015, ahead of the university making significant changes to its implementation of Title IX and sexual assault response in general.

Lyons said she was handed sexual assault cases to investigate her first day on the job, April 1, 2015. Although Lyons did not have prior Title IX experience, she had worked several years as an investigator for the federal government, including four years with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Chicago, investigating employment discrimination. She said nothing prepared her for what she experienced.

"The violence is what took me back," she said. "My limited understanding was that it was a great Baptist institution. Me, being a Christian myself, I was just appalled at the level of violence taking place so rampantly at the institution."

Lyons said her first hunch that there had been a history of noncompliance with Title IX came after she heard from several women with stories of having told someone at Baylor, such as a dean, about their assault years ago but no action was taken.

While Lyons said cases involving football players comprised less than a third of her workload, she said she received the most pushback from Baylor officials on getting police records and arranging interviews on those cases. Baylor officials have previously noted that Waco police -- who handle most but not all of the sexual assault cases involving students that get reported to law enforcement -- are the ones putting restrictions on the release of police reports and that Baylor police must honor Waco police guidelines.

Lyons said she met regularly with top law enforcement officials at Baylor, and she was told during one conversation that it was not safe for her to interview certain alleged perpetrators by herself because they have "a potential for violence." She said she believed that the comment was made to try to intimidate her, which is the basis of an employment discrimination charge she filed Dec. 8, 2016, after initially contacting the EEOC in June 2016.

Baylor's statement to Outside the Lines says that Lyons' exchange with law enforcement was not as she described.

"Based on feedback they had received from the Title IX office, the officials offered to accompany Ms. Lyons any time she felt a situation might escalate and become difficult for her. They offered the same support to other Title IX staff members -- and it is a service the law enforcement officials also provide to other departments across campus. Far from intending to intimidate Ms. Lyons, the law enforcement officials were trying to do everything they could to help her be successful in her work," the statement read.

Crawford's attorney shared with Outside the Lines a copy of the U.S. Department of Education's acknowledgement of receiving the Title IX complaint in April, but the agency did not launch an investigation of Baylor until after Crawford filed her complaint in September. Lyons said she's been engaged in regular conversations with education officials.

A spokeswoman for the department declined to answer questions on Lyons' complaint, citing a department policy to not comment on possible investigations.



Lyons said the final straw for her came after an Oct. 5, 2015, meeting with Ramsower, Crawford and another Title IX investigator Ian McRary, who resigned in December. Lyons said she told Ramsower that "we are suffering," and the staff needed more support as "it's keeping me up at night. I felt that if I had the support, I could do it."

Lyons described Ramsower's response as "cold" and dismissive.

"At night, I was having nightmares about rape and then I was getting a little paranoid," Lyons said. "And then the police were saying, 'You're not safe to do your job. Look over your shoulder when you go to the parking lot.'"

Lyons' attorney, Dallas-based Rogge Dunn, who also represents Crawford, said Baylor officials did not respond to his efforts to reach out to the school in November to discuss a settlement. Lyons said one reason for filing the complaints was to get outside scrutiny of Baylor by government regulators.

"I don't think self-regulation in this case is going to be effective for the students," Lyons said.

Click here for PDF of article

### Rogge Dunn and Title IX Coordinator Speaking on Sports Litigation

Keynote Speakers: Attorney Rogge Dunn and Title IX Coordinator Patty Crawford to speak on sports litigation at the 31st Law & the Media Seminar "Violence in Sports -- On the Field, Off the Field & In the Media."   South Texas College of Law Houston,  Emilie Slohm Conference Center, January 21, 2017 at 10:15 a.m. 

The program is co-sponsored by the Houston Bar Association, the Society of Professional Journalists and the Houston Press Club.

Click Here to download Registration Form 

### Reptilian Plagiarism: CSI Sues Rival DecisionQuest

© 2016 The Texas Lawbook. https://texaslawbook.net/

By Mark Curriden



(Nov. 28) – A heated battle between the nation’s two largest litigation consulting businesses has made its way into federal court in Dallas, again.

Courtroom Sciences, a Las Colinas-based jury selection firm started by TV psychologist Dr. Phil McGraw in 1990, accuses rival DecisionQuest of plagiarizing a CSI copyrighted, analytical report that debunks one of the most popular trial strategies used by plaintiff’s lawyers in big-dollar cases.

The lawsuit claims that CSI Vice President Bill Kanasky Jr. authored two lengthy articles in 2014 about a courtroom technique called the “Reptile Theory,” which shifted the age-old strategy of plaintiff’s lawyers from trying to make jurors sympathetic for their clients to instead make them angry about the conduct of corporate defendants.

In the complaint filed in the Northern District of Texas, CSI lawyers claim that DecisionQuest Vice President Ann Greely of Houston presented a paper at an American Bar Association Litigation Section meeting in New Orleans in May 2015 adopting much of Kanasky’s analysis and many of his conclusions” but doing so “without crediting” Kanasky.

“It is obvious that Greeley did not do independent and substantial research on her own,” the lawsuit states. “Even worse, Greeley violated copyright laws by copying parts of [Kanasky’s] article word for word.

“This is not merely a case of similar writings that might constitute copyright infringement,” Dallas lawyer Rogge Dunn, who represents CSI, states in the lawsuit. “This is a case blatant and intentional plagiarism where numerous words, phrases and entire sentences were copied.”

Dunn points to one specific paragraph in the DecisionQuest document in which 90 of the 108 words are exactly the same as those from the CSI paper.

“This is not case of copying for educational use or for purely academic purposes,” Dunn states in the complaint. “This infringement was designed for commercial gain.”

The DecisionQuest document, which is posted on the ABA’s website, does include the paragraph that appears to be copied from the CSI document without direct attribution.

But a review of the DecisionQuest document by The Texas Lawbook, also shows that Greeley cited Kanasky four times in the article and three more times in the list of references.

DecisionQuest officials did not respond to a request for comment.

### Rogge Dunn speaks on Phil Hulett and Friends: Playing "Pokemon Go" Could Land You in Court or Worse, in Jail

Hear Rogge Dunn Speak on the Phil Hulett and Friends Show

Playing Pokemon Go could land you in court, or worse, jail. Attorney Rogge Dunn explains all the ways you could break the law chasing monsters.

### Highland Row With Ex-Exec Booted To Arbitration

Law360, Dallas (September 22, 2016, 5:46 PM EDT) -- Highland Capital Management LP must arbitrate claims a former high-ranking executive failed to return confidential documents after being fired for alleged self-dealing, a Texas state judge ruled Thursday, putting off Highland’s bid to have the ex-executive’s counsel disqualified.

In a bench ruling, Senior Judge Michael O’Neill said he would order the case to arbitration, as requested by the hedge fund’s former head of trading and structured products, Joshua Terry. Highland had argued Terry’s employment agreement designates Dallas state court as the venue for disputes, making arbitration inapplicable despite an arbitration provision in a limited partnership agreement for Acis Capital Management, Highland Capital's structured product affiliate, which Terry ran.

But Judge O’Neill, a Texas state appellate judge sitting by designation on the federal district court, said that although the employment agreement is separate from the Acis LPA, Highland had intertwined the two in its termination notice, telling Terry he had been fired “for cause” under both the LPA and the employment agreement.

“I find it very unlikely there’s no conflict between the two,” Judge O’Neill said. “They seem too intertwined to be separately adjudicated.”

Terry moved to bump the case from court days after it was filed, saying Highland was trying to smear his name with false accusations of self-dealing, disparagement and having an affair with a coworker. Terry told the court in that motion he was fired because Highland and CEO Jim Dondero were “desperate” to stop him from exposing a fraudulent culture at the company that hurt investors.

Highland fired back, arguing Terry’s counsel should be booted from the case because he had heard recordings of confidential conversations at Highland, including recordings made of conversations with Highland’s in-house counsel, and disclosed some of the confidential information in court filings. It said Terry was trying to “seek revenge” after an unsuccessful attempt to recoup about $8 million Terry claimed he was owed at the time he was fired.

Terry said in response Highland was pulling from its “standard playbook of dilatory litigation tactics” by trying to disqualify his counsel on “spurious grounds.” He told the court after he became aware of Dondero’s plan to borrow money from Highland investors to fund Highland’s purchase of a South American manufacturer, he rightly began recording his conversations with Highland officers to protect investors and himself.

At the hearing, Highland had argued Terry owed separate and independent obligations to Acis and Highland under the two agreements. It said its dispute with Terry was limited to the employment agreement and that because Highland Capital Management was not the entity that signed the Acis LPA, it could not be compelled to arbitration under that agreement.

But arguing for Terry, Rogge Dunn of Rogge Dunn Group said the termination notice is “very significant.” Dunn had also argued Highland was a third-party beneficiary of the Acis agreement or that Highland should be considered an affiliate of Acis such that it was also covered by the arbitration provision.

By sending the case to arbitration, Judge O’Neill avoided ruling on sanctions motions and the motion to disqualify Dunn.

In its initial petition, filed Sept. 8, Highland alleged it fired Terry for putting his own financial interest ahead of investors’ by cashing out of a fund while at the same time advising clients to invest in the fund. It said other demands made by Terry caused the chief operating officer to believe that “Terry was no longer acting on behalf of Highland and its investors,” and had gone on a “loud rant” in the office disparaging Dondero when his demands were denied.

Highland Capital Management is represented by Marc D. Katz and Robert M. Hoffman ofAndrews Kurth LLP, and James M. Stanton Terry is represented by Rogge Dunn and Brian P. Shaw of Rogge Dunn Group. The case is Highland Capital Management LP v. Joshua N. Terry, case number DC-16-11396, in District Court in Dallas County, Texas. --Editing by Patricia K. Cole.

Reporter: Jess Davis

Law360, Dallas (September 22, 2016, 5:46 PM EDT)

highland-row-with-ex-exec-booted-to-arbitration-law-360-9-22-16

Click here to see full Article

### Tuesday Morning Corp., Former CEO Settle Lawsuit Over Firing

Retailer, Ex-Chief Mason End Dispute Over Her Claim She Was Dismissed After Falling Ill

 

Tuesday Morning Corp. and its former chief executive settled a discrimination lawsuit that alleged she was fired after developing breast cancer.

Kathleen Mason, the head of the home-furnishings closeout retailer, was ousted in June 20212 after a 12-year run during which the company's stock fell nearly 60%.

While employee lawsuits over alleged discrimination are common, it is rare for one to come from a former CEO.  Ms. Mason's lawsuit, filed last May in county court in Dallas, claimed the board wrongfully dismissed her because "it regarded her as being disabled" after she informed fellow directors about her diagnosis.

Ms. Mason dropped her suit because the dispute "has been settled amicably," she said in a court filing on Thursday.  Following mediation, both sides reached their settlement on March 31, mediator Michael P. Metcalf said in a separate filing.

Terms of the settlement weren't disclosed.

"We are please to have amicably resolved this matter with Ms. Mason and wish her well in her future endeavors," a company spokesman said in an email.

Ms. Mason, 64 years old, said she was pleased the matter was "amicably resolved" and would consider another CEO position.  She said a recent checkup found her to be cancer-free.

Last May, a Tuesday Morning spokesman said the retailer would vigorously contest the suit because the company believed that the allegations were "without merit, and that her termination was lawful."

At the time, Rogge Dunn, a partner at law firm Rogge Dunn Group representing Ms. Mason, said she had repeatedly rejected Tuesday Morning's settlement offer of $1.5 million.  The company declined to comment on any offer at that time.

Ms. Mason initially filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging she was dismissed based on a perceived disability related to her cancer.  In March 2013, the federal agency issued a right-to-sue letter at her request.  Individuals granted such letters may go directly to court.

On the day Ms. Mason was fired, Tuesday Morning said its full-year sales and profit would be worse than expected.  Her suit challenged the company's arguments that her performance was unsatisfactory and said she got a $50,000 raise and equity grants shortly before her dismissal.

Her successor, Brady Churches, resigned just six months after being appointed CEO.  At the time, Mr. Churches said the change was in the company's best interest.  Michael Rouleau, an outside director named interim CEO, got the permanent post last August.

Reporter - Joann S. Lublin - The Wall Street Journal - April 21, 2014

Tuesday Morning Corp, Former CEO Settle Lawsuit Over Firing - WSJ 2014-04-21

### Former Jeans Warehouse CEO sues over sexual orientation discrimination

The former chief executive officer of Hawaii-based retailer Jeans Warehouse Inc. has filed a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the employer, claiming sexual orientation discrimination.

William Estill, 65, was dismissed by the Jeans Warehouse board before the 2014 holiday sales season and claims that he was subjected to anti-gay comments and hostility by company officials.

Estill, who is openly gay, was told he was fire for performance reasons despite the company posting record-breaking sales and profits during 2012 and 2013, the complaint said. Estill also acted as the company’s chief operating officer for Cindy Mikami, who took time off to care for her ailing husband, the complaint said.

“Despite weak market conditions and unexpected demands, Mr. Estill guided Jeans Warehouse to steady growth as CEO and acting COO,” says Dallas attorney Rogge Dunn of Rogge Dunn Group, who represents Estill along with attorneys from Honolulu’s law office of Eric Seitz. “Coming off a record year, the only reason a company would replace its CEO is if the decision is based on something other than actual
performance.”

The lawsuit claims board member Linda Holt and Mikami made anti-gay comments during the 4 1/2 years he worked for the company. The lawsuit includes claims of discrimination and disparate treatment, retaliatory termination and both negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Shortly before his dismissal, Estill formally complained about Holt’s and Mikami’s behavior, the complaint said.

“He expected the company to take his concerns seriously,” Dunn said. “But instead, he was subjected to continued ridicule and insults of a personal nature that culminated with his obviously illegal dismissal.”

Mikami said she was aware of the complaint but did not want to comment until she had read it.

Reporter - Kristen Consillio - Honolulu Star Advertiser - May 9, 2016

Former Jeans Warehouse CEO sues over sexual orientation discrimination _ Honolulu Star-Advertiser 2016-05-09

Click here to see the full article

### Dunn’s Client Files With EEOC in Tampa, Florida – Raymond James Gets Hit With A Sexual Harassment Complaint

Rogge Dunn’s client, a Raymond James Financial employee, has filed a formal complaint against the financial services company, accusing her employer of sustaining a hostile and alcohol-fueled work environment and retaliating against her when she filed a complaint with the firm’s human resources department.

Click here to read the entire article

Raymond James Financial gets hits with a sexual harassment complaint - Tampa Bay Business Journal

Frances McMorris – Reporter – Tampa Bay Business Journal – August 17, 2016

### Dunn Quoted in USA Today "Pokémon Go isn't a defense, lawyers say"

Pokémon Go isn't a defense, lawyers say USA today 2016-07-26

Photo: Rogge Dunn Group

"The Pikachu made me do it," isn't going to cut it in court, say lawyers.

Pokémon Go — the augmented reality monster-catching game seeing popularity like no other app before it — isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to being stupid.

"I think most (juries) are going to say you have to take personal responsibility for your actions," said  Rogge Dunn, a partner at the law firm of Rogge Dunn Group in Dallas, Texas.

Accidents and crimes have occurred due to distracted players making bad decisions in pursuit of Pokémon: a man crashed his vehicle into a police car because he was playing the game while driving and two men fell off a cliff because they ignored warning signs on a fence.

“It’s very easy for people to get so engrossed in this game and not watch where they are going,” said Loretta Powers, an attorney with the law firm of Tim Powers in Denton, Texas.

Which isn't to say game makers are entirely off the hook in cases of injury or crime. As augmented reality games spread, Dunn said courts will need to make sure game makers adequately caution players of potential safety hazards.

"Courts and juries are going to be looking at this very carefully to make sure that people that are bringing forth these games are doing so in a manner that doesn't endanger the players of the game as well as the general public," he said.

Criminal behavior

Pokémon Go has also been used to aid illegal activity, from luring robbery victims to secluded areas to breaking and entering into homes in search of Pokémon.

It’s only a matter of time until one of these crimes is tried in court and using Pokémon Go as a defense won’t help wrongdoers avoid punishment, she said.

If a player gets sued for making an honest mistake while playing the game, such as trespassing on private property unknowingly, Powers said that could be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

But for the most part, people must take responsibility for their actions. Committing crimes under the guise of playing Pokémon Go is no excuse, she said.

If a defendant were to try to make a “Pikachu defense,” it wouldn’t be the first time someone blamed video entertainment for their illegal actions.

In the 1980s, two teenagers who robbed a convenience store and shot the clerk said they had been brainwashed by watching the film "Natural Born Killers" too many times, according to Dunn.

For this reason, Dunn said he could see Pokémon Go come up as a defense in court, but he felt it would be a difficult to win on those grounds.

Powers attributed some of the Pokémon Go-related incidents to the game's insufficient warning labels. She said Niantic, the maker of Pokémon Go, does not do enough to caution players of serious injury or vulnerability to crime if not paying attention to their surroundings.

Pokémon Go's terms and conditions, which players must click to acknowledge, does include a paragraph on "safe play" within the game. It warns the player that Niantic is not responsible for any injuries incurred during game day or laws broken.

The game also sends players an alert to be aware of their surroundings when they first register.

However Powers feels that might need to be further emphasized. If Niantic does not improve its warning process, it runs the risk of liability lawsuits for failing to sufficiently warn players to be aware of their surroundings to avoid injury or accident, she said.

Snapchat faced a similar liability lawsuit earlier this year when a Georgia man sued the company after a car accident involving a teenager who was using Snapchat left him with permanent brain damage. The teen was  driving at speeds up to 100 mph in order to post a photo using Snapchat’s speed filter.

Snapchat claimed it discouraged people from using its speed filter while driving with an in-app warning message.

Dunn said Pokémon Go could prevent injuries by using in-app warning icons, or using one or multiple disclaimers at the beginning of the game, front and center. If a game like Pokémon Go is dangerous enough to where it requires warning labels, the game maker must ensure the warning is conspicuous and clear – even if it may scare away potential players.

“Sure it might hurt sales, but if it’s the right thing to do, it’s the right thing to do.”

Niantic did not respond to requests for comment.


News Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/07/25/pokmon-go-isnt-defense-lawyers-say/87457768/



Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Rogge Dunn quoted on FINRA/Credit Suisse Arbitration Forum Shopping

Brokers Sue Finra, Credit Suisse over Arbitration Shopping - AdvisorHUB


Lawyers representing brokers argue that FINRA arbitration panels are the proper place for dispute resolution and are the required forum under the industry-sponsored regulator’s own rules.  Credit Suisse and some other broker-dealers prefers to bring employee disputes before private forums such as JAMS (formerly the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services) or the American Arbitration Association.

 In Texas...another lawyer representing 15 former Credit Suisse advisors said his clients also have tired of waiting for FINRA.“I’ve filed six suits, three in Houston and three in Dallas, to have my clients’ disputes resolved exclusively through a FINRA arbitration because it doesn’t look like FINRA is going to act on this anytime soon,” said Rogge Dunn, an employment lawyer at Rogge Dunn Group in Dallas. His clients now work at UBS, Merrill Lynch and even Wells Fargo Advisors, he said.

### Employers Turn to Wellness Programs to Reduce Health Care Costs

To combat rising health care costs, many employers have created “wellness programs.”  A wellness program promotes good health and encourages employees to live healthy lifestyles.  Because employees’ general health affects premium rates, employers hope to motivate employees to get healthy and stay healthy in the hopes that a sound work-force will lead to reduced health care costs for employers.



Employers have created wellness programs with diverse options. For example, an employer may offer: (1) annual health assessments; (2) educational programs to address weight control, smoking cessation, or cholesterol reduction; (3) subsidized gym memberships; (4) on-site clinic services; and/or (5) flu shot programs.  Wellness program proponents believe that, in addition to reducing health care costs, these programs will decrease disabilities and work-related injuries and increase work performance and employees’ morale.



But risks for employers exist.  Opponents question just how far an employer can go towards mandating wellness for its employees.  To that end, wellness programs must be carefully crafted to avoid violating state and federal laws, such as those addressing age, disability, and/or genetic information discrimination, privacy rights, or the confidentiality of an employee’s medical information.



To discuss a wellness program’s legality with an employment lawyer or to seek assistance in creating a wellness program, please contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, PC at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com.

### Representing Wrongful Arrest Victim in High-Profile Dallas Case

07/22/2015 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
DALLAS – Experienced trial attorney Rogge Dunn of Dallas’ Rogge Dunn Group is representing a wrongful arrest victim in a high-profile lawsuit against the City of Dallas, Dallas County, Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, Dallas Police Department and the two officers who made the arrest.
The case has generated numerous media reports based on the extraordinary circumstances, including stories from, KXAS-NBC 5 and WFAA-ABC 8.
Mr. Dunn represents Michael Ryan, who was arrested in 2013 following a Sunday morning auto accident near his home in Dallas’ Lakewood Heights neighborhood. Mr. Ryan was driving with his infant daughter when he crashed into a row of parked cars after suffering his first-ever epileptic seizure. Extremely disoriented and suffering from injuries caused by the wreck, Mr. Ryan exited his Lexus SUV before being arrested by two Dallas Police Department officers. The lawsuit says Mr. Ryan was slammed into a police cruiser and handcuffed so tightly that bruises remained for weeks afterward.
Mr. Ryan’s wife, a physician, arrived at the scene and told the officers that she was a doctor. After hearing that her husband was being arrested for driving while intoxicated, she explained that he had not consumed any alcohol and obviously needed medical attention.
Despite the fact that Mr. Ryan passed a breathalyzer test at the scene and repeatedly requested a doctor, the arresting officers waved off an ambulance that arrived shortly afterward and charged Mr. Ryan with DWI and child abandonment. He would later test negative for any drugs or alcohol based on another breathalyzer test and a blood test administered at the Dallas County jail, where he spent more than 14 hours and was again denied medical treatment despite numerous requests.
The media extensively reported Mr. Ryan’s arrest and the related charges. As a result, he was unable to find work when prospective employers discovered the news stories.
He later was diagnosed with a concussion and two crushed discs in his back. An examination also confirmed that he had suffered an epileptic seizure, a condition Mr. Ryan now controls with medication.
His lawsuit against the government defendants and the two individual officers includes claims of false arrest, denial of his constitutional rights, and mental anguish.
“The importance of this lawsuit is to get the procedures changed so that when somebody presents to the officers and says, 'I’ve got a medical condition,' that they take the time to listen and get that medical help,” Mr. Dunn told KXAS-NBC 5.
For more information on the lawsuit filed by Mr. Dunn against the Dallas Police Department, please contact Bruce Vincent at 800-559-4534 or bruce@androvett.com.
Media Information:
Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Rogge Dunn Group Recognized by Texas’ Top Rated Lawyers of 2014

03/04/2014 // Rogge Dunn Group  (Press Release)

Rogge Dunn Group is pleased to announce that it has been named to the list of Texas’ Top Rated Lawyers of 2014, recognizing Texas attorneys with the highest peer-reviewed rankings from Martindale-Hubbell. The list of Texas’ Top Rated Lawyers of 2014 will be published in The Wall Street Journal, the Houston Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News, the Austin American-Statesman, and the San Antonio Express-News.

Editors with American Lawyer Media worked with Martindale-Hubbell to identify the Texas attorneys with the highest peer ratings. Rogge Dunn Group attorneys have earned the AV Preeminent® Peer Review Rating from Martindale-Hubbell, the highest ranking available. The AV Preeminent rating indicates that the rated lawyer has been deemed by his or her peers to have demonstrated the highest level of ethical standards and legal ability.

Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings are given based on confidential opinions of lawyers and members of the judiciary who provide reviews of lawyers about whom they have professional knowledge. The ratings are an objective indicator of a lawyer’s high ethical standards and professional ability.

About Rogge Dunn Group:
Rogge Dunn Group is a boutique labor and employment law firm which represents employers and senior executives in all facets of employment law. Rogge Dunn Group has built a well-deserved reputation for aggressive litigation, outstanding results and exceptional service, and has consistently been recognized as one of the top employment law firms in Texas. In forming Rogge Dunn Group, founding partner Rogge Dunn assembled a team of seasoned employment law specialists, offering clients the best of both worlds: big firm legal talent and experience with small firm flexibility and innovation.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Financial Advisor Attorney Rogge Dunn wins Claim for Two Financial Advisors Against Goldman Sachs

Financial Advisor Attorney Wins Largest Ever FINRA Award Against Goldman Sachs



Rogge Dunn, a financial advisor attorney, recently won a claim for two financial advisors in a lawsuit against Goldman Sachs. A panel of securities industry arbitrators unanimously ordered investment giant Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) to pay more than $7.6 million. The ruling found violations of federal laws that protect employees from workplace harassment and retaliation. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) award is believed to be the largest ever rendered against Goldman Sachs in favor of a fired financial advisor. Furthermore, the Award appeared in several publications, including the Wall Street Journal and the National Law Journal. (Links below).



Los Angeles residents Chris Barra and Luis Sampedro sued Goldman Sachs for retaliation, withheld earned commissions and wrongfully forfeiting their deferred compensation. Among the evidence heard by the FINRA panel was that Barra was chastised by Goldman Sachs supervisors for taking a leave for reserve duty. Barra is a 47-year-old West Point graduate and Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserves.



Goldman restructured its compensation plan and began withholding a portion of Dunn’s clients’ commissions. They then converted the commissions into restricted stock units paid out over time. The plan is a classic example of “golden handcuffs.” Moreover, it is designed to keep financial advisors from taking their business to other firms.



Insight from Rogge Dunn



“This ruling establishes that my clients earned these commissions and their employer cannot forfeit their deferred compensation under California law,” says financial advisor attorney Rogge Dunn, who represented the men. “Moreover, it is also a warning to companies that you cannot treat members of the military differently than other employees or discourage them from taking military leave.”



“The ruling is a wake up call to financial advisors/brokers who are leaving money on the table when their former employer forfeits their hard-earned, deferred compensation,” Dunn says.



The panel’s ruling includes more than $5.2 million in compensatory damages, $2 million in punitive damages and $100,000 in damages for violating the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).



Currently, Barra and Sampedro are among UBS’s top two percent of investment advisors nationwide. After starting work for UBS, Barra served 174 days of active duty in Iraq without any problems with UBS.



This is the third million-dollar award Dunn has won against Goldman Sachs for financial advisors. In 2006, an arbitration panel awarded $2.6 million to a broker who worked in the company’s San Francisco office. Similarly, in 2008, Dunn won a $1 million award for a broker who worked in Goldman’s Los Angeles office.



FINRA arbitration attorney Rogge Dunn regularly represents financial advisors and executives in the financial industry. In addition, he handles other complex business and employment disputes.



News Sources:



http://www.wsj.com/articles/goldman-sachs-ordered-to-pay-sacked-advisers-more-than-7-5-million-1418155226?KEYWORDS=goldman+sachs



http://www.nationallawjournal.com/home/id=1202713231692/Record-FINRA-Arbitration-Award-Over-Military-Service?slreturn=20141124094503



Media Information:



Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201Phone: 214-888-5000Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Rogge Dunn speaking at Dallas Holocaust Museum

01/05/2015 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

Rogge Dunn will speak on “The Work of Arthur Szyk and the Art of Propaganda” at the Dallas Holocaust Museum on January 15, 2015 at 6:30 p.m.

A Reception sponsored by the Texas Jewish Arts Association follows the speech. The museum is located at 211 N. Record Street, Dallas, Texas 75702.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Rogge Dunn Lawyers Recognized in D Magazine’s Best Lawyers in Dallas Issue

08/12/2013 // Dallas, Texas, United States // Rogge Dunn Group  (Press Release) //
Dallas, TX -- D Magazine recently recognized Dallas, Texas employment lawyer Rogge Dunn for his expertise in labor and employment law. Each year, the publication asks lawyers to nominate two lawyers outside their firm and one lawyer within their firm by answering the question: “Which Dallas lawyers, of those whose work you have witnessed firsthand, would you rank among the current best? Answers may include co-counsel, lawyers you have observed in court, and opposing counsel.” Nominations were reviewed by a panel. Then, the top lawyers in each practice area were recognized by inclusion on the “Best Lawyers in Dallas 2013” list.

Mr. Dunn has been honored by his peers and named to D Magazine’s list numerous times. He is recognized for his expertise and creativity in solving client problems. Mr. Dunn is board certified in labor and employment law.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214.888.5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Help! I Signed an Unfair Non-Compete Agreement. Now What?

Help! I signed an unfair non-compete agreement. Now what?



Question: When I started my job, I signed a non-compete agreement without really trying to understand it. Now I’m ready to leave the company. But, after reviewing my non-compete agreement, it sounds like I’m prohibited from working in any capacity in my industry, anywhere in the country, for two years! I think I signed an unfair non-compete agreement. What should I do?



Answer: A business has the right to protect its proprietary information and goodwill with non-compete agreements. But, a Texas court may refuse to enforce a covenant not to compete agreement if the agreement contains unreasonable limitations as to the time, geographical area, and scope of activity to be restrained or if the agreement imposes a greater restraint than is necessary to protect the goodwill or other business interest of the company. The inquiry into “reasonableness” is fact-specific; a two year term may be unreasonable for some employees but reasonable for others. To gain clarity on whether a court would likely enforce your non-compete agreement, you should speak to an employment law specialist. An employment law specialist can work with your current employer (and your prospective employer) to try to narrow the prohibitions of the unfair non-compete agreement before the situation escalates into litigation.



To speak to Dallas non-compete lawyer or employment law attorney at Rogge Dunn Group PC  please send an email to info@RoggeDunnGroup.com



Media Information:



Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201Phone: 214.888.5000



URL: Rogge Dunn

### Fifth Circuit Rules that Volunteer is Not an “Employee” Under Title VII

06/26/2013 // Dallas, Texas, United States // (press release)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled on a matter of first impression in its circuit. Juino v. Livingston Parish Fire Dist. No. 5, No. 12-30274 (5th Cir. May 30, 2013), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/12/12-30274-CV0.wpd.pdf. The district court ruled that the plaintiff, a volunteer firefighter, was not an “employee” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court affirmed on appeal.

To determine whether the plaintiff was an employee, the Court looked to other circuits and noted a circuit split. Some courts followed a threshold-remuneration test. These courts required a volunteer to show remuneration as a threshold matter before analyzing the putative employment relationship under the common law agency test. Other courts viewed remuneration as one, nondispositive, factor in conjunction with other common law agency test factors. The Court ultimately adopted the two-step threshold-remuneration test. Here, the plaintiff could not make a threshold showing of remuneration; her benefits were purely incidental to her volunteer service with the defendant. Because of that, she was not an “employee” for purposes of Title VII. The Court thus affirmed the dismissal of her claim.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyer, contact the Dallas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Unpaid Interns Are Employees, According to Federal Judge

06/17/2013 // Dallas, Texas, United States // (press release)
Employers must pay interns, unless specific factors are met. A recent news article warns that failure to do so may land an employer in an unwelcome wage and hour war. A federal judge recently ruled that two interns who worked on the film “Black Swan” were “employees” of the production company.

The interns worked from 2009 to 2010. Neither received pay or college credit for their work. They sued the company they worked for and its parent company under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor laws. The interns alleged that their “employer” violated minimum wage and overtime laws by misclassifying them as unpaid interns. The interns also alleged that they were denied the benefits that employees typically receive, such as unemployment and workers’ compensation insurance and sexual harassment and discrimination protections. They seek class damages and an injunction to prevent the production company from using unpaid interns on film productions.

The federal judge handling the case acknowledged that the interns benefited by receiving valuable experience. But, he ruled that those benefits were incidental whereas the production company received the benefits of the interns’ unpaid work.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyer, contact the Dallas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit: Firing Employee Because of Lactation Is Sex Discrimination

06/11/2013 // Dallas, Texas, United States //  (press release)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that firing a female employee because she is lactating or expressing breast milk constitutes sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. EEOC v. Houston Funding II, Ltd., No. 12-20220 (5th Cir. May 30, 2013), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C12/12-20220-CV0.wpd.pdf.

A female employee contended that she was fired because she was lactating and wanted to express milk at work. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer. It held, as a matter of law, that discharging a female employee because she is lactating does not constitute sex discrimination.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Congress amended Title VII to include the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. This act provides that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. On appeal, the Court held that lactation is a related medical condition of pregnancy for purposes of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Thus, discriminating against a woman who is lactating or expressing breast milk violates Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The Court therefore vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case to the district court.

To discuss an employment-related issue with a Dallas business and employment law attorney contact Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Employers, Beware of “Cyber Harassment.”

As we move into an increasingly digital world, new challenges force employers to ensure that workplace policies reflect current concerns. One developing issue concerns “cyber harassment.” Workplace policies typically address harassment, but they don’t always recognize all the forms it can take. Now, workplace harassment occurs via inappropriate texts, emails, videos, instant messages, and other digital communications.



Cyber harassment differs from the in-person counterpart because of its evidence trail. Before, harassment cases frequently involved one employee’s word against another employee’s word. Now, an offended employee often has a well-developed evidence trail documenting each incident of harassment. The employer--or a plaintiff’s lawyer--can easily access and review a written record of what was said and when.



To avoid these newer issues, an employer should draft and enforce policies that define harassment (including cyber harassment) and that cover appropriate uses of emails, company computer systems, text messages, instant messages, and other technologies. And, of course, an employer should immediately and thoroughly investigate any employee complaint about cyber harassment.



Employers may wish to consult with legal counsel before changing employment policies. To speak to the Dallas, Texas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group PC  contact us at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com



Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201Phone: 214-888-5000Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Supreme Court Addresses Defamation

05/29/2013 // Dallas, Texas, United States //  (press release)
The Texas Supreme Court recently addressed defamation in a dispute between two physicians. Hancock v. Variyam, No. 11-0772, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. May 17, 2013).

A defamatory statement is a statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation. A statement is considered defamatory “per se” if it injures a person in his office, profession, or occupation. Defamatory per se statements are considered so hurtful that a jury may presume general damages; actual damages for loss of reputation are often hard to prove in defamation cases. Here, a doctor sent a letter to colleagues and others accusing another physician of lacking veracity and of speaking in half truths. The plaintiff received $90,000 in actual damages for mental anguish and loss of reputation and $85,000 in exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed this verdict.

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the award. Because the statements did not accuse the physician of lacking a necessary skill that is unique to the profession of being a physician, the Court concluded that the statements did not defame the physician per se. Allegations that a doctor lacks veracity do not adversely affect his fitness for proper conduct as a physician.

The Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group PC regularly represent physicians and physician groups. To contact Dallas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  email us at  info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Employers, Consider Creating a Disaster Plan

05/01/2013 // Dallas, Texas, United States // (press release)
Does your company have a disaster plan? Many companies don’t. We’ve seen that workplace emergencies and natural disasters can happen anytime, with little or no warning. Employers may be forced to evacuate their workplaces or to hunker down for hours.

An emergency action plan serves as a guide when disaster strikes. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has created a webpage designed to help employers create their own disaster plans so that they are prepared in case a major emergency or disaster strikes.

When creating an emergency action plan, an employer should identify multiple disasters and emergencies--both man-made and natural--that could impact operations or employees. The employer should consider floods, fires, acts of terrorism, chemical spills, and other problems. Once an employer has identified potential emergencies, the employer should consider how to respond to those situations. The plan should be specifically tailored to the company’s operations and workplace. The plan’s ultimate goal should be protecting employees; the plan should contain specific evacuation procedures and address employee safety concerns. But, a disaster plan should also cover how to shut down operations or machines as well as how to protect key information or equipment.

For assistance with workplace matters, contact the Dallas business employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### I Failed to Negotiate a Favorable Physician Employment Agreement

04/23/2013 // Dallas, Texas, United States //  (press release)
“I just graduated from medical school. During an interview, I said that I would be willing to work for a salary far less than the market rate. The medical group offered me the job at that low rate and I took it. I didn’t even try to negotiate on other points, like moving expenses and professional dues. Is there anything I can do at this point?”

Probably not. But, that doesn’t mean you are stuck with this salary and those poor benefits forever. Most employers negotiate salaries on a yearly basis. Take time over the next year to learn more about the job market, salaries, and typical benefits. Then, meet with a business and employment lawyer to develop a strategy for handling your next salary negotiation. With advance preparation, you may be able to negotiate a substantial raise (especially if you are performing well at work).

Equally important, a business employment lawyer can evaluate your existing physician employment contract and discuss with you the impact of other key terms, such as a noncompete provision. Special laws apply to noncompete provisions in physician employment agreements, and you should know and understand how those laws and the terms of your employment agreement could shape your practice.

For help negotiating an employment agreement, contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Helping Employees Cope with Tragedies

04/23/2013 // Dallas, Texas, United States //  (press release)
This has been a tough week for our nation and for our state. Tragedies and disasters, even when they happen far from home, affect all of us. How can an employer respond?

First of all, an employer should acknowledge that major tragedies impact employees. Expecting employees to continue on with their work just seconds after hearing about a national or state tragedy may be unreasonable. Let employees take a few minutes to read a news story or to check in with loved ones before expecting them to return to their tasks. If your company has an employee assistance program, remind employees that counseling services are available via that program. If employees express concern about what would happen if a similar disaster struck close to the workplace, remind them of the company’s workplace disaster plan and policies.

Many people want to “do something” when tragedy strikes. They want to volunteer their time, their services, or their money to help those affected by the disaster. Consider participating in volunteer efforts as a company. Set up a box for people to donate needed items, coordinate a fundraiser for a charity, or provide contact information for organizations that are accepting donations.

For more information, contact the Dallas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Happy Fiftieth Anniversary to the Equal Pay Act

04/20/2013 // Dallas, Texas, United States //  (press release)
Congress recognized the pay disparity between women and men, and, in 1963, it passed the Equal Pay Act. This law was designed to end wage disparities among employees who performed work requiring substantially equal skills, efforts, and responsibilities under similar working conditions. Since 1978, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has enforced the Equal Pay Act. In Fiscal Year 2012, the EEOC received over 4,100 charges of gender-based wage discrimination and obtained over $24 million in relief for victims of gender-based wage discrimination.

This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Equal Pay Act. While our nation has made great strides towards pay equality over the last fifty years, women continue to earn significantly less than men, even when factors such as occupation, educational level, and hours worked are controlled. April 9, 2013 marked Equal Pay Day, the end of the extra period of time that the average woman in America must work in order to earn what the average man earned during the previous year. Additional work is required to close the gender gap.

To discuss an equal pay issue or another employment matter with a Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyer, contact the Dallas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Managers, Don’t Ignore Employee Personal Conflicts

04/16/2013 // Dallas, Texas, United States //  (press release)
Managers typically deal with big problems, not employee personal conflicts. And, many managers feel like employees should be able to resolve their issues with one another without managerial input. But, a manager must step in to help co-workers reach a compromise if the dispute causes performance issues or other problems.

If a manager decides to intervene, he should schedule meetings with the co-workers, both individually and together, if needed. The co-workers should be encouraged to discuss their concerns in a respectful manner, devoid of personal attacks. Sometimes an employee just needs to be heard in order to move past bad feelings. Before ending the meeting, the manager should set clear guidelines about his expectations for the employees in the future. He should also document details regarding the conversations. Later, he should check in with the employees to see if the situation has improved and to monitor any ongoing concerns.

A manager must remember that a workplace conflict can easily move beyond a simple workplace dispute or “workplace bullying” behavior into actionable harassment, discrimination, or retaliation. If the manager believes the situation has crossed that line, he should immediately inform the human resources department and legal counsel.

For help resolving workplace employment issues, contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Supreme Court Rules on Whistleblower Matter

04/02/2013 // Dallas, Texas, United States //(press release)
The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled on a whistleblower matter. Univ. of Tex. S.W. Med. Center v. Gentilello, No. 10-0582, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. Feb. 22, 2013), available at http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2013/feb/100582.pdf. The Texas Whistleblower Act bars retaliation against a public employee who reports his employer’s or his co-worker’s violations of law to an appropriate law enforcement authority.

A professor of surgery raised concerns with his supervisor that some doctors-in-training were treating and operating on patients without adequate supervision, contrary to Medicare and Medicaid requirements. After he was demoted, he filed a whistleblower suit alleging that the demotion was in retaliation for his report.

For an entity to constitute an appropriate law enforcement authority under the statute, it must have the power to regulate under or enforce the laws purportedly violated or to investigate or prosecute suspected criminal wrongdoing. The authority to regulate business within the entity itself is insufficient to confer law enforcement authority status. Otherwise, the Court held, every entity authorized to regulate conduct within its own organization would be considered a law enforcement authority. Because the professor reported his concerns internally only, he did not report them to an appropriate law enforcement authority and thus, he did not overcome the employer’s immunity. The Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyer, contact the Dallas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### It’s Time to Hire Interns. Or, Is It?

03/28/2013 // Dallas, Texas, United States //  (press release)
In recent years, our firm has addressed the factors that must be met for the Department of Labor to consider an unpaid internship legal under its strict standards. The test that for-profit companies must meet is exacting. In a nutshell, the internship must be set up for the benefit of the intern—with opportunities for learning and job-shadowing—and not for the benefit of the company. If the intern performs beneficial services for the company, the company should pay the intern.

Not only has the Department of Labor cracked down on unpaid internships, but some plaintiff lawyers have gotten involved. These lawyers actively seek out unpaid interns to encourage them to bring wage and hour lawsuits. Some such lawsuits are brought as class actions.

If your company is a for-profit company and is considering hiring an intern for the summer, you may wish to consult with a Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyer first. Making sure you and the employees who will be working with the intern understand the parameters of the relationship should lead to a better experience for everyone involved. contact the Dallas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Control Your Employees, Not Your Independent Contractors

03/27/2013 // Dallas, Texas, United States // (press release)
The perils of treating employees as though they were independent contractors have been discussed before. Regardless of whether a company considers a relationship with a worker an employer-employee relationship or a company-independent contractor relationship, if the relationship looks and feels like an employer-employee relationship, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Labor will consider it an employer-employee relationship.

One big issue is control. A company controls the work of its employees; it does not control the work of its independent contractors. An employer controls when, where, and how an employee works. So, if a company tells an “independent contractor” to report onsite every day from 8:00-5:00 and expects the worker to perform job tasks in accordance with the training the company provided, the company is controlling when, where, and how that person works.

Another big issue relates to finances. An employee is generally paid a regular wage at a set time (biweekly, monthly, or weekly). An independent contractor is typically paid a flat fee for a particular task or by the hour, but the person is not paid on a set timetable. Instead, the person is paid after submitting a bill to the company.

To discuss the independent contractor relationship with a business and employment law attorney in Dallas, contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### EEOC African American Workgroup Report Addresses Obstacles for African Americans

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently issued a comprehensive report addressing major obstacles that hinder equal opportunities for African Americans in the federal work force. The report was prepared by an internal agency work group. It is based upon in-depth research and consultations with key federal stakeholder groups representing African Americans and other affinity organizations. The report contains background information about the factors that hinder equal opportunities as well as specific recommendations for improvement.



The seven obstacles identified in the EEOC African American Workgroup Report include:1. Unconscious biases and perceptions about African Americans impact employment decisions.2. African Americans do not have adequate mentoring and networking opportunities for higher-level and management positions.3. Insufficient training and development assignments perpetuate inequalities in skills and opportunities for African Americans.4. Narrow recruiting methods negatively impact African Americans.5. The perception of inequality among African Americans hinders their career advancement.6. Educational requirements create obstacles for African Americans.7. EEO regulations and laws are not followed by agencies and are not effectively enforced.



To speak to a business and employment law attorney in Dallas, contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com



Media Information:



Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201Phone: 214-888-5000Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Should Your Company Ban Telecommuting, Too?

03/05/2013 // Dallas, Texas, United States // (press release)
By now, everyone knows that Yahoo recently decided to ban telecommuting. This decision set off a surge of Tweets, blog posts, and articles regarding the pros and cons of working from home. Is it a good thing or a bad thing for employers? Will it eliminate poor workers or send the company’s good employees looking for other jobs?

According to a recent article, almost 10% of U.S. workers work from home at least one day a week. Approximately 25% of those workers are in management, business, or finance, and they usually work the same hours as people who work in an office. Many workers claim it’s the only way to create a decent work/life balance. Many employers, including the United States government, also support telecommuting. They encourage telecommuting to reduce traffic congestion, save leasing expenses, and let employees work flexible hours.

But, Yahoo's decision is meant to foster collaboration—something that’s hard to develop when everyone is working remotely. Insights and decisions are supposed to come out of hallway and cafeteria discussions as well as impromptu team meetings. Time will tell if this move takes the company in a positive direction.

To discuss your company’s telecommuting policies, contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Using Facebook in Employment-Related Litigation

02/15/2013 // Dallas, Texas, United States // (press release)
We’ve written before about the policies an employer needs to protect itself from exposure via social media, and we’ve discussed the consequences when an employee “Facebooks” about work. But, did you know that employment lawyers are now using social media to prove their cases?

Lawyers and judges continue to hash out the legal boundaries of what information is discoverable and what information can be protected. In the meantime, lawyers have used evidence gathered from social media websites to prove their cases. For example, a personal injury plaintiff who claims he is so hurt that he cannot walk can be wiped out by the discovery of online photos showing him waterskiing.

Social media evidence has been used in the business and employment law context, too. For instance, a plaintiff who alleged that she was sexually harassed may be ordered to disclose her Facebook postings since those can be used to demonstrate her mental state. Other plaintiffs may lose Family and Medical Leave Act cases because they post pictures of themselves dancing at festivals or vacationing in Mexico while on leave for medical problems.

Bottom line: Individuals should always be careful about what they post. And, employers involved in employment-related litigation should almost always seek access to an individual’s social media activities. To speak to the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  contact us at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Addresses Fair Labor Standards Act Travel Time Issue

01/23/2013 // Dallas, Texas, United States //  (press release)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed an alleged travel time violation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Griffin v. S&B Eng’rs & Constructors, Ltd., No. 12-40382 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2013), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/12/12-40382.0.wpd.pdf.

The plaintiff claimed that he should have been compensated for travel time spent on mandatory bus rides to a job site. These bus rides took approximately forty to sixty minutes. After the district court granted summary judgment for the employer, the plaintiff appealed.

The Court determined that the travel time at issue was not compensable under the FLSA because it constituted only ordinary home-to-work-and-back travel. The plaintiff did not perform any work before he got to the job site, receive any work-related instructions before he boarded the bus, or retrieve his tools until he arrived at the job site. The employer did not restrict the plaintiff from engaging in personal activities, such as sleeping or reading, while on the bus. And, while the employer’s general rules and policies applied, these rules were logistical, administrative, and not integral to the plaintiff’s activities as a journeyman electrician. The Court affirmed the summary judgment.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas business and employment law attorney, contact the Dallas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Vacates Attorneys’ Fee Award in Discrimination Case

01/15/2013 // Dallas, Texas, United States // (press release)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a district court’s summary judgment ruling for an employer but reversed its grant of attorneys’ fees for the employer in a discrimination case. Autry v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 11-20639 (5th Cir. Jan. 7, 2013), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/11/11-20639-CV0.wpd.pdf.

The plaintiff sued his employer for race discrimination after his employer hired a Caucasian woman instead of promoting the plaintiff. After reviewing the evidence, the Court determined that the plaintiff had been unable to show that he was “clearly better qualified” than the person hired. The Court then determined that no competent evidence existed from which a reasonable juror could infer that the employer’s decision to hire the woman instead of promoting the plaintiff was motivated by impermissible racial considerations.

The Court then ruled that the district court abused its discretion in awarding the employer attorneys’ fees. A successful defendant can recover attorneys’ fees only if the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. The fact that a plaintiff does not ultimately prevail does not mean that his claim was unreasonable or without foundation. Here, the plaintiff’s claim was inadequate to withstand a motion for summary judgment, but it was not frivolous or unreasonable.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas business and employment law attorney, contact the Dallas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Department of Labor Sues Dallas Company on Behalf of Workers

01/03/2013 // Dallas, Texas, United States // Rogge Dunn Group  // Rogge Dunn Group // (press release)
The United States Department of Labor recently announced that it filed a lawsuit against The Christmas Light Co. Inc. and the company’s owner to address alleged Fair Labor Standards Act violations. The Department of Labor seeks to recover approximately $250,000 in wages for workers who installed and removed lights for the company. The Department of Labor also seeks an additional amount in liquidated damages and an injunction against future violations of the federal labor law.

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act requires that covered, nonexempt employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked. Employees must also receive overtime pay at one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay. The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division investigated The Christmas Light Co. Inc.’s operations and concluded that the company failed to pay over 200 light installers and removers minimum wage and/or the proper overtime wage. Instead, the company paid employees a flat rate for installing and removing Christmas lights without regard to the number of hours the employees worked and with no extra compensation for overtime work.

Many employers need to review their policies and practices to ensure that they are in compliance with federal labor laws. To speak to a Texas wage and hour compliance lawyer, contact the Dallas, Texas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group. You may send an email to debra@www.cdklawyers.com or call (214) 239-2705.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214.888.5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### United States Supreme Court Rules on Non-Compete Agreements

12/27/2012 // Dallas, Texas, USA // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The United States Supreme Court recently addressed a dispute over an arbitration clause found in two noncompete agreements. Nitro-Lift Techs., L.L.C. v. Howard, No. 11-1377 (Nov. 26, 2012), available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1377_3e04.pdf.

Two employees signed employment agreements that contained noncompete provisions and arbitration provisions. The employees later quit and began working for a competitor. The employer tried to arbitrate the case and the employees sought a declaratory judgment in state court that the noncompetition provisions were unenforceable under state law. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that it had adequate and independent state law grounds to consider the enforceability of the agreements, notwithstanding the arbitration provisions. It then held that the agreements were unenforceable under Oklahoma law.

The United States Supreme Court vacated the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision. The Court explained that when a contract is subject to the Federal Arbitration Act, a trial court has jurisdiction to consider only the validity of the arbitration provision; the arbitrator has jurisdiction to consider all other attacks on the validity of the contract. Because the Oklahoma court overstepped its boundaries in determining that the noncompetition provisions violated state law, the Court vacated the decision and remanded the case.

To speak to a Texas noncompete lawyer, contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group. You may send an email to debra@www.cdklawyers.com or call (214) 239-2705.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214.888.5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Can an Employee be Fired If He or She Previously Complained About Harassment?

12/14/2012 // Dallas, Texas, USA // Rogge Dunn Group  // Rogge Dunn Group // (press release)
Most employers know that they cannot fire an employee because the employee reported workplace discrimination or harassment. But, is the employee “safe” forever? Does the employee have guaranteed job security?

No. In fact, the employee can still be fired at any time. The employer just cannot make the employee’s discrimination complaint the basis for the termination decision. So, for example, if an employee complains about sexual harassment and then steals $100 from the company two days later, the company could fire the employee for theft.

As a practical matter, an employer should proceed carefully when terminating an employee for job performance reasons if the employee has previously complained about discrimination or harassment. In most instances, the company should document the employee’s inability to perform the job and keep good records regarding all disciplinary actions or warnings. Prior to the termination, the employer should consult with a business and employment lawyer. The business and employment lawyer should review the documentation to ensure that it is sufficient and advise the employer about how to conduct the termination meeting.

The business and employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group routinely counsel employers on termination-related issues. They know how to craft termination plans designed to minimize the potential for future retaliation lawsuits. To speak to a Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyer, contact the Dallas business and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group. You may send an email to debra@www.cdklawyers.com or call (214) 239-2705.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 239-2705
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Supreme Court Clarifies Issues Regarding Wrongful Termination Cases

04/26/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled on a case involving the wrongful termination of an employee because the employee refused to perform an illegal act. Safeshred, Inc. v. Martinez, No. 10-0426 (Tex. Apr. 20, 2012)

The employee refused to drive a truck because the truck did not comply with safety regulations. The employer fired him for this refusal. The employee then sued for wrongful termination and won. The jury awarded him punitive damages.

A narrow exception to the at-will employment doctrine allows an employee to sue an employer if the employee was fired for the sole reason that the employee refused to perform an illegal act. The Court first held that these wrongful termination claims are tort claims, not contract claims. As such, punitive damages would be appropriate if the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of the employer’s malice. The Court provided several examples of what malice could be in a wrongful termination matter. It then concluded that the plaintiff did not present legally sufficient evidence for the jury to believe that the employer acted with malice in firing him, and it reversed the punitive damages award.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas employment lawyer about an employment law matter, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group via email at info@www.cdklawyers.com or telephone at 214 220 3888.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Jobless Rate Continues to Drop

04/06/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
According to a recent news article, the unemployment rate for Texas fell for the sixth consecutive month to 7.1% during February. The rate is now the lowest it has been since March 2009 and is a full percentage point lower than it was in August 2011.

Job growth in Texas exceeded 27,000 positions during the month of February. These new positions were created in a variety of industries, including government, trade, transportation, utilities, education, and health services.

On a national level, unemployment rates declined in 29 states and rose in 8 states during February. (Rates were unchanged in 13 states and Washington, D.C.) Employers added jobs in 42 states, the most in almost a year. The national unemployment rate is 8.3%, the lowest it has been in three years.

As the economy slowly recovers and employers hire more employees, employment law issues may arise. If your company faces an employment law dispute or has concerns about how to handle an employment law legal issue, you may wish to speak to an experienced employment lawyer about your company’s legal rights and obligations. If so, please contact the Dallas, Texas employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group via email at info@www.cdklawyers.com or telephone at 214 220 3888.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Should an Employer Require a Terminated Employee to Sign a Release

04/05/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
How an employer handles a termination can significantly impact future dealings with the terminated employee. Therefore, before terminating an employee, an employer must address certain concerns, such as whether all termination policies have been followed, how to handle the employee’s last moments on the job, and whether a difficult situation warrants a call to an employment lawyer before the termination meeting.

An employer must also decide whether to ask the terminated employee to release any potential legal claims in exchange for severance pay. If so, the employer should not require the employee to sign the release at the termination meeting. Instead, the employer should give the employee ample time to consider the release and separation pay agreement.

Federal law requires an employer to give certain employees several weeks to consider a separation agreement. But, even when not legally obligated to do so, an employer should still give an employee adequate time to review and consider the proposed agreement. Few people have the presence of mind to carefully review a legally binding document minutes after being fired, and forcing an employee to sign a separation agreement on the spot could lead to allegations that the employer coerced the employee into signing the agreement.

To speak to an employment law attorney about terminating an employee, contact the Dallas, Texas employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group via email at info@www.cdklawyers.com or telephone at 214 220 3888.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Be Sure the Internship Meets These Requirements.

03/30/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
A frequent violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act concerns unpaid summer interns. Many business owners want to introduce students to their businesses, but, because of financial concerns, they hire the students as unpaid interns. According to the United States Department of Labor, however, unless the relationship meets certain criteria, an intern must be paid in accordance with the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime provisions. The determination of whether an internship is excluded from these provisions depends upon whether all of the following factors are met:

1. The internship is similar to the training given in an educational environment;
2. The internship is for the intern’s benefit;
3. The intern does not displace an employee and works under the close supervision of existing employees;
4. The employer derives no immediate advantage from the intern’s activities, and its operations may actually be impeded;
5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
6. The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages.

If all factors are met, the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime provisions do not apply to the intern. In reality, most businesses expect an immediate advantage from their interns’ activities, and, therefore, most companies should pay their interns.

To speak to an employment law attorney about an FLSA matter, contact the Dallas, Texas employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group via email at info@www.cdklawyers.com or telephone at 214 220 3888.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Employment Law Issue: Reference Letter as a Condition...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Certain situations may lead a former employee to ask an employer for a reference letter. These requests frequently occur when parties settle an employment-related lawsuit or when parties negotiate a separation agreement. How should an employer respond to these requests? At a basic level, the employer most likely should respond to these requests the same way it would respond to the request of a departing employee who is not engaged in a dispute with the employer.

In an effort to avoid litigation over reference letters, some employers opt not to provide reference letters to any employee and to verify nothing beyond basic information when contacted by telephone. If so, an employer likely should not agree to provide a favorable reference letter to a departing employee in a settlement or severance agreement. Doing so could expose the employer to allegations of discrimination. On the other hand, an employer who takes a more flexible approach to reference letter requests could agree to draft a letter in accordance with its guidelines; however, the employer may wish to ask employment law counsel to review a draft letter to ensure that the letter does not expose the employer to liability.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas employment law attorney about issues related to the departure of employees, contact the Dallas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Breach of Fiduciary Duty by an Employee

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
An employee in Texas may owe his or her employer a general duty of loyalty. This requires an employee to act primarily for the benefit of the employer in matters connected to the job. For example, an employee must fully disclose information about matters affecting the employer's business and cannot usurp an opportunity that rightfully belongs to the employer. If an employee fails to fulfill this duty of loyalty, the employer may sue the employee for breach of fiduciary duty.

Breach of fiduciary duty cases often arise because an employer alleges that an employee competed with it while still employed. In Texas, an employee cannot actively compete with an employer, although the employee may prepare to compete. Such preparatory conduct might include renting office space, lining up investors and developing a business plan, but it would not likely include soliciting business from the employer’s customers.

To recover damages in a breach of fiduciary duty matter, the employer must show that: (1) the employer and employee had a fiduciary relationship; (2) the employee breached a fiduciary duty; and (3) the employee’s breach resulted in injury to the employer or benefit to the employee.

To speak to an attorney about employee-employer relationships or about a workplace legal matter, contact the lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Trade Secret Protection : The Legal Risks of Telecommuting

More workers than ever now telecommute. Telecommuting can significantly reduce an employer’s overhead expenses, but it can also lead to increased employment law legal risks for an employer. Two such examples are overtime compensation and trade secret protection.



Overtime Compensation



One potential trade secret litigation pitfall concerns overtime compensation for employees who are not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. These employees may seek overtime compensation for hours worked while away from the office. To combat this, an employer should establish guidelines for when an employee should (and should not) respond to emails and telephone calls. Employers should also ensure that an employee does not work overtime without a supervisor’s prior approval.



Trade Secret Protection



Another employment law concern centers on the protection of trade secrets and confidential company information. Protecting sensitive company data may be more difficult when employees telecommute. These employees may attempt to store files containing confidential company information on personal devices. To minimize the risk of disclosure or theft by an employee, an employer can take practical steps such as the ones listed below:



Restrict access to certain informationRequire all work to be done on an employer-owned laptop or through a direct connection to the employer’s computer networkEducate employees on how to properly handle confidential company information



When dealing with these types of matters, it is important to adhere to the strict laws that govern trade secret protection and confidentiality, such as the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. It's a good idea to have a business lawyer draft up your policies, or at the very least review them.



To speak to a trade secret lawyer about effective workplace policies regarding telecommuting and trade secret protection, contact a Texas trade secret attorney at Rogge Dunn Group.



Media Information:



Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201Phone: 214-888-5000

### United States Supreme Court Recognizes Third-Party Retaliation Claim

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that an employee who has not engaged in activity protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may still bring a third-party retaliation claim if the employee was fired because of the employee’s relationship with a person who has engaged in protected activity. Thompson v. North American Stainless, L.P., No. 09-291, __ U.S. __ (Jan. 24, 2011), available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-291.pdf.

The plaintiff and his fiancée worked for the same employer. A short time after the plaintiff’s fiancée filed a charge of discrimination against the employer, the employer fired the plaintiff. The plaintiff then sued the employer, alleging that the employer fired him in order to retaliate against his fiancée for filing a charge of discrimination. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiff did not engage in protected activity because he did not file a charge himself or on his fiancée’s behalf. The Supreme Court reversed.

The Court found that if the plaintiff was fired because his fiancée filed a charge of discrimination, his firing constituted unlawful retaliation, although the Court declined to identify a fixed class of relationships for which third-party reprisals are unlawful. The Court then determined that the plaintiff had standing under Title VII to sue his employer and remanded the case.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas employment law attorney about workplace discrimination, contact the Dallas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Who Qualifies as an “Employer” Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee based on the employee’s race, color, national origin, gender, or religion. But not every person or entity that employs workers qualifies as an employer under the statute and thus not every entity is bound by its standards. With a couple of exceptions, Title VII defines an “employer” as a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year and any agent of such a person. Often, small businesses do not meet this threshold level. If a small business does not employ the requisite fifteen employees during the time periods identified in the statute, the employer cannot be held liable under the statute for conduct that might otherwise be viewed as a violation.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas employment law attorney about workplace discrimination and how to prevent it, contact the Texas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com. The employment attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group Khoshbin LLP regularly advise businesses and individuals about employment discrimination.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### EEOC Reports Workplace Discrimination Charges at All Time High

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recently announced that more private sector workplace discrimination charges had been filed with the federal agency in fiscal year 2010 than ever before. The statement, released on January 11, 2011, is available here: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-11-11.cfm.

The EEOC enforces federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination, harassment and retaliation, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”). In fiscal year 2010, a record 99,922 charges were filed nationwide, and all major categories of charge filings in the private sector (which includes charges filed against state and local governments) increased. Notably, for the first time since the federal agency became operational in 1965, retaliation under all statutes surpassed race as the most frequently filed charge. Fiscal year 2010 also marked the first year that the EEOC enforced GINA; the agency received 201 charges under that statute.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas employment law attorney about workplace discrimination, harassment or retaliation, contact the Texas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com. The employment attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group Khoshbin LLP regularly handle discrimination cases involving violations under federal laws and Texas state laws.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Dallas Court Vacates Arbitration Award in Employment Matter

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
A Dallas appellate court recently vacated an arbitration award in an employment matter. Alim v. KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root) – Halliburton, No. 05-09-00395-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas, Jan. 10, 2011), available at http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?c05topin.ask+D+137543.

An arbitrator issued an award that denied an individual’s employment-related claims. The individual, having learned that the arbitrator did not disclose a prior relationship with the opposing party’s representative, asked a trial court to vacate the arbitration award. The trial court denied this request, and this appeal followed.

Under the Federal Arbitration Act, evident partiality of an arbitrator is a substantive ground for vacating an arbitration award; a neutral arbitrator exhibits evident partiality if he does not disclose facts that might, to an objective observer, create a reasonable impression of the arbitrator’s partiality. Here, the individual argued that the arbitrator failed to disclose that he had served as an arbitrator in a prior case involving the opposing party’s representative and a related company. This relationship was not trivial, and the arbitrator was specifically required to disclose whether a party representative had appeared before him in prior cases. The Court held that the arbitrator’s nondisclosure and his failure to amend his answer to the question specifically inquiring about that fact constituted evident partiality. It vacated the award.

To speak to a Texas employment attorney about employment arbitration or another employment law issue, contact the Texas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Supreme Courts Addresses Workers’ Compensation Issue

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Texas Supreme Court recently addressed an issue arising under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Leordeanu v. Am. Protection Ins. Co., No. 09-0330 (Tex. Dec. 3, 2010), available at http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/dec/090330.htm.

The Court answered the question, “Is traveling from one workplace to another while on the way home in the ‘course and scope of employment’?” The Court answered in the affirmative.

The plaintiff left a company dinner in a company car. She intended to drop off company supplies at a company-provided self-storage unit near her home, but she had an accident midway there. The defendant denied her claim for workers’ compensation coverage because it found that she was not acting in the course and scope of employment at the time of the accident. The plaintiff won a jury trial, but the appellate court reversed the verdict. The plaintiff appealed.

Generally, injuries are compensable if they are sustained in the course and scope of employment. The Court discussed the historical development of the laws regulating workers’ compensation coverage, the current statute and notable Texas cases. The Court then concluded that the plaintiff was acting in the course and scope of her employment at the time of the accident, and it reversed the appellate court’s decision.

To speak to a Dallas employment lawyer about workplace legal issues, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Issues Opinion Regarding Disability

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Winborne v. Sunshine Health Care, Inc., No. 09-60765 (5th Cir. Nov. 17, 2010), available at: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/09/09-60765.0.wpd.pdf.

The plaintiff worked as a nurse for the defendant, a rest home. She suffered attacks involving temporary loss of awareness, but she controlled this condition with medication. The defendant terminated plaintiff’s employment after concluding that she neglected a patient. The plaintiff sued, alleging that the defendant fired her because it regarded her as disabled. The plaintiff won a jury trial. The defendant filed this appeal after the district court denied its motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Because the plaintiff’s disability claim alleged her employer regarded her as substantially limited in the major life activity of working, she must show that the defendant regarded her as unable to work in a class of jobs. Although the plaintiff presented evidence to show that the defendant was concerned about her ability to care for patients, she offered no evidence to show that the defendant perceived her to be unable to work in a class of jobs (such as nursing positions that did not involve patient care). Therefore, the Court reversed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.

The Dallas, Texas employment law firm Rogge Dunn Group routinely handles disability law issues. To speak to an employment attorney about workplace discrimination, contact the employment lawyers at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Addresses FLSA Issue

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed an issue arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Martin v. PepsiAmericas, Inc., No. 09-60896 (5th Cir. Dec. 28, 2010), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-60896-CV0.wpd.pdf. The plaintiff sued her former employer for unpaid overtime wages. The district court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss after finding that the plaintiff’s maximum potential recovery was less than the value of her severance package, which the district court found should be set-off against any potential damages awarded to the plaintiff. The Court vacated the dismissal because it held that the proposed set-off was improper.

The Court reviewed prior decisions regarding set-offs in FLSA matters. It concluded that set-offs in FLSA cases should be looked on with disfavor unless the money being set-off can be considered wages that the employer pre-paid to the plaintiff. Here, the employer paid the severance amount in return for the plaintiff’s release of claims against it; the severance payment was not a wage payment and was unrelated to the plaintiff’s work. While the plaintiff may have breached the severance agreement’s terms by suing the employer, the employer is not entitled to set-off any damages from this breach of contract against the plaintiff’s FLSA claim.

To speak to an attorney at a Dallas, Texas employment law firm about the FLSA or another workplace legal issue, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Hiring an Employment Law Attorney to Conduct Employee Training Sessions

Many companies conduct employee training sessions on key employment policies, such as discrimination and harassment. These programs are typically designed to both help the employer comply with federal and state employment laws and to prevent harassment and discrimination from occurring. Equally important, however, if an employer fails to properly train employees on these matters, the employer could be prevented from asserting certain affirmative defenses to discrimination claims if the employer is later sued by an employee.

An employer may opt to hire an employment law attorney to conduct these employee training sessions for several reasons. First, an employment lawyer knows the most up-to-date laws and can provide real-world insight by engaging trainees in scenarios based on actual events and court cases. Second, an employment lawyer may be able to tailor a general program to fit an employer’s industry-specific needs. Finally, an employment lawyer may be able to train an employer’s managers or internal human resources representatives so that those employees can then conduct further internal training sessions for other groups as needed.

To speak to an attorney at a Dallas, Texas employment law firm about conducting employee training sessions on federal and Texas state employment laws or to discuss an employment-related workplace legal issue, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Affirms Decision in...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board’s decision that an employee’s termination did not violate the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Klopfenstein v. Admin. Rev. Board, No. 10-60144 (5th Cir. Nov. 23, 2010), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/10/10-60144.0.wpd.pdf.

Klopfenstein’s employer discharged him for violating revenue recognition rules. Klopfenstein alleged this reason was a pretext and that he was actually discharged because he reported inventory balance sheet discrepancies to his employer. Klopfenstein filed a SOX whistleblower complaint, and it was determined that his purported whistleblowing activities did not contribute to his termination.

SOX creates a private cause of action for an employee of a publicly-traded company who is retaliated against because the employee provided information about corporate fraud to a federal agency or to the employer. The employee must prove: (1) he engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer knew he engaged in protected activity; (3) he suffered an unfavorable personnel action; and (4) the protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable action. In this matter, the Court found that the record clearly demonstrated that Klopfenstein’s reporting activity was not a contributing factor in his termination because the employees who terminated Klopfenstein’s employment did not know that he had raised concerns about inventory discrepancies. Thus, the Administrative Review Board’s decision was not an abuse of discretion.

To speak to a Dallas employment lawyer with experience in handling SOX matters, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Tis the Season to Go Shopping…

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

Many Americans dive into the holiday season with enthusiasm and many also try to complete their online shopping while at work. Yet employees who shop online while at work not only reduce productivity, but they also put company computers at risk for viruses, spam and other Internet-born ills. What can an employer do to curb online shopping by employees?

As an initial matter, most employers should implement basic security measures designed to prevent confidential company information from disclosure and to protect company computers from attack. To address employee Internet use, an employer may enforce a policy that prevents employees from accessing certain websites from company computers. If this approach is not feasible, an employer may enforce a policy that discourages employees from shopping online and that requires them to follow procedures designed to protect the company’s computers. Regardless of which approach an employer takes, an employer should educate its employees about its computer usage policy, enforce the policy consistently, issue reminders to employees when necessary (such as at the start of the holiday season), periodically monitor employee compliance and update the policy as necessary.

The Dallas, Texas employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group help employers with workplace legal issues. For assistance with creating a computer usage employment policy or for help with another legal issue involving employees, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group Khoshbin LLP at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Employers May Need to Implement Social Media Employment Policies

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
“Social media” refers to online media that facilitates conversations via the Internet and that allows users to share in creating the media’s content. Social media examples include Facebook and Twitter. Because social media use has exploded in recent years, employers may need to address its use with specific social media employment policies.

A social media employment policy should outline the employer’s guidelines for online communications. While an employer’s policy will vary according to its industry and its company-specific goals and needs, at a minimum, a social media policy should:

• Require employees to take responsibility for what they write and to exercise good judgment. Even if an employee uses social media outside the workplace, an employee should be aware that the employer may review postings and that content published by an employee reflects not just on the employee but also on the employer.
• Require employees to protect the employer’s confidential and proprietary information. An employee who has access to a company’s confidential information should never share that information via social media.
• Require employees to respect copyright laws.

To speak to a Dallas-based employment law attorney about creating a social media policy or about another workplace issue, contact the employment law firm of Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Terminating an Employee Who Belongs to a Protected Class

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

An employer’s reason for discharging an employee cannot be based on the employee’s membership in a class protected by law. For example, an employer cannot fire an employee because the employee is of a certain race or religion or because the employee is pregnant. But, of course, an employer may fire an employee who belongs to a protected class if the termination is not based on the protected characteristic.

As with any discharge, when terminating an employee in a protected class, an employer should comply with its written policies and procedures and should first investigate to ensure that the proposed termination is warranted. If so, the employer should meet with the employee’s supervisors to verify that the employee has not reported concerns about discrimination (and thus the termination cannot be viewed as retaliatory).

After gathering all relevant documents, the employer should prepare for the termination meeting. An employer should always pay a departing employee all compensation due and may consider offering a separation payment conditioned on the employee’s release of any claims against the employer.

If an employer has concerns about a specific discharge situation, the employer should consult with an employment lawyer prior to discharging the employee. The Dallas employment law firm of Rogge Dunn Group regularly assists employers with employee resignations and terminations. For more information, please contact the employment law attorneys at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Employment Law Issue: Addressing Short-timers’ Syndrome

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
A resigning employee typically gives an employer two weeks’ notice. The employee then uses the notice period to wrap up projects and to answer questions while the employer either hires a replacement or divides the employee’s responsibilities among remaining employees. But, unfortunately, some employees suffer from “short-timers’ syndrome” and lose any motivation to complete meaningful work after giving notice. In Texas, as a general rule, an employer can address this problem simply by accepting the employee’s resignation prior to the expiration of the two week notice period.

If an employer plans to dismiss an employee within the two week period prior to the stated quit date, the employer, of course, should pay the employee for all hours worked and should honor its employment policies and any prior agreements. Additionally, depending on the particular circumstances, an employer may wish to offer the employee separation pay, conditioned on the employee’s release of any claims against the employer that arose prior to the separation date.

The Dallas labor and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group assist employers in handling personnel issues, including employee resignations and terminations. For employment law advice regarding a personnel issue or another employment law matter, please contact the employment law attorneys at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Employers May Need to Update Employee Handbooks for Calendar Year 2011

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
As the final months of 2010 come around, many employers may be thinking ahead to 2011. The coming new year provides a chance for an employer to reflect on which company policies are working (or not working) and to verify that its policies comply with all applicable laws. Reviewing and updating an employee handbook at this point in the year also positions an employer to roll out new policies around the first of 2011. The first of the year is usually a good time for an employer to roll out new policies since many employees anticipate changes around that time. Additionally, an employer increases the likelihood that its policies will be understood and followed by its employees by frequently reviewing its policies with its employees.

Hiring employment law counsel to review and update an employee handbook helps ensure not only that an employer’s ideas comply with legal requirements but also that the employer’s existing policies reflect changes warranted by new legislation or amendments to employment laws.

The Dallas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group regularly draft and update employee handbooks and related documents. For assistance with creating or updating an employee handbook, please contact the employment law attorneys at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### What Are an Employer’s Obligations Regarding Pay Earned During Holiday Weeks?

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
With the holiday season approaching, many employers and employees may be wondering what an employer’s obligations are regarding compensation earned during holiday weeks.

The Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal law that regulates minimum pay standards and overtime compensation, applies to workers who are not specifically exempt from its coverage. Importantly, the FLSA generally obligates employers to pay employees only for time actually worked. So, if an employee who is covered by the FLSA does not work on Thanksgiving Day, the employer is not required to pay the employee for that day. Further, the FLSA does not require employers to pay employees a premium for working on holidays, although some employers may voluntarily do so.

Questions concerning overtime pay may also arise during this time. An employee may believe that he is entitled to overtime compensation if he worked on a day, such as Saturday, that he does not normally work to “make up” for missing work on a holiday. But, unless the employee actually works more than forty hours in the workweek, the employee is not entitled to overtime compensation.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas labor and employment law attorney with experience handling FLSA matters, contact the labor and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### When an Employer and an Employee Settle an Employment-Related Dispute...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

Employers and employees may find themselves in disputes with one another. Quite often, these disputes can be resolved via mediation or settlement negotiations between attorneys. If so, the parties usually enter into settlement agreements. But what terms does a settlement agreement between an employer and an employee typically contain?

Arguably, the two most important provisions in most settlement agreements address payment and a release from liability. One party typically agrees to pay money to the other party in exchange for the party’s release of any claims that arose prior to the settlement date. For matters in which litigation has commenced or in which a party has filed a charge of discrimination with an administrative agency, the agreement will likely contain a clause requiring the party to dismiss the action or withdraw the charge. Settlement agreements between employers and employees may also address non-compete and non-solicitation concerns, non-disclosure of company information, the employer’s provision of a reference letter, confidentiality and the employee’s return of company documents and information.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas labor and employment law attorney about an employment dispute, contact the labor and employment lawyers at the Dallas law firm Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Halloween Parties at Work: A Trick or a Treat?

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Some employers host office parties to celebrate Halloween. These parties can boost morale and encourage camaraderie among employees. But, to avoid legal exposure, an employer should consider taking some precautions.

First and foremost, an employer should never force an employee to participate in a Halloween celebration. Second, an employer should establish guidelines for any festivities held at the workplace. An employer should remind employees to act professionally and to save any “tricks” for later. An employer may also wish to set dress code standards for costumes. For instance, an employer could advise employees to avoid costumes that reflect stereotypes, depict other cultures or religions, are political in nature, are unsafe, involve weapons or project images that are inappropriate for the workplace. Unfortunately, an employer must also be prepared to discipline employees if necessary.

If an employer wishes to both celebrate the occasion and avoid potential liability issues, the employer could establish an alternative to the more traditional Halloween party. For example, an employer could hold a Halloween potluck breakfast or host a pumpkin carving contest.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas employment law attorney about a Texas or federal employment law issue, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Resolves ERISA Issue

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently resolved a case concerning the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Leipzig v. Principal Life Ins. Co., No. 10-10394 (Nov. 29, 2010), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/10/10-10394.1.wpd.pdf.

The plaintiff alleged that the insurance company denied his disability insurance claim in violation of ERISA, and he appealed a summary judgment for the insurer. The plaintiff was a surgical ear, nose and throat doctor. After being diagnosed with double vision, he ceased performing surgeries and began receiving disability benefits. Following an eye surgery, he resumed a non-surgical practice two days per week, and the insurer continued to pay reduced benefits. Later, the insurer stopped paying benefits after it determined that the plaintiff was working a reduced schedule because he did not have enough patients to justify a full-time schedule, not because of his disability.

Where a plan subject to ERISA gives the administrator discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits, the Court applies an abuse-of-discretion standard to the denial of a benefits claim. Here, because the insurer’s interpretation of the plan was both a uniform construction and a fair reading, it was legally correct. Thus, the insurer did not abuse its discretion when it denied the disability claim. The Court affirmed the summary judgment.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas employment law attorney about a workplace disability matter or an ERISA matter, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Minority Shareholder Oppression In Texas

Recently, a case of minority shareholder oppression in Texas exemplified the fact-intensive scope of many shareholder oppression disputes.



Question: If an irresistible force meets an immovable object, what is the result?



Answer: Mandamus. (Actually, there arguably is no such thing as an irresistible force or immovable object.)



The “irresistible force”: A minority shareholder is suing a majority shareholder for allegedly purloining company funds for his personal benefit. The minority shareholder seeks to discover the majority shareholder’s tax returns, and adduce evidence of the alleged mischief.



The “immovable object”: The majority shareholder refuses to produce his tax returns, despite the Texas trial court’s order to do so.



In In re Croft, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 7778 (Tex. App. - - Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 22, 2010, no writ as of 10/12/10) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (memo op.), the Houston 14th District Court of Appeals addressed just such a situation.



Minority Shareholder Oppression in Texas: The Croft Case



The Croft case involved Preston Croft, Craig Corbell and Croft Production Systems, Inc. ("CPS"). CPS designs, installs, and leases dehydration and dew-point reducing equipment in the oil and gas industry. Although both were owners in CPS, apparently Mr. Corbell was a minority shareholder - - and Mr. Croft was a majority shareholder.



Mr. Corbell, individually and on behalf of CPS, sued Mr. Croft for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, fraud, and minority shareholder oppression. Mr. Corbell alleged that Mr. Croft was improperly using CPS for his personal benefit, and was allocating his personal debt to CPS. In addition, Mr. Corbell alleged CPS's debt increased as a result of Mr. Croft's personal expenditures.



During discovery in the lawsuit, Mr. Corbell sought Mr. Croft's tax returns and other financial documents. Mr. Croft refused to produce the documents, objecting to the discovery requests as overly broad and irrelevant. The trial court ordered Mr. Croft to produce tax returns for certain years and certain financial documents based on Mr. Corbell's allegations of fraud, misapplication of corporate money and misuse of corporate assets (including conversion of corporate assets and money to personal use).



Mr. Croft sought mandamus relief from the trial court’s order, which was considered by the Houston 14th District Court of Appeals. As a result, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Mr. Croft to produce his tax returns, and conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus (in part) to direct the trial court to set aside those portions of its discovery orders that compelled Mr. Croft to produce his tax returns.



Minority Shareholder Oppression in Texas Generallly



In Texas, “there is no set standard for determining whether shareholder oppression has occurred.” Gage v. Rosenbaum (In re Rosenbaum), 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 1509 *19 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. May 7, 2010) (memo op.) and Four Seasons Equip., Inc. v. White (In re White), 429 B.R. 201, 213 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2010) (both citing Davis v. Sheerin, 754 S.W.2d 375, 382 (Tex. App. - - Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, writ denied)). To clarify, a court considering a Texas minority shareholder oppression claim must examine the facts as a whole, and determine whether the alleged wrongful conduct has deprived the minority shareholder of the shareholder’s reasonable expectations as an equity holder of the corporation. See, e.g., Davis v. Sheerin, 754 S.W.2d 375, 382-83 (Tex. App. - - Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, writ denied).



For example, Texas courts have found "oppressive conduct" to include:



1. A majority shareholders' conduct which substantially defeats the minority shareholder's expectations that, when objectively viewed, were both reasonable under the circumstances and central to the minority shareholder's decision to join the venture; or



2. “Burdensome, harsh, or wrongful conduct; a lack of probity and fair dealing in the company's affairs to the prejudice of some members; or a visible departure from the standards of fair dealing and a violation of fair play on which each shareholder is entitled to rely.”



Bulacher v. Enowa, L.L.C., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27784 *4 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2010) (memo op.) (citing Willis v. Bydalek, 997 S.W.2d 798, 801 (Tex. App. - - Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (citing Davis v. Sheerin, 754 S.W.2d 375, 381-82 (Tex. App. - - Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, writ denied)).



Discovery of Tax Returns in Texas Generally



"Income tax returns are discoverable to the extent they are relevant and material to the issues presented in the lawsuit." Hall v. Lawlis, 907 S.W.2d 493, 494 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Nonetheless, the Texas Supreme Court has expressed a "reluctance to allow uncontrolled and unnecessary discovery of federal income tax returns." Hall, 907 S.W.2d at 494 (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Ramirez, 824 S.W.2d 558, 559 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)). Furthermore, the Texas Supreme Court has explained:



Subjecting federal income tax returns of our citizens to discovery is sustainable only because the pursuit of justice between the litigants outweighs protection of their privacy. But sacrifices of the latter should be kept to the minimum, and this requires scrupulous limitation of discovery to information furthering justice between the parties which, in turn, can only be information of relevancy and materiality to the matters in controversy.



In re Croft, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 7778 *4 (quoting Maresca v. Marks, 362 S.W.2d 299, 301 (Tex. 1962) (orig. proceeding)). Therefore, a trial court abuses its discretion by ordering production of tax returns without a showing of relevance in the case. Id. at *6 (citing Hall, 907 S.W.2d at 494).



Analysis in The Croft Case



The Court of Appeals in Croft recognized that Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, where the moving party (or “relator”) must show: (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion, and (2) he has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Croft, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 7778 *3 (citing In re Laibe Corp., 307 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)). It also delineated Texas law regarding the need for relevancy in discovery:



Discovery is limited to matters relevant to the case. Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). A party's requests must show a reasonable expectation of obtaining information that will aid in the resolution of the dispute. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Therefore, discovery requests must be reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to the case. In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). 



In addition, the Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished that discovery may not be used as a fishing expedition. K Mart Corp. v. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Texaco, Inc., 898 S.W.2d at 815. The scope of discovery is generally a matter of trial court discretion. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 152.



Id. at *3-4.



Court Findings



Then, the Croft Court discussed Texas law regarding both discovery of tax returns, as well as other financial records. In cases concerning the production of financial records generally, the Croft Court stated that the burden rests on the party seeking to prevent production. In re Croft, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 7778 *5 (citing In re Jacobs, 300 S.W.3d 35, 40 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, orig. proceeding [mand. dism'd]). 



Once an objection is asserted, however, the Croft Court found that “the party seeking the discovery of income tax returns bears the burden of showing that the returns are relevant and material to the issues in the case.” Id. (citations omitted). It further found that a trial court abuses its discretion by ordering the production of tax returns without such a showing of relevance, and if the relevant information sought can be obtained from a source other than the tax returns. Id. at *5-6 (citations omitted).



The Court Denied the Mandamus



According to the Croft opinion, Mr. Corbell was arguing the tax returns were necessary to determine the allocation of assets and liabilities of Mr. Croft and CPS, and the parties' respective ownership interests in CPS. Without explanation, the Croft Court held Mr. Corbell “has not met his burden show that the tax returns are relevant.” Id. at *6. Moreover, rather than establish he could not obtain the information sought from other sources, Mr. Corbell apparently admitted he could obtain the information he wanted in the tax returns from other financial documents. Id. With regard to the other types of financial documents, however, the Croft Court concluded that Mr. Croft had “not met his burden of showing that the remaining financial documents are not relevant to this case.” Id. at *7.



Therefore, although the Court of Appeals granted the mandamus such that Mr. Croft did not have to produce his tax returns, it denied the mandamus to the extent it concerned the other types of financial documents at issue. Id. at *7-8.



Conclusion



Sometimes when an irresistible force meets an unmovable object, they need an appellate court’s attention to pave the way for them. This happened in the Croft case involving a minority shareholder oppression claim. With regard to Mr. Croft’s tax returns, the Court of Appeals found that Mr. Corbell did not prove relevancy. However, “reading in between the lines,” it seems the Court really found Mr. Corbell did not need the tax returns to obtain the information he sought - - perhaps especially since he was obtaining the other financial documents being sought.



Nonetheless, it is important to note that shareholder oppression disputes are often fact-intensive cases; and such facts and allegations will bear on the nature and scope of discovery allowed by a Texas court. 



For example, in the Croft opinion, the Court noted that Mr. Corbell did not base his request for tax returns on his need to establish “net worth” for the purposes of perhaps punitive damages. In re Croft, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 7778 *5 n.1. Further, Mr. Corbell apparently did not specifically argue that such tax returns were necessary to establish his damages, or specifically urge to the Court of Appeals why they were relevant to his improper “personal use,” self-dealing or fraud claims against Mr. Croft. When considering such issues, forensic accountants may be able to provide assistance on the need for such tax returns, as well as why the relevant information sought cannot be found in other financial documents.



Contact a Business Lawyer



If you would like a copy of any of the legal opinions discussed in this article, or to discuss the issues raised in further detail, contact a business lawyer at Rogge Dunn Group.



THIS ARTICLE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT, AND IS NOT INTENDED TO, CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. EACH CASE DEPENDS ON ITS FACTS, AND LAWS SOMETIMES CHANGE OVER TIME. FOR LEGAL ADVICE, CONTACT LEGAL COUNSEL LICENSED IN YOUR STATE.



Media Information:



Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201



Phone: 214-888-5000



Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Supreme Court Enforces Arbitration Agreement in...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that an arbitration agreement between an employer and a former employee should be enforced. In re 24R, Inc., No. 09-1025 (Tex. Oct. 22, 2010), available at http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/oct/091025.htm. The former employee filed an employment discrimination lawsuit, and the employer moved to compel arbitration based on a signed arbitration agreement. The trial court denied the request, and the employer sought mandamus relief.

The former employee argued that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it lacked consideration and that it was illusory because the employer retained the right to amend or terminate the agreement. The Court disagreed. First, mutual agreement to arbitrate provides sufficient consideration. Here, the agreement did not lack consideration because both parties agreed to arbitrate any claim. Second, an arbitration agreement is not illusory unless one party can avoid its promise to arbitrate by amending or terminating the agreement. The former employee argued that the employer’s employee manual gave it the right to modify or abolish any employment policy. The Court rejected this argument, however, because the arbitration agreement itself neither stated that the employer could change its terms nor incorporated by reference the employee manual. The Court thus conditionally granted mandamus relief to the employer.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas employment law attorney about pursuing or defending an employment-related matter in court or in an arbitration tribunal, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Mediation May be Best Option for Resolving an Employment Law Dispute

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
When a dispute arises between an employee and an employer, mediation may be the parties’ best option for a fast (and, therefore, less expensive) resolution. In this confidential process, a neutral mediator facilitates resolution by analyzing the case, pointing out its strengths and weaknesses and encouraging the parties to reach common ground.

Typically, each party first submits a confidential position paper which provides background information and a brief analysis of the matter. Once at the mediation session, counsel for all parties and each party’s representative may meet jointly to summarize the parties’ positions. Then, each party moves into a separate room, and the mediator travels between the two rooms, attempting to broker a deal. At this time, the parties may wish to give the mediator additional information to use in negotiating a resolution.

If the parties reach an agreement, the attorneys usually commit its key terms to writing while at the mediator’s office. However, even if mediation fails, the negotiation process is still beneficial; mediation can enable the parties to significantly narrow the scope of their dispute, leading to a later resolution.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas employment law mediator about a labor and employment law matter, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Employers and Employees May Waive Their Rights to a Jury Trial

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

In Texas, employers and employees can contractually waive the right to a trial by jury by including a jury waiver provision in a contract that governs their relationship. Then, instead of a jury determining the outcome of any lawsuit arising from the employment relationship, a judge would hear the testimony and act as the finder of fact.

While some employers prefer to arbitrate employment disputes, a jury waiver enables an employer to take advantage of the other rights that exist in a court of law while avoiding the possibility of a “runaway” jury and a large jury verdict.

An employer who seeks to enter into a jury waiver agreement with an employee should contact employment law counsel. While courts routinely enforce jury waiver clauses, these clauses must meet legal standards. For example, because a party’s waiver of the right to a jury trial should be knowing and voluntary, an employer cannot bury jury waiver language within an agreement or type it in tiny type and expect a court to enforce the jury waiver. Experienced employment law counsel can draft a jury waiver provision that satisfies the legal requirements.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas employment lawyer about a jury waiver clause or another employment law issue, contact the Dallas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Rules for Dallas County District Attorney’s Office in...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the employer in a recent Title VII and § 1981 race discrimination matter. Jackson v. Watkins, No. 09-10635 (5th Cir. Sept. 13, 2010), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-10635-CV0.wpd.pdf. The plaintiff, a white man, had served in the Dallas County District Attorney’s office for sixteen years and earned various honors during that time. In 2006, the newly-elected African-American Dallas County District Attorney fired the plaintiff and replaced him with an African-American. The plaintiff sued the District Attorney and Dallas County. After the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff’s race discrimination claims, the plaintiff appealed.

The Court held that the only question on appeal was whether the plaintiff met his burden of producing evidence sufficient to show that the defendants’ stated reasons for terminating his employment were pretextual. The law requires a plaintiff to rebut each non-discriminatory reason offered by an employer to explain why it terminated the plaintiff’s employment. Because the plaintiff failed to rebut even one of the four reasons offered by the employer, the Court affirmed the summary judgment.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas employment law attorney about a race discrimination matter or another discriminatory workplace situation, contact the Dallas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment in ERISA Matter

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed summary judgment for plan participants in an ERISA matter. Dupre v. Employee Benefit Servs. of La., Inc., No. 09-30990 (5th Cir. Sept. 2, 2010), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/09/09-30990.0.wpd.pdf.

Jennifer Dupre, a morbidly obese woman, planned to have gastric bypass surgery and sought coverage under the ERISA plan offered by her husband’s employer. The plan granted the administrator authority to interpret the plan, and the administrator refused payment because the plan disallowed coverage for obesity-related procedures. The Dupres sued, and the district court granted summary judgment for the Dupres.

Where a plan expressly confers discretion on the administrator to construe the plan’s terms, the administrator’s decision is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. The Court must first determine the legally correct interpretation of the plan and then determine whether the administrator’s interpretation accords with the legally correct interpretation. If not, the Court must determine whether the administrator’s interpretation constitutes an abuse of discretion. Crucial to this determination is whether the administrator’s interpretation is fair and reasonable. Because a reasonable interpretation could find that the planned surgery was connected to obesity and because the administrator made a determination after considering all the relevant evidence, the Court upheld the administrator’s decision and reversed the judgment for the Dupres.

To speak to a Dallas labor and employment lawyer about ERISA, contact the employment law firm of Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Contact Counsel Before Terminating Employees

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

In Texas, well-settled law allows an employer to terminate an at-will employee for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all, as long as the termination is not based on a characteristic of the employee that is protected by law (ie: a person’s race, pregnancy, or religious affiliation). Even so, terminating employees can present challenges for employers.

While many terminations are handled without much fuss, if an employer believes a termination could be difficult, the employer would be wise to contact employment law counsel prior to acting. An employment law attorney can guide an employer through difficult situations and help an employer craft a termination plan designed to minimize further problems. For example, if an employer suspects that an employee has taken confidential information or if an employer fears an employee may pursue a retaliation claim, the employer can benefit from the advice of counsel to ensure that the necessary steps and precautions are taken during the termination process.

To speak to Dallas employment counsel about a potential firing or another employment law issue, contact the Dallas employment and labor law firm of Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### United States Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division Issues a...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the new health care reform law, amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to require employers to provide reasonable break times for nursing mothers to express milk. The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division recently issued a Fact Sheet to provide general information on this requirement.

Under the new law, an employer must provide a mother who has a baby younger than one year old with reasonable break times for the mother to express milk in a place (other than a bathroom) that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public. The frequency of breaks and the duration of each break may vary. The law applies only to employees who are not exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements and does not require employers to pay employees for these break times. The law also provides an exception for employers with fewer than fifty employees if compliance would impose an undue hardship.

For assistance in complying with this amendment to the FLSA or any other labor or employment law, please contact the Texas labor and employment lawyers at the Dallas law firm of Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Can an Employer “Force” its Employees to Clock Out for a Lunch Break?

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
An employee subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act may wish to “work through lunch” so the employee can leave the workplace earlier. But an employer can require an employee to take an unpaid lunch break, provided the employer completely relieves the employee of any work-related duties during that break time.

The FLSA does not require an employer to provide an employee with a meal period, and an employer is generally free to set an employee’s work schedule, including breaks. This means that an employer could require an employee to report for work at 7:30 a.m., take an hour-long break between 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., and then work until 4:30 p.m. An employer may have bona fide business reasons for expecting an employee to arrive and leave at set times, such as ensuring that the workplace is adequately staffed at the beginning and closing of the business day. Scheduling midday breaks can help an employer meet these business needs and may lead to increased employee productivity.

To speak to an attorney about the FLSA or a work-related legal issue, contact the labor and employment lawyers at the Dallas employment law firm of Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Addresses Fair Labor Standards Act Issue

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that a worker was an independent contractor—not an employee—and thus not entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Thibault v. BellSouth Telecom. Inc., et al, No. 08-31226 (5th Cir. July 26, 2010), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/08/08-31226-CV0.wpd.pdf. The worker owned a profitable business in Delaware, but, in Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath, performed splicing work on behalf of BellSouth. Though he had never worked as a splicer, he provided his own truck and tools, worked 84 hours per week on assignments and received a fixed hourly wage. While he anticipated working for six months, he was laid off after three months. He sued BellSouth and its contractors for unpaid overtime pay.

The Court examined five key factors when analyzing whether the worker was economically dependent upon the alleged employer: (1) permanency of the relationship; (2) degree of control exercised by the alleged employer; (3) skill and initiative required to perform the job; (4) extent of the relative investments of the worker and the alleged employer; and (5) degree to which the worker’s opportunity for profit and loss was determined by the alleged employer. Noting that the determination was fact-specific, the Court concluded that, in this case, the evidence did not support a finding that the worker was an FLSA employee. Thus, the Court affirmed judgment dismissing his FLSA claims.

To speak to an attorney about the FLSA, contact the lawyers at the Dallas employment law firm of Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Most Employment Law Matters Do Not Proceed at the Pace of...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

When an employee and employer find themselves in a dispute, they often bring in legal counsel to help resolve their differences. Many times, business and employment law counsel can help the parties settle disputes quickly. But if it appears that the parties are not going to resolve their issues before one party files a lawsuit, the parties may be in for a long legal battle.

Employees and employers who are new to litigation may not realize that an actual employment-related controversy does not proceed at the same rapid pace as a legal controversy depicted on television. In fact, litigation is often a long and tedious process with built-in delays. For example, in Texas, a defendant has at least twenty days to answer a lawsuit and, in most situations, opposing parties have at least thirty days to respond to written discovery requests. Some clients may feel frustrated that not much activity occurs while waiting for the other side to answer the lawsuit or respond to discovery requests, but the time frames established by the rules of civil procedure are designed to allow each party adequate time to investigate and address the matters at issue.

To speak to an attorney about employment-related legal issues, contact the lawyers at the Dallas, Texas business and employment law firm of Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules that an Employee Does Not Always Need to...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

Employees do not always need to comply with an employer’s heightened notice policy to maintain Family Medical Leave Act protection. Saenz v. Harlingen Med. Center, L.P., No. 09-40887 (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2010), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-40887-CV0.wpd.pdf.

Saenz’s employer required employees to contact its FMLA administrator within two days after each leave period for approved intermittent leave. Saenz complied many times for seizure-related absences. Then, Saenz suffered hallucinations. She was taken to her employer’s emergency room (where a supervisor visited her) and committed to a behavior center after her mother obtained guardianship of her. Ten days later, Saenz asked her employer’s FMLA administrator to approve intermittent FMLA leave for her new condition, but her employer fired her for absenteeism, citing her failure to comply with its two-day notice policy.

The trial court granted summary judgment for Saenz’s employer. On appeal, the Court reversed. The Court found that fact issues existed as to whether the employer could rely on its heightened notice policy because it had actual notice of Saenz’s condition and because no evidence showed that Saenz affirmatively refused to comply with the policy. The Court also found that Saenz satisfied the FMLA’s more relaxed notice requirements because she contacted her employer and stated that leave was needed as soon as was practicable under the facts and circumstances of her situation. The Court remanded the case.

To speak to a business and employment attorney about an FMLA issue, contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Addresses Texas Employment Contract Issue

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed summary judgment in a dispute regarding a Texas employment agreement. Lindsey v. DynCorp Int’l, L.L.C., No. 10-20130 (5th Cir. July 20, 2010), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/10/10-20130.0.wpd.pdf.

Lindsey entered into an at-will employment contract with DynCorp to work in Iraq for eight months. The contract initially provided for an annualized salary of over $100,000; however, after Lindsey began working in Iraq, DynCorp discovered that it had made a mistake and changed the compensation terms to reflect a yearly salary of approximately $50,000. The plaintiff worked until the contract period concluded, returned to Texas, and sued DynCorp. The district court granted summary judgment on Lindsey’s breach of contract claim.

Under Texas law, either party may modify the terms of an at-will employment contract as a condition of continued employment. The party asserting the modifications must prove that (1) the party provided notice of the change and (2) the other party accepted the change. Here, the record reflected that DynCorp unequivocally notified Lindsey of the modification. Lindsey’s continued employment with DynCorp following this notice constituted acceptance of that modification. Therefore, the modification was enforceable, and, because DynCorp paid Lindsey the full amount owed under the modified contract, summary judgment was proper on the breach of contract claim.

To speak to an attorney about a Texas employment contract issue, contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Phone: 1
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Understanding the “Minor” Provisions in an Employment Agreement

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Being savvy business people, executives usually know what key provisions to look for in employment agreements, such as the compensation and non-compete terms. But employment agreements usually contain other provisions that may appear to be minor, boilerplate terms. An executive should understand these terms and how they could impact the employment relationship before entering into an agreement.

An employment agreement may contain a forum selection provision and a choice of law provision. These provisions govern where the dispute will be litigated (forum selection) and which state’s laws will be applied (choice of law). Forum selection is particularly important when an executive contemplates accepting a job outside corporate headquarters; the difficulties involved in litigating a matter in another state could seriously deter litigation efforts. The parties’ choice of law impacts litigation as well. For example, the enforcement of non-compete agreements varies considerably by jurisdiction.

An employment agreement may contain a jury waiver clause or an arbitration clause. A jury waiver clause requires the parties to try the case before a judge and an arbitration clause requires the parties to bypass the judicial system altogether. These options have both positive and negative consequences, and an executive should consider these consequences before signing an agreement.

The attorneys at the Dallas, Texas employment law firm Rogge Dunn Group regularly draft and negotiate employment agreements. To speak to an employment attorney about an employment agreement, please contact the employment lawyers at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Settling an Employment-Related Lawsuit

Employers and employees may find themselves in litigation with one another over the breach of an employment contract, the theft of trade secrets, the breach of a non-compete agreement, or a discrimination or retaliation matter. If the parties are like most parties to litigation, they will resolve their dispute with a settlement agreement instead of proceeding to trial. Most parties prefer to settle cases to avoid the expense of litigation and the uncertainty of a decision made by a judge or jury.



What Does a Settlement Agreement Typically Contain?



A settlement agreement typically contains terms that are negotiated by the attorneys for each party. Oftentimes, one party will agree to pay the other party, either with a lump sum payment or according to a payment plan. Most settlement agreements also contain releases, whereby each party releases the other from all other possible claims. In turn, this completely resolves all issues between them. Some settlement agreements contain non-disparagement clauses, whereby the parties agree not to speak badly about each other to third parties. Settlement agreements also usually contain miscellaneous provisions, such as provisions regarding the parties’ choice of law or jurisdiction.



To speak to an employment attorney about an employment-related issue, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.



Media Information:



Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201



Phone: 214-888-5000



Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Executive Employment Agreements and 409A Issues

Section 409A is a recent addition to the Internal Revenue Code. It applies to compensation that an employee earns in one year but that is not paid until a future year. Unless this deferred compensation meets certain requirements, the income is subject to additional taxes. This includes a twenty percent additional income tax. A knowledgeable executive contract lawyer can help you navigate this recent addition as it pertains to executive employment agreements.



Various exceptions exclude certain compensation that would otherwise be subject to 409A. For example, funds received through short-term deferrals and funds paid upon an employee’s involuntary termination from work may be excluded if certain conditions are met.



Executives asked to enter into executive employment agreements or separation agreements must ensure that the agreement complies with 409A or must be willing to pay the additional taxes. Because these agreements are typically drafted by the employer’s attorney, an executive should consult with employment counsel or tax counsel regarding the implications of any compensation scheme before signing an agreement. An experienced executive contract attorney can assist with this.



Do you need to speak to an employment lawyer regarding employment contracts or separation agreements as they pertain to 409a? Or, do you need to ask an executive compensation attorney to review a proposed employment agreement or separation agreement? Contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.



Media Information:



Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201



Phone: 214-888-5000



Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Liquidated Damages Award Under the FLSA

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Fair Labor Standards Act establishes standards for overtime pay. Unless an employee is exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provisions, an employee is entitled to receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay.

Disputes often arise between employers and employees regarding overtime compensation issues. If an employee seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation via a court action against the employer, the employee may recover a “liquidated damages” award. A liquidated damages award is an award of additional compensation, up to an amount equal to the unpaid overtime compensation.

Liquidated damages are not awarded in all cases. If an employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to the lawsuit was in good faith and that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that its act or omission was not a violation of the FLSA, the court may award no liquidated damages or may award a lesser amount than allowed by law.

To speak to an employment attorney regarding overtime compensation issues, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Disability Matter

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled against a plaintiff on his disability discrimination claim. Kemp v. Holder, No. 09-30255 (5th Cir. June 22, 2010), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-30255-CV0.wpd.pdf.

The plaintiff was discharged as a security officer after he failed to pass a hearing test unaided. The plaintiff had worn hearing aids for years and, while he had no problems hearing while wearing his aids, he could not pass the hearing test unaided. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer because it found the plaintiff was not disabled.

To establish a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a plaintiff may show he has a physical impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the district court should not have taken into account the benefit of his hearing aids when it determined he was not limited in a major life activity because the ADA was amended in 2008 to permit a disability to be discerned without regard to the mitigating effect of devices. The Court noted that, while the plaintiff’s claim might fare differently under the amended statute, his lawsuit was filed before the amendments were in effect. Therefore, because the plaintiff admitted that he was not substantially limited in any life activity while wearing his hearing aids, the district court did not err in concluding that he was not disabled.

To speak to an employment disability attorney regarding disability discrimination, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### U.S. Department of Labor Clarifies Definition under Family and Medical Leave Act

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The United States Department of Labor recently clarified a definition found in the Family and Medical Leave Act. Under the FMLA, employees may take leave from work to address family-related needs, such as caring for a son or daughter with a serious health condition. The FMLA defines a “son or daughter” as a biological, adopted, or foster child, a stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of a person standing in loco parentis, who is either under age eighteen or over age eighteen and incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability.

The new interpretation expands the understanding of “in loco parentis.” Under the new interpretation, a person may stand in loco parentis if the person either participates in the day-to-day care of a child or financially supports a child. For example, an employee who provides day-to-day care for her unmarried partner’s child but who does not financially support the child would be eligible to take FMLA leave to care for the child.

For more information about the Family and Medical Leave Act or to speak with an employment lawyer about rights under the FMLA, contact the Dallas FMLA lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### United States Supreme Court Rules on Arbitration Agreement Issue in...

03/29/2012 //(press release)

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled on an arbitration agreement issue in the employment context. Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, No. 09-497, __ U.S. __ (June 21, 2010), available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-497.pdf.

Jackson sued Rent-A-Center for employment discrimination. Rent-A-Center filed a motion to compel arbitration. The district court granted Rent-A-Center’s motion. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the appellate court reversed on the question of whether the court or the arbitrator had the authority to decide whether the arbitration agreement was enforceable. Rent-A-Center appealed.

The United States Supreme Court’s ruling applies to arbitration agreements that are both subject to the Federal Arbitration Act and that include a specific agreement that an arbitrator shall determine the enforceability of the agreement: If a party specifically challenges the enforceability of that particular clause, then a court may consider the challenge; however, if a party challenges the enforceability of the agreement as a whole, an arbitrator must consider the issue. Here, because Jackson challenged the enforceability of the entire agreement, an arbitrator must determine the issue. The Court reversed the judgment of the lower court.

For more information about arbitration agreements in the employment context,  contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201

Phone: 214-888-5000

URL: Rogge Dunn

### Sexual Harassment Lawyer Rogge Dunn says Employers May Be Held Liable for Sexual Harassment by Non-Employees

Do You Need a Sexual Harassment Lawyer?



Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires certain employers to provide employees with workplaces free from sexual discrimination and harassment. Most employers recognize that they can be held liable under Title VII for the actions of their employees; however, not all employers realize that they may also be held liable for the sexually harassing acts of a non-employee. A sexual harassment lawyer can help you draft employment policies and maneuver workplace sexual harassment issues.



How Can Employers Take Action?



According to Title VII, employers should take appropriate steps to prevent and correct unlawful harassment. The U.S. EEOC encourages employers to do the following:



"Employers should clearly communicate to employees that unwelcome harassing conduct will not be tolerated. They can do this by establishing an effective complaint or grievance process, providing anti-harassment training to their managers and employees, and taking immediate and appropriate action when an employee complains. Employers should strive to create an environment in which employees feel free to raise concerns and are confident that those concerns will be addressed." – EEOC website



Under Title VII, problems arise if an employer knew or should have known about the harassing conduct of a non-employee and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. The employer may be found liable for the harassing actions of the non-employee. For example, let's say an employee reports to her manager that a co-worker’s boyfriend routinely visits the workplace and makes offensive sexual comments to her. Her employer could be held liable for the actions and comments of the co-worker’s boyfriend if it fails to remedy the situation and prevent future harassment.



For assistance in developing employment policies to address sexual harassment or to speak with an employment lawyer regarding workplace discrimination and harassment, contact the discrimination and harassment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.



Media Information:



Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201Phone: 214-888-5000URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Supreme Court Rules on Employment Law Issue

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Texas Supreme Court recently addressed whether a plaintiff may recover negligence damages for harassment covered by the Texas antidiscrimination statute. Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, No. 07-0205 (Tex. June 11, 2010), available at http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/jun/070205.htm.

The plaintiff waited tables at a Waffle House restaurant. A co-worker made offensive sexual comments to her and touched her in an inappropriate manner, and Waffle House did not remedy the situation. Williams then sued Waffle House under the Texas antidiscrimination law (the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act) for sexual harassment and under the common law for negligent supervision and retention. After a favorable jury verdict, she elected to recover under her common law claim. The appellate court affirmed the judgment on her common law claim.

The Texas Supreme Court reversed. The Court concluded that the plaintiff’s exclusive claim was the statutory harassment claim. After reviewing the differences in the two claims, the Court ruled that allowing a plaintiff’s common law claim to coexist with a statutory claim would enable a plaintiff to circumvent the special rules applicable to statutory discrimination and harassment claims; where the gravamen of a plaintiff’s case is harassment covered by the Texas antidiscrimination statute, the statute precludes pursuit of any common law theories predicated on the same underlying facts.

To speak with a Dallas, Texas business and employment law attorney regarding workplace discrimination or harassment, contact the business and employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on FLSA Issue

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled on a Fair Labor Standards Act matter. Gagnon v. United Technisource, Inc., No. 09-20098 (5th Cir. May 27, 2010), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-20098-CV0.wpd.pdf. The plaintiff, a skilled craftsman, contracted with his employer to be paid $5.50 per hour for “straight time” and $20.00 per hour for overtime. The parties also agreed the employee would receive, as a “per diem,” $12.50 per hour for every hour worked, up to forty hours per week. The plaintiff later sued, alleging that he was not adequately compensated for his overtime work.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s ruling that the plaintiff was not adequately compensated for his overtime work. The FLSA requires that non-exempt employees who work more than forty hours in a work week be paid one and one-half times their “regular rate” of pay. Here, the employer attempted to avoid paying the proper amount of overtime pay by artificially designating portions of the employee’s wages as either straight time or per diem. The per diem amount should have been included in the employee’s regular rate of base pay for determining proper overtime pay under the FLSA.

To speak with a Dallas, Texas business and employment law attorney regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act, contact the business and employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Executive Exemption: FLSA’s Requirements for Employee Exemption

One federal employment law applies to most employers—the Fair Labor Standards Act. Among other things, the FLSA establishes standards for overtime pay. That is to say, under the FLSA, an employee is entitled to receive overtime pay at the rate of one and one-half of the employee’s regular rate of pay for time worked in excess of forty hours each work week. However, the FLSA exempts certain employees from its overtime pay provisions. Executive, administrative, and professional employees could meet the requirements of executive exemption. An employer must understand these classifications and use them properly so that the employer does not wrongfully fail to compensate employees entitled to receive overtime pay.



Who Qualifies For Executive Exemption?



Many employees are exempt from the overtime pay provisions because they are considered “executive employees.” For an employee to qualify for the executive exemption, the employee must: 



Be paid on a salary basis at a rate of at least $455 per weekHave a primary duty of managing the enterprise or a department or subdivision of the enterpriseCustomarily and regularly direct the work of at least two full-time employeesHave the authority to hire and fire other employees or have suggestions regarding these matters given particular weight.



Executive Exemption Lawyers



The employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group have ample experience with executive employment agreements and contracts. We have assisted employers and employees alike on FLSA matters, including executive exemption issues. Moreover, we believe that understanding these employment laws and taking steps to comply with them on the front end can help our clients avoid disputes in the future.



For more information about the FLSA or to speak with a business and employment lawyer regarding overtime pay concerns, contact an executive contract lawyer at Rogge Dunn Group.



Media Information:



Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201Phone: 214-888-5000URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Employees and Employers Should Properly Amend Employment Agreements

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
An employer and a key employee may negotiate an employment agreement at the outset of their employment relationship. But sometimes the deal that the two parties initially negotiate ceases to be the deal the parties later desire.

When both parties want to change the terms of their agreement, they may be tempted to do so by simply orally agreeing to a new deal and then operating under the new terms. Doing so can lead to problems, however, if a dispute later arises; proving the existence and content of the new terms could be difficult for both parties. Therefore, in most situations, an employer and an employee should amend an employment agreement in a written document that is signed by both parties. This amendment should state that the parties desire to amend their agreement and then set forth the amended terms.

Prior to amending an employment agreement, a party may wish to ask business and employment law counsel to review the proposed amendment to ensure that the party will not lose the protections and benefits contained in the original agreement without receiving proper consideration. For assistance with drafting or amending an employment contract, please contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### United States Supreme Court Issues Employment Law Decision

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

Recently the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled on an employment matter. Lewis v. City of Chicago, No. 08-974, __ U.S. __ (May 24, 2010), available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-974.pdf. The Court held that a plaintiff who failed to file a timely charge of discrimination challenging the adoption of a discriminatory practice could still assert a disparate impact claim by timely challenging the employer’s later application of that practice.

Chicago administered a test to firefighter applicants. While it deemed applicants who scored over 65 (out of 100) to be “qualified,” it elected to fill open positions by selecting from those “well-qualified” candidates who scored 89 or above. Six African-American “qualified” plaintiffs challenged this practice, alleging that it had a disparate impact on minorities. The Court looked to the language of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It concluded that a disparate impact claim can be established if the employer “uses” an employment practice that causes a disparate impact. This includes the application of a discriminatory practice, even if the adoption of that practice went unchallenged.

The Court noted that this holding could lead to practical problems for employers since lawsuits could be filed years after a practice is adopted, but the Court concluded that it was bound to give effect to the law Congress enacted. For more information regarding federal and Texas employment laws, please contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Employers Must Ensure that Employees Avoid Security Breaches When...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
It seems everyone carries a smart phone now—a cellular phone with advanced capabilities (such as a BlackBerry or iPhone). A smart phone can be invaluable to an employee because it enables the employee to check emails and to review documents while out of the office. But improper smart phone use by employees can create serious issues for an employer. One such issue involves accidental disclosure of confidential company or client information.

Despite its small size, a smart phone may contain tremendous quantities of confidential information, and letting a smart phone fall into the wrong hands could lead to a massive security breach. For example, if a lawyer inadvertently leaves a smart phone on the counter at a coffee shop, the barista or a patron, in an attempt to identify the phone’s owner, could potentially read attorney-client communications and attorney work product documents.

To protect confidential documents and emails from accidental disclosure, an employer should develop policies to address the applications and data that can be downloaded and accessed via smart phones. And, to further minimize potential security breaches, an employer should require smart phone users to utilize strong passwords and to update them frequently. For assistance in drafting an employment policy that addresses smart phone use by employees, please contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Against Plaintiff on...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled against a plaintiff on her race discrimination claim. Riley v. Sch. Board Union Parish, No. 09-30625 (5th Cir. May 20, 2010), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/09/09-30625.0.wpd.pdf.

Plaintiff, an African-American certified to teach Social Studies, served as a substitute English teacher. After her employer learned that she had been convicted of a crime years before, she was placed on paid leave. She was quickly reinstated, but she was discharged when her employer hired a teacher certified to teach English. The plaintiff then filed a race discrimination claim.

The plaintiff first alleged that she was terminated because of her criminal conviction, even though white employees with criminal convictions were not discharged; however, evidence did not support this contention. The plaintiff also alleged that she was more qualified than the white teacher who replaced her. The Court disagreed. Although the plaintiff was certified to teach Social Studies, the other teacher had been certified to teach English, and, while her certification had lapsed, she reinstated it less than a week after she was hired. The Court concluded that summary judgment for the employer was proper on the Title VII race discrimination claim.

To speak to a discrimination attorney about a discriminatory work environment, please contact the employment law lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Many Employment Agreements Contain Choice of Law Provisions

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

Many high level executives, doctors and salespersons enter into employment agreements. Usually an employment agreement contains a “choice of law” provision. This provision conveys the parties’ agreement to apply the law of a particular state to any dispute that arises between the parties. Because state employment laws can vary significantly, the parties’ choice can affect the outcome of certain disputes.

Most of time, the parties select the law of the state where the parties are located. For example, a Texas employer and its employee will usually opt to apply Texas law. Sometimes, however, an employer headquartered in another state will insist that the other state’s law be applied, even to disputes arising from a contractual relationship between a Texas-based division and its Texas employee. A Texas employee who is asked to agree to apply another state’s law to an employment dispute should ask an attorney to review the employment agreement (and the law of the other state) to determine if the other state’s law is favorable. If not, the employee should attempt to negotiate on that point.

To ask an employment law attorney to review and analyze a proposed employment contract or for assistance in negotiating an employment agreement, please contact the employment law lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Potential Litigants Should Not Destroy Documents

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
No one wants to be sued, especially by a former employer. But former employees may find themselves embroiled in litigation over the alleged breach of an employment contract or the purported violation of a covenant not to compete. If a former employee has reason to believe he may be sued, he should preserve all potentially relevant documents, including all e-mail communications and all documents saved in electronic files.

Pre-suit collection of documents can be essential to a party’s case. First and foremost, a litigant usually needs documents to prove a case. Second, compiling relevant documents can help a potential litigant’s attorney evaluate the matter and determine the best course of action. Finally, should a lawsuit be filed, the opposing party will likely request that the former employee produce copies of all relevant documents. This request could come months after a person leaves an employer. By compiling and organizing all documents at the outset, the former employee will likely be able to conduct a more thorough search, leading to a more complete production.

To speak to a business and employment law attorney about an employment-related lawsuit, please contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment law lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Statute of Limitations for Employment Contract Cases

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Most high level employees and many salespeople work pursuant to employment agreements. Usually, the parties encounter no problems. But if a party fails to perform according to the employment agreement’s terms, the wronged party may pursue a breach of contract claim in court.

In Texas, most breach of employment contract lawsuits will be governed by a four year statute of limitations. That means that the wronged party must file a lawsuit within four years after the breach occurred. For installment contracts where performance occurs at set intervals (such as a commission agreement), the continuing contract doctrine likely applies. This doctrine holds that an employee or employer may recover damages for each instance of breach that occurred within the four year period immediately preceding the filing of the lawsuit, even if the initial breach occurred outside this time period. For example, an employee who received miscalculated monthly commission payments could seek damages for each payment that was paid within four years before she filed her lawsuit, even if the initial breach occurred five years ago.

For employment law advice regarding an employment agreement, please contact the employment law lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Supreme Court Orders Parties to Arbitrate Dispute

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that a trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant a party’s motion to compel arbitration. In re Odyssey Healthcare, Inc., No. 09-0786 (Tex. May 7, 2010), available at http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/may/090786.htm.

Guadalupe Morales worked in El Paso for Odyssey Healthcare, Inc. She sued Odyssey and her supervisor for negligence after sustaining a work-related injury. Odyssey, in lieu of workers’ compensation insurance, provided workers with an occupational injury benefit plan that required disputes to be resolved by arbitration. Odyssey moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied this motion because it found that the arbitration clause was unconscionable, and the appellate court affirmed this decision.

On appeal, Morales first argued that the arbitration clause was unconscionable because it would require her to arbitrate in Dallas, causing her to incur substantial expense by producing witnesses in Dallas. The Court found, however, that the record failed to show any specific evidence about what costs she would incur. Further, while the clause required the parties to select an arbitrator from a Dallas panel, the arbitrator could choose to arbitrate the matter in a different location or modify the agreement’s cost provision if necessary. After addressing Morales’ other arguments, the Court directed the trial court to grant Odyssey’s motion to compel arbitration.

For employment law advice, please contact the employment law lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Employers Should Avoid Asking Certain Questions When Interviewing Job Applicants

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Most managers know that an employer may be held liable for making discriminatory hiring decisions; however, not all managers know what questions are—and are not—appropriate to ask during an interview.

Simply put, a manager conducting an interview should not attempt to solicit information to enable the manager to make a hiring decision based on an applicant’s protected characteristic. Instead, a manager should tailor questions to align with the specific job’s requirements and phrase questions so that the questions do not sound discriminatory.

For example, a manager may be concerned about an applicant’s work eligibility or an applicant’s ability to travel on short notice; both are valid concerns. Rather than asking an applicant about her country of origin or her child-care arrangements, however, a manager could simply ask, “Are you eligible to work in the United States?” or “Will you be able to travel on short notice?” By asking these questions, a manager could gain needed information without leading an applicant to believe her national origin, gender or other protected characteristic influenced the decision-making process.

To speak to a Dallas discrimination attorney, please contact the employment law lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Judgment in...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
A plaintiff sued his employer for disability discrimination after he was terminated for alleged attendance problems. The jury found for the plaintiff, but the trial court vacated the verdict and granted judgment to the employer. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision in part. Carmona v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 08-51175 (5th Cir. April 22, 2010), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/08/08-51175-CV1.wpd.pdf.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the plaintiff had to show: he had a disability; he was otherwise qualified for the position; and he was discriminated against because of his disability. The Court first concluded that evidence supported a jury finding that the plaintiff had a disability because the evidence showed that the plaintiff had an impairment that substantially limited the major life activity of walking. Likewise, a reasonable jury could have concluded that the plaintiff was qualified for his job and that his poor attendance did not render him unqualified; although plaintiff’s attendance was inadequate under the employer’s written policy, the jury could have found it was adequate under unwritten understandings. Finally, sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that the employer’s cited reason for termination (poor attendance) was false and that the real reason was the plaintiff’s disability. The Court remanded the case with instructions that judgment be entered for the plaintiff according to the jury verdict.

To speak to a Dallas discrimination attorney, please contact the employment law lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Can an Employer Require an Employee to Repay Training Costs...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

America’s workforce is mobile. This means that an employer may spend thousands of dollars to train a new employee, only to have the employees leave the company a short time later. Can an employer attempt to recoup theses costs? Yes, it can.

Agreements requiring employees to repay certain costs associated with training are on the rise. These costs could include travel expenses associated with training events, the cost of formal coursework, or the fees to attend professional events. Typically, prior to an employee’s first day of work, the employee will be asked to sign a contract, agreeing to repay training costs up to a set amount if the employee resigns or is fired within a certain time period following the employee’s start date.

To ensure enforceability, an employer should draft terms that are reasonable regarding the repayment amount and the length of time an employee must remain at the company to escape the repayment obligation. For assistance in drafting a repayment agreement or for advice regarding an agreement you have been asked to sign, please contact the Texas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Thinking of Joining a Start-Up Company?

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

An executive at an established corporation may be approached with a great business idea and the chance to be a founding member in a new start-up company. But before the executive makes a leap, consideration should be given to a couple key areas.

First, a young start-up company may not be able to provide competitive compensation, benefits, or support. Some start-up companies offer increased equity to offset low salaries, but this approach can be risky. Executives who are accustomed to large staffs and significant budgets must be prepared to downscale their expectations significantly.

Second, the actual duties involved in running a brand new company are vastly different than the duties involved in maintaining functions at an established corporation. An executive at a start-up company must be energetic, enthusiastic, and willing to undertake many tasks within the ever-evolving structure of a start-up company. An executive who is not excited about this type of work will not likely succeed.

To speak to a Dallas attorney about business or employment law advice or to ask a Dallas, Texas business and employment contract attorney to review an employment agreement, please contact the Texas business and employment law lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules for Employer in...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed summary judgment for an employer in a discrimination case. Kretchmer v. Eveden Inc., No. 09-10556 (5th Cir. March 12, 2010), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/09/09-10556.0.wpd.pdf.

The plaintiff sued his former employer for religious and age discrimination after being terminated from his position as a sales account executive. The employer did not dispute that the plaintiff established a prima facie case for both age and religious discrimination, but it argued that it presented legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating the plaintiff’s employment. Among other reasons, the employer stated that it terminated the plaintiff’s employment because it realigned its sales territory and recognized that the plaintiff would not be an effective sales manager for two major accounts since their representatives commented that they did not wish to work with the plaintiff.

Because the employer articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating the plaintiff’s employment, the plaintiff had to show that the employer’s reasons were not true. The plaintiff failed to rebut at least one of the employer’s reasons with any evidence showing that the reason was merely pretext. Thus, summary judgment for the employer was appropriate.

To speak to a Dallas discrimination attorney, please contact the Texas employment law lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Dallas Court of Appeals Enforces Forum Selection Clause in Employment Contract

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Court of Appeals located in Dallas, Texas recently enforced a forum selection clause contained in an employment agreement. Godenick v. Mannatech, Inc., No. 05-09-00269-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas March 3, 2010, no pet. h.), available at http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?c05_10.ask+D+4781377. In the employment agreement, the parties agreed to exclusive venue and personal jurisdiction in Dallas County, Texas for the resolution of any claim. The agreement also contained a non-solicitation clause to prevent the employee from soliciting the company’s employees to join another venture.

Following the employee’s termination, she allegedly breached the non-solicitation provision, and the company sued. The employee filed a special appearance claiming that she was a South Carolina resident and that she was not subject to service of process in Texas. The trial court denied the special appearance.

On appeal, the Court upheld this denial. A valid and enforceable forum selection clause will support the denial of a special appearance. Here, evidence showed that the contract contained a mandatory venue clause and a non-solicitation clause. The employer’s claims arose from the contract and, because the employee failed to show that the contract was invalid for reasons of fraud or that its enforcement would be unreasonable or would contravene public policy, the Court held that the forum selection clause should be enforced.

To speak to Dallas attorneys who regularly draft and negotiate employment agreements, please contact the Texas employment law lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Rules for Employer in Retaliation Claim under Texas Health...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Fifth Circuit ruled for an employer in a workplace retaliation matter. Johnson v. Diversicare Afton Oaks LLC, No. 08-20827 (5th Cir. Feb. 17, 2010), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/08/08-20827-CV0.wpd.pdf.

The plaintiff, an assistant director at a nursing home, failed to investigate an alleged incident of resident abuse and was suspended pending an investigation into her failure to investigate the alleged incident of abuse. Following the investigation, she was asked to return to work but declined to do so because she had already filed a retaliation claim against her employer.

Texas law protects a nursing home employee from retaliation by an employer if the employee reports a violation of law. Here, the employer moved for summary judgment, alleging that the plaintiff failed to actually make a report. Evidence showed that, while the plaintiff telephoned a Texas agency on the relevant date, she did so merely to ask a question and did not report a violation of law. Further, while the plaintiff argued that an employer can be held liable for retaliation when an employee is punished for the intent of reporting, she failed to show any causal relationship between her intent to report a violation and the retaliatory action of suspension. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

To speak with a Texas retaliation attorney, please contact the employment law lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Planning Ahead May Help an Employee Avoid a Non-Compete Lawsuit

A non-compete agreement forbids an employee from competing with an employer post-employment and usually contains a provision forbidding the employee from using the employer’s confidential information. Unfortunately, an employee who signs a non-compete agreement may find himself involved in a non-compete lawsuit with a former employer, even if the employee does not believe he is “competing” according to the non-compete agreement. To avoid a non-compete lawsuit, an employee bound by a non-compete agreement should consult with an employment law attorney and develop an exit strategy prior to taking action. A non-compete attorney can evaluate both the enforceability of a non-compete agreement and what activities fall within its scope. This information can guide the employee when planning a new venture.



Under any exit plan, an employee should leave gracefully. An employee should avoid taking the employer’s confidential information or trade secrets in any form; taking even a generic document could give rise to a suspicion that the employee plans to use the information in a competitive manner. Further, an employee should remain true to the employer until the employment terminates; the employee should not actively compete with the employer prior to leaving the company or prepare for a new venture while on company time.



To speak with a Texas non-compete attorney, please contact the employment law lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.



Media Information:



Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201Phone: 214-888-5000URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Equal Opportunity Bullying in the Workplace?

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Federal law and Texas state law protect individuals from workplace discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics. For example, an employer cannot treat a worker unfairly because the worker is of a particular gender, race, or religious affiliation. But the law does not protect workers from “equal opportunity” bullies.

For instance, an employee may believe that he is being mistreated at work because his immediate supervisor teases him and makes rude and obnoxious comments to him. However, rude comments alone may not be enough for a discrimination claim. If the comments are not directed at a protected characteristic of the employee (such as his race) and if the supervisor treats all employees—even those who do not share the same protected characteristic—in a similarly demeaning way, the employee cannot prevail on a discrimination claim.

While courts will not impose a civility law on employers, many employers elect to create simple personnel policies that require employees to treat each other with respect and courtesy. While such a policy may not stop all workplace abuse, it could provide a toehold for an employer to discipline a bully and it may help promote a general sense of civility in the workplace.

To speak with a Texas employment discrimination attorney or for assistance in drafting personnel policies, please contact the employment law lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Some Federal Laws Protect Whistleblowers

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

An employee “blows the whistle” when the employee alleges corporate wrongdoing either by complaining to an internal company representative or by complaining to an external source, such as a government agency. Whistleblowers serve an important function by revealing an employer’s legal violations or fraudulent conduct. Because of this, laws protect some whistleblowers from retaliation by their employers. For example, an employer may be liable to an employee for damages for firing the employee because the employee cooperated with a government investigation into corporate fraud. But not all whistleblowers are protected from retaliation; these laws apply only in certain instances. For instance, the federal False Claims Act allows an employee to pursue a retaliation claim against a former employer if the employer terminates the employee because the employee participates in an action brought against the employer under the statute.

If an employee believes that his employer is committing a violation of law, the employee may wish to consult with a wrongful termination lawyer to determine how to bring his concerns to light and simultaneously how to protect his own rights. To speak with a Dallas wrongful termination lawyer, please contact the employment law lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Workplace Retaliation Matter Decided by Texas Court

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The San Antonio Court of Appeals recently ruled in a workplace retaliation matter. Martinez v. Wilson County, No. 04-09-00233-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio January 13, 2010, no pet. h.), available at http://www.4thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=22680.

The plaintiff alleged she had been wrongfully terminated for complaining about a gender-based hostile work environment. Her employer alleged that the plaintiff’s employment had been terminated for misconduct. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer.

To prove a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) she engaged in a protected activity; (2) an adverse action occurred; and (3) a causal connection exists between the plaintiff’s participation in a protected activity and the adverse employment action. Protected activities include: (1) opposing a discriminatory practice; (2) making or filing a charge of discrimination; (3) filing a complaint; or (4) testifying, assisting or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing. Here, the plaintiff complained of a hostile work environment, but she did not suggest that her concerns were gender-related. Because her complaints did not put her employer on notice that she had gender-related concerns and because the content of her complaints would not support an inference that she was engaging in a protected activity, the plaintiff could not show that she engaged in a protected activity. Thus, summary judgment was appropriate.

To speak to an attorney who handles discrimination law questions, please contact the employment law lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com. http://dallasemploymentlawyer.cdklawyers.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Rules for Employer on Discrimination Law Question

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled for an employer on a discrimination law question. Reine v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., No. 09-30030 (5th Cir. Jan. 21, 2010), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/09/09-30030.0.wpd.pdf.

The plaintiff contended that her boss made discriminatory statements to her and that she reported his conduct to her employer. Later, she filed a lawsuit, alleging hostile work environment sex discrimination and retaliation. The district court dismissed the discrimination claim on summary judgment because the plaintiff could not show that her boss’s treatment was based on sex. The district court also dismissed the retaliation claim because the plaintiff failed to show that a causal connection between her complaint of discrimination and the alleged adverse actions existed and because she failed to rebut the non-retaliatory reasons offered by her employer for the adverse actions.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment. The plaintiff’s evidence showed that her boss harassed males and females, and, when a superior’s conduct is equally harsh towards men and women, no sex-based hostile work environment claim can exist. The plaintiff’s retaliation claim failed for two reasons. First, the plaintiff could not link her complaint of discrimination to the alleged adverse actions. Second, her employer offered non-retaliatory reasons for each event, and the plaintiff failed to show these reasons were pretext.

To speak to an attorney who handles discrimination law questions, please contact the employment law lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### The Appellate Process in an Employment Law Matter

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Many business and employment law clients are strangers to litigation, and they have questions about the process. Oftentimes, even before a trial, a client asks if an appeal is possible. The answer is “maybe,” but the appellate process differs considerably from the trial process.

In a trial, evidence is presented to the factfinder, either the trial court judge or a jury. The trial court judge decides what evidence should be heard and rules on preliminary matters. If a party loses (or partially loses) at trial, the party can appeal to the appellate court. But an appeal is not a “do-over.” Instead, the appealing party must argue that the trial court judge wrongly ruled on trial evidence or other matters; the focus is on the judge’s legal errors.

The appealing party writes a brief that sets out the controlling law, the judge’s errors, and how those errors require relief. The opposing party will then respond to the allegations. The appellate court reviews the filings, hears oral arguments, and issues a ruling. In some instances, a ruling reverses the trial court order or requires the parties to retry the case.

To speak with an attorney at a Dallas, Texas business and employment law firm, please contact the business and employment law lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Department of Labor Issues Guidance on For-Profit Companies’ Use of...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The United States Department of Labor recently issued a fact sheet to help for-profit employers determine whether interns must be paid minimum wage and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Six criteria must be examined when determining whether an employment relationship exists:
1. The internship is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment.
2. The experience is for the benefit of the intern.
3. The intern does not displace regular employees and works under close supervision of existing staff.
4. The employer derives no immediate advantage from the intern’s activities and, on occasion, its operations may actually be impeded.
5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the end of the internship.
6. The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

If all of these factors are not met, an employment relationship exists, and the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act apply to the intern. Thus, employers who seek to hire summer interns must ensure that the interns are appropriately compensated if the above factors are not met.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyer about an internship program or another employment law issue, please contact the Dallas business and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Executive Employment in a Merger/Acquisition Situation

Working for a small company may be desirable for many executives. An executive often receives equity in a company as part of the executive’s employment agreement, and the executive can reap potentially huge financial benefits if the company mergers with another company or is acquired by a larger company.



But when a small company is acquired, big changes usually occur, and an executive must evaluate employment options. An executive may prefer to resign and join another venture. Often, an executive can negotiate a favorable exit package because the acquiring company plans to place its own people in key positions. Or, an executive may continue to work for an acquiring company under the terms of a pre-existing employment agreement, if the new company assumes the agreement. Lastly, an executive may negotiate a new employment agreement directly with the acquiring company.



An attorney can help an executive facing the acquisition of an employer to evaluate risks and to determine the best course of action. If needed, an attorney can also help negotiate a severance package or a new employment agreement. For assistance in navigating the employment issues that may arise during a merger or acquisition, please contact the Dallas, Texas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.



Media Information:



Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201Phone: 214-888-5000URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Court Finds Employer Did Not Treat Male Employee Differently

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

A Texas appellate court held that the City of San Antonio did not discriminate against a male employee. City of San Antonio v. Gonzalez, No. 04-08-00829-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 4, 2009), available at http://www.4thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinions.asp?OpinionID=22505.

Gonzalez, the only male in his work group, accessed his supervisor’s confidential computer folder (which should have been accessible only to management) and printed information regarding his performance improvement plan. On Gonzalez’s suggestion, a female employee accessed the folder but did not open any documents and later informed the employer about the confidentiality breach. The employer discharged Gonzalez because he printed confidential information and did not cooperate with its investigation, and it replaced him with a female. The employer did not discharge the female employee who accessed the confidential folder. Gonzalez sued for gender discrimination, and a jury found that gender was a motivating factor in the decision to discharge Gonzalez. The employer appealed.

To prevail on a gender discrimination claim, a plaintiff must show that he was treated less favorably than similarly situated members of the opposing class. Employees are similarly situated if their circumstances are comparable in all material respects. Here, the Court found that Gonzalez and the female employee were not similarly situated because Gonzalez’s conduct was much more serious. This factor accounted for the employer’s different treatment. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment.

To speak with an employment law attorney about discrimination, please contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Takes Effect

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”), signed into law in May 2008 by President George Bush, took effect on November 21, 2009. GINA prohibits employers, employment agencies, and unions from discriminating against an individual based on the person’s genetic information. Specifically, GINA prohibits an employer from using genetic information in making employment decisions, restricts an employer from acquiring certain genetic information, imposes confidentiality requirements on genetic information acquired by an employer, and prohibits retaliation against an individual who opposes actions made unlawful by GINA or who participates in proceedings pursuant to GINA. If an employer violates these provisions, an individual may be entitled to compensatory and punitive damages. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is charged with enforcing GINA and will issue regulations shortly.

To ensure compliance with GINA, an employer should update its workplace posters (a revised version of the EEOC’s anti-discrimination poster is available on the EEOC’s website), revise its employee handbook to reflect the company’s compliance with GINA, and train supervisors and managers about the new law.

To speak with an employment law attorney about workplace discrimination or for assistance in revising an employee handbook, please contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Summary Judgment in...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed summary judgment in a Section 1981 race discrimination matter. Blackston v. Wexford Health Sources Inc., No. 08-60855 (5th Cir. Nov. 16, 2009), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-60855.0.wpd.pdf. Blackston, a white man, worked for a medical staffing contractor and served as a medical director at a correctional facility. When the staffing agency’s contract with the correctional facility was not renewed, Blackston approached Wexford to inquire about being hired. Wexford allegedly informed Blackston that he could not be hired because he was white and the employer sought a black candidate.

Blackston sued and the trial court granted summary judgment to Wexford after applying a burden-shifting analysis. The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that the trial court applied the wrong standard. Instead of applying the burden-shifting analysis (which is used when indirect evidence of discrimination is offered), the trial court should have looked to precedent that involved direct evidence of discrimination. The Court found that Blackston’s testimony that he was told he would not be hired because of his race was sufficient to defeat summary judgment because it constituted direct evidence of discrimination.

To speak with an employment law attorney about race discrimination or about another employment law matter, please contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Timing Matters in a Workplace Retaliation Case

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

Federal and state laws forbid an employer from retaliating against an employee by treating the employee adversely simply because the employee complained about workplace discrimination. A retaliation claim often turns on circumstantial proof; one such element of proof a court may consider is the timing between the employee’s complaint of discrimination and the adverse action the employee alleges is retaliatory.

Under Texas law, a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing: (1) the plaintiff engaged in a protected activity (complaining of discrimination); (2) an adverse action occurred; and (3) there was a causal connection between the participation in the protected activity and the adverse action. Establishing this prima facie case leads to an inference of retaliation. The employer must then articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action. But, if the employee’s protected activity and the adverse employment action occurred close in time, the employer must offer a legitimate non-discriminatory reason that explains both the adverse action and the timing. Typically, the closer in time the protected activity and the adverse action occurred, the greater the implication of retaliation.

To speak with an employment law attorney about a possible retaliation claim or another employment law matter, please contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Waiving Federal Age Discrimination Claims in a Severance Agreement

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

In tough economic times, employers may ask certain employees to take early retirement packages. Oftentimes such a package contains a waiver whereby an employee releases any claims the employee may have against the employer. But if an employer seeks a waiver of a possible age claim, the employer must comply with the specific requirements for waivers of claims arising under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

First, the waiver must be written in a way calculated to be understood by the employee; an employer should avoid using “legalese.” Second, the waiver must specifically refer to rights or claims arising under the ADEA. Third, the waiver must advise the employee in writing to consult with an attorney before accepting the agreement. Further, the employer must provide the employee with at least twenty-one days to consider the offer and must give the employee seven days to revoke the agreement. Additionally, the waiver must be supported by consideration. Finally, the waiver cannot require the employee to waive any rights and claims that may arise after the date on which the employee signs the agreement.

To speak with an employment law attorney about drafting waivers of age claims or about another employment law matter, please contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Summary Judgment for an...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld summary judgment for an employer in a hostile work environment and retaliation case. Stewart v. Miss. Transp. Comm’n, No. 08-60747 (5th Cir. Oct. 21, 2009), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/08/08-60747-CV0.wpd.pdf. The plaintiff complained to her employer that her supervisor harassed her. Following an investigation, the employer assigned the plaintiff to another supervisor. Sixteen months later, the employer reassigned the plaintiff to her former supervisor, and she again complained about his behavior. Following a second investigation, the employer assigned the plaintiff to another supervisor, and her workload increased. The plaintiff then sued her employer and former supervisor. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer.

The Court upheld summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim. Because the employer’s action in assigning plaintiff to another supervisor following her first complaint was an intervening action, the plaintiff could not rely on the continuing violation doctrine to hold her employer liable for any conduct prior to 180 days before she filed her claim. And, because the later harassment, standing alone, was not severe enough to create a hostile work environment, summary judgment was proper.

The Court also found no retaliation occurred because the employer’s actions in reassigning plaintiff to a position with a heavier workload and placing her on paid leave while an investigation took place were not adverse actions that could form the basis of a retaliation claim.

To speak with an employment law attorney about an employment law matter, please contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### The ADA Protects Workers Who Are Perceived to be Disabled

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) has recently been expanded with amendments made effective earlier this year. The ADA protects an individual from adverse actions taken by an employer because of the individual’s disability. In addition to protecting disabled workers, the ADA also protects individuals who are regarded as disabled by an employer, even if the individuals are not actually disabled.

The amendments significantly broaden what it means to be “regarded as” disabled by an employer. Now, if an employer regards a person as having a mental or physical impairment, regardless of whether the employer believes that the impairment substantially limits a major life activity of the individual, the person will be protected by the ADA. This protection does not apply to perceived impairments that are minor or transitory (lasting less than six months). And, while an employer may not discriminate against an individual because of the individual’s perceived disability, the employer has no obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation for any perceived disability that is not truly a disability.

To speak with an employment law attorney about the ADA or another employment law matter, please contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Can an Employer Withhold Funds from an Employee’s Paycheck?

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
An employer may wish to withhold funds from an employee’s paycheck to cover expenses associated with equipment damaged by the employee or cash shortages in a cash register manned by the employee. But can an employer do so? Yes and no, depending on what jurisdiction the employee is in and whether the employer complied with any legal requirements.

For instance, in California, costs associated with damaged equipment or missing cash are considered to be costs of business to be borne by an employer; an employer may not offset a California employee’s paycheck to cover these expenses except in rare instances where the employer knows the employee acted willfully, dishonestly, or with gross neglect. In other states, offsets are allowed, provided the employee does not receive less than minimum wage for the work performed and provided the employer complies with state-imposed legal requirements, such as giving written notice or obtaining the employee’s written consent. (Some employers obtain this consent in advance by asking new employees to review a handbook that both explains the employer’s policies and that contains a signature page whereby the employee authorizes the employer to make appropriate deductions for equipment breakages or cash shortages.)

To speak with an employment law attorney about an employment law matter, please contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Some Employers Must Create Affirmative Action Plans

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

A company doing business with the federal government may be subject to certain requirements regarding equal employment opportunities. Some government contractors must provide equal employment opportunities without regard to race, sex, color, religion, national origin, disability, or the status of a veteran and take affirmative action: positive steps to recruit, hire, train, and promote individuals from groups that have traditionally been discriminated against.

If an employer has more than fifty employees and has government contracts or subcontracts amounting to $50,000 or more, the employer must create formal, written affirmative action plans for (1) women and minorities, (2) disabled individuals, and (3) veterans. These plans must specify results-oriented policies and procedures to which the employer makes a commitment to apply good-faith efforts. A plan must also be complete, reasonable, and acceptable as determined by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.

An affirmative action plan for women and minorities must set hiring and promotion goals in job categories where women and minorities are underutilized. These goals should be specific, measurable, and attainable. Affirmative action plans for disabled individuals and veterans must state the employer’s policies and practices for implementing affirmative action.

To speak with an employment law attorney about an affirmative action plan or another employment law matter, please contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Healthcare Reform Law Contains Provision Requiring Employers to...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

President Barack Obama recently signed into law a sweeping healthcare reform act, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This act contains a provision that has received little attention but that may impact employers in meaningful ways.

Section 4207, entitled “Reasonable Break Time for Nursing Mothers,” amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to require employers to provide a reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for a nursing child for one year after the child’s birth and to provide a private place, other than a bathroom, for this purpose. The law does not require employers to pay employees for this break time, and it provides an exception for employers with fewer than fifty employees if compliance would impose an undue hardship by causing the employer significant difficulty or expense.

Further guidance may be issued by the federal government. Until then, employers should designate an appropriate place for this purpose and should revise employment policies to address this issue. For assistance in complying with this or other federal and Texas employment laws or for assistance in drafting an employment policy regarding this new provision, please contact the Texas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Court of Appeals Rules that Amendment to Federal Law Applies to...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
A Texas court ruled that an amendment to the federal antidiscrimination law applies to the state law. Prairie View A&M Univ. v. Chatha, No. 01-09-00840-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.], April 1, 2010), available at http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=87650.

A plaintiff must file a charge of discrimination within 180 days after an alleged discriminatory employment practice occurs. In this compensation matter, the employer argued that the alleged adverse action occurred in 2004 when the plaintiff was promoted and paid at a lower pay rate than her peers, more than 180 days before she filed a charge in 2006.

The appellate court first noted both that the Texas antidiscrimination statute does not define the “occurrence” of an unlawful employment practice and that Texas courts look to federal courts for guidance on interpreting antidiscrimination laws. In 2009, Congress amended the federal antidiscrimination law to define an occurrence as including each time a person is affected by a discriminatory compensation decision, such as each time wages are paid. The appellate court applied this definition to the Texas law and found that the plaintiff’s charge was timely because the alleged unlawful employment practice included not only the original compensation decision but also each time the plaintiff was affected by it.

To speak to a Dallas discrimination attorney, please contact the Texas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### San Antonio Court of Appeals Addresses Disparate Discipline...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The San Antonio Court of Appeals recently upheld summary judgment for an employer accused of discrimination. Cantu v. Frito-Lay, Inc., No. 04-08-00630-CV, 2009 WL 1339123 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 13, 2009, no pet. h.), available at http://www.4thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=22074.

Sales representative Kirk Cantu sued Frito-Lay for discrimination when it terminated him after a customer barred Cantu from its stores because he used saliva to remove expiration dates from product packaging. Cantu alleged age and sex discrimination because, although it typically terminated employees barred from customers’ stores, Frito-Lay did not fire a younger female sales representative who also had been barred from one of the same customer’s stores.

To prove discrimination based on disparate discipline, the two employees’ misconduct must be of comparable seriousness and the two employees’ work situations (supervisors, responsibilities, disciplinary records, etc.) must be nearly identical. Here, the younger female employee was barred from one store because she shared personal information about the store’s manager, who was also her relative. In that instance, the customer specifically requested that the employee not be reprimanded, however, the customer adamantly refused Frito-Lay’s repeated attempts to reinstate Cantu to its stores. Because the underlying misconduct and the customer’s responses were not nearly identical, the summary judgment evidence established that Cantu was not similarly situated to the other employee for purposes of establishing discrimination based upon disparate discipline. The Court thus affirmed summary judgment for Frito-Lay.

To speak with an employment attorney about workplace discrimination, please contact the employment lawyers at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Dallas Appellate Court Rules for Employer in Sex Discrimination Case

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently upheld summary judgment for an employer accused of sexually harassing two employees and retaliating against them. Gumpert v. ABF Freight Sys., Inc., __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. App.—Dallas May 20, 2009, no pet. h.), available at http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?c05topin.ask+D+150185.

Two male employees sued their former employer for sex discrimination and retaliation and sued certain former male co-workers for libel. The plaintiffs alleged that their former co-workers posted flyers containing defamatory and sexually-oriented statements about them and that their employer retaliated against them for reporting this conduct. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the plaintiffs appealed.

The plaintiffs first argued that the conduct was discriminatory because it was directed only at males. The Court rejected this argument because a plaintiff must show that the harassment was directed at the victim because of the victim’s gender, not merely that the harassment happened to be directed only at members of one gender.

The plaintiffs’ retaliation claims likewise failed; one plaintiff could not show that an adverse action occurred and the other plaintiff could not establish a causal link between his harassment complaints and the company’s alleged failure to act. For these reasons, the Court affirmed summary judgment for the employer. The Court also affirmed summary judgment for the individual defendants on the libel claims because the flyers were satirical in nature and could not reasonably be understood as describing actual facts.

For more information on workplace discrimination, please contact the employment lawyers at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Supreme Court Makes Enforcement of Non-Compete Agreements Easier

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Texas Supreme Court recently upheld a non-compete provision in a contract that contained no express promise by the employer to provide confidential information. Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. April 17, 2009).

Fielding worked as an accountant at Mann Frankfort. In his employment agreement, Fielding promised not to use or to disclose confidential information obtained during his employment; Mann Frankfort did not expressly promise to provide such information. The agreement also required Fielding to purchase Mann Frankfort’s business if he performed accounting services for firm clients after leaving the firm. Fielding resigned, and the parties litigated the enforceability of the contract.

The Court held that Mann Frankfort’s failure to expressly promise to provide confidential information did not affect the agreement’s enforceability. Instead, the Court determined that (1) if an employer must provide confidential information to enable an employee to perform his job, the employer implicitly promises to provide such information and (2) if a party makes an express promise that cannot reasonably be performed absent performance by the other party, a return promise may be implied. Here, because Fielding could not perform accounting services without accessing confidential information and because Fielding’s promise meant nothing without a return promise, Mann Frankfort implicitly promised to provide such information. While this implied promise was illusory because of Fielding’s at-will status, once Mann Frankfort furnished the confidential information, the parties formed an “otherwise enforceable agreement” as required by the Texas non-compete statute.

If you wish to speak to an employment law attorney about a non-compete agreement, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Court Upholds Summary Judgment for Employer in Wrongful Termination Suit

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

A Texas appellate court affirmed summary judgment for an employer in a wrongful termination suit. The decision, Marx v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., No. 07-08-0022-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 30, 2009), can be found here.

Ronald Marx alleged that he was forced to leave EDS after the company made job conditions difficult following his refusal to fraudulently over-bill a client. EDS argued that Marx had no evidence to support his claim, and the trial court agreed.

While Texas employers can discharge at-will employees for almost any reason, an exception exists: An employer may not discharge an employee for the sole reason that the employee refused to perform an illegal act. This doctrine applies when an employee is “constructively discharged”: when an employer makes job conditions so difficult that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. Here, the Court found that Marx’s testimony regarding his co-worker’s billing practices and his supervisor’s suggestions that Marx bill in a similar manner did not constitute evidence that EDS required Marx to engage in fraudulent over-billing. Further, no evidence showed that the adverse actions to which Marx testified led him to quit (insults from co-workers, a salary reduction, and discipline) occurred solely because he refused to perform an illegal act. Thus, the Court affirmed summary judgment.

If you would like to discuss an employment law issue with an employment law attorney, please contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Considers Employment Discrimination and Retaliation Case

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

A Dallas court recently considered a racially-based employment discrimination and retaliation matter: Curry v. Telect, Inc., No. 3:08-CV-0933-D (N.D. Tex. June 15, 2009). Billy Curry sued his former employer, Telect, Inc., for discriminating against him by discharging him and for retaliating against him because he complained about the company’s protective equipment.

Telect claimed that it terminated Curry’s employment because Curry violated a safety regulation; however, both Curry and a coworker averred that Curry did not commit a violation. Curry’s coworker further averred that a supervisor threatened him with discipline if he did not “admit” that Curry committed a violation. Based on these facts, the Court denied summary judgment on the discrimination claim because a reasonable jury could find that Telect’s articulated reason for discharging Curry was untrue and pretextual.

The Court then examined the retaliation claim. The federal anti-discrimination law protects an employee from retaliation if the employee opposes a discriminatory employment practice. Prior to the safety regulation incident, Curry complained about the condition of the company’s protective equipment. The Court found that a company’s failure to provide adequate protective equipment is not a discriminatory employment practice prohibited by the anti-discrimination law. Thus, because a reasonable jury could not find that Curry engaged in an activity protected by the anti-discrimination law, the Court granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim.

If you would like to discuss a discrimination or retaliation claim with an employment lawyer, please contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Supreme Court Rules on Arbitration Issue in Employment Dispute

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Many employers require employees to enter into arbitration agreements. The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled on a dispute concerning an employment-related arbitration issue. In re Macy’s, No. 08-0584, __ S.W. __ (Tex. June 29, 2009).

Erica Tomsic allegedly injured her back while working at a Macy’s department store. The next month, she signed an “Arbitration Acknowledgement,” acknowledging that she received the Summary Plan Description, an explanation of the applicable arbitration policies. The Arbitration Acknowledgement required Tomsic to pursue arbitration of any on-the-job injuries against the “Company.” The “Company” was defined in the Plan as “your particular employer.”

Tomsic sued, naming Macy’s Texas, Inc. as her employer. When Macy’s moved to compel arbitration, Tomsic argued that she was not employed by any of the entities specifically named in the Plan. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, and the court of appeals denied mandamus relief.

The Texas Supreme Court found that, while the definition of the “Company” is nonspecific, it operates to avoid quarrels about corporate divisions. Because Tomsic agreed to arbitrate disputes with her employer, she could not avoid arbitration by raising factual disputes about her employer’s correct legal name. The Court then directed the trial court to enter an order compelling arbitration.

To speak with an employment law attorney about an employment-related arbitration or another employment law issue, please contact the employment lawyers at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Filing for Unemployment Compensation in Texas

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

In many instances, Texas provides unemployment compensation while a person looks for a new position. The Texas Workforce Commission (“TWC”) administers the applicable laws. Its website, https://www.twc.texas.gov, provides helpful information for the unemployed.

A claimant may file a claim for unemployment benefits in person at a TWC local office or via the TWC’s website. The TWC then notifies the former employer of the claim, and the former employer may inform the TWC of any facts that may adversely affect the payment of unemployment benefits. After reviewing the facts submitted by both the claimant and the former employer, the TWC determines if the claim is valid. If so, the TWC determines the amount and duration of benefits and mails a notice of this determination to the claimant.

If a claimant is denied benefits, the claimant may file an appeal within fourteen days of the notice. The TWC’s Appeal Tribunal will then conduct a hearing. This informal hearing is usually conducted by telephone, and, while not required, a claimant may ask an attorney or other person to represent the claimant. At the hearing, the hearing officer asks questions to elicit relevant facts and, in some cases, may solicit testimony from witnesses or review documents previously submitted by the parties. The hearing officer then issues a written decision, either affirming the denial or reversing the initial determination.

If you would like to speak to an employment law attorney about collecting unemployment benefits, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Equal Pay Act

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) prohibits an employer from paying unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment. Jobs do not have to be identical to be considered “equal,” but they must be substantially equal. Whether two positions are substantially equal is determined based upon job content, not job titles or job descriptions.

Relevant factors to determine whether two jobs are equal include:
• Skill—as measured by the experience, ability, education, and training required to perform the job;
• Effort—as measured by the physical or mental exertion required to perform the job;
• Responsibility—as measured by the degree of accountability required in performing the job; and
• Working conditions—as determined by the physical surroundings (ie: temperature or ventilation) and hazards.

Pay differentials are permitted if the differences are based on seniority, merit, a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or another factor unrelated to gender. The burden of proving that a factor other than gender accounts for a pay differential falls on the employer.

To speak with an employment law attorney regarding the Equal Pay Act, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Breach of an Employment Agreement by an Employer

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Many corporate executives work pursuant to employment agreements. Unfortunately, employers occasionally breach those contracts. For example, an employer may breach an employment contract by failing to pay the executive his salary or other benefits when due or by materially changing the executive’s duties as defined in the employment agreement.

One common situation occurs when an employer terminates an executive’s employment purportedly for “good cause” when the executive maintains no good cause for a discharge exists. “Good cause” for an employer to terminate an executive is typically defined in the agreement and may include, among other things: failure to perform job duties adequately; criminal activity; refusal to follow orders; dishonesty; fraudulent activity against the company; or a breach of a material company policy.

An executive who believes that his employer violated his employment contract or an executive who believes he has been discharged without good cause as defined by his employment agreement may benefit by contacting an employment law attorney. An employment law attorney may be able to assist the executive in reaching a compromise with the employer or in filing a lawsuit against the employer, if necessary.

To speak with an employment law attorney regarding the breach of an employment contract, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Constructive Discharge in Texas

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Constructive discharge occurs when an employer makes an employee’s work conditions so intolerable that the employee resigns. This issue may arise when an employer wishes to fire an employee but elects not to. The employer then takes actions (such as demoting the employee, stripping the employee of important job duties, or creating a hostile or punishing environment) that make the employee so uncomfortable that the employee eventually quits.

Constructive discharge is not a separate cause of action in Texas. But some causes of action between an employee and a former employer may require the former employee to show that the employer terminated the employment. A former employee who resigned can satisfy this element if the former employee can prove constructive discharge.

To establish constructive discharge, the former employee must show that a reasonable person would have resigned under the same circumstances. For example, if a reasonable employee working under similar conditions would have tolerated the employer’s conduct, the former employee’s resignation will be found unreasonable. Likewise, if a reasonable person would have found the working conditions unendurable and would have resigned, the former employee will be found to have been constructively discharged.

If you would like to speak to an employment law attorney about an employment-related matter, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Rise in Discrimination Charges Expected

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The recent economic crisis has far-reaching consequences, including a possible impact on employment discrimination claims. While it may be too early to tell whether the current economic downturn will result in a noticeable change, previous economic downturns correlated with a rise in employment discrimination claims.

This correlation may be due to several factors. First, employers may be forced to downsize, and supervisors may make lay-off decisions motivated by bias. Second, an individual who has been discharged from one position may be worried about finding new employment, and thus may more closely examine whether he has a potential discrimination claim. Finally, an individual who remains unemployed for a significant time period may be more inclined to pursue an issue with his former employer than an individual who finds new work immediately.

Statistics reveal that discrimination charges may be increasing in number. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the agency that enforces federal anti-discrimination laws, maintains records regarding discrimination charges filed in a particular year. The EEOC investigated approximately 13,000 more charges in 2008 (95,402 total) than in 2007.

If you would like to speak to an employment law attorney about an employment-related matter, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Corporate Whistleblowing

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
A “whistleblower” is an individual who alleges corporate wrongdoing by either complaining to an internal representative or to an external source, such as the media or a government agency. For example, Sherron Watkins, who brought to light wrongdoing at Enron, and Jeffrey Wigand, the senior executive who exposed wrongdoing within the tobacco industry, are well-known whistleblowers.

Whistleblowers serve an important function by revealing an employer’s ethical or legal violations. Because of this, laws exist to protect certain whistleblowers from retaliation by their employers. These laws, however, do not apply to all whistleblowers. For example, anti-retaliation laws may apply only when a whistleblower reaches out to a regulatory agency.

If an employee suspects corporate wrongdoing, the employee should contact his attorney. An attorney may be able to assist the employee navigate the internal complaint process. And, if the company resists the employee’s suggestions regarding legal and ethical compliance, an attorney may prove invaluable in extracting the employee from the company on favorable terms.

If you would like to speak to an employment law attorney about a possible ethics violation or a potential whistleblowing situation, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Poor Economy Could Lead to Rise in WARN Claims

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Given the recent economic slump, many workers have lost their jobs, and experts predict that many more workers will also be laid off. But laws exist to protect these workers. For example, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN”) requires covered employers to provide workers with sixty days written advance notice of plant closings or mass layoffs. WARN generally applies to employers who employ one hundred or more workers.

Some companies have not complied with this law, perhaps because the companies completely collapsed or perhaps because the decision-makers did not obtain sufficient legal advice. As a result, some former employees are seeking to bring class-action law suits against their former employers alleging WARN violations. An employer who violates WARN is liable to each aggrieved employee for back pay and benefits for the period of the violation, up to sixty days. As layoffs continue to occur daily, these lawsuits may multiply quickly.

If an employer believes that it may need to reduce its workforce, the employer should contact legal counsel. An employment law attorney can determine if WARN applies to the specific reduction-in-force situation and, if so, guide the employer to ensure that WARN’s specific provisions are met.

If you would like to speak to an employment law attorney about an employment-related matter, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules for Employer in Retaliation Case

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

On February 5, 2009, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for an employer in a retaliation matter. Holloway v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, No. 08-20212 (5th Cir. 2009), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-20212.0.wpd.pdf. Warren Holloway worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs. In 1997, he filed several complaints against his employer, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation. In 2000, he was discharged.

Holloway sued. After the trial court entered summary judgment against Holloway, he appealed, arguing that the trial court wrongly decided that his supervisor’s comment to two co-workers in 1998 (that Holloway was “creating problems by filing EEO complaints”) did not constitute retaliation.

An employee alleging retaliation must demonstrate that: (1) the employee participated in an activity protected by anti-discrimination laws; (2) the employer took an adverse employment action against the employee; and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the materially adverse action. Here, the parties disputed whether the supervisor’s statement constituted a materially adverse action.

The Court found the statement insufficient to constitute a materially adverse action. The Court determined that the single, non-threatening statement did not create a situation so unbearable that a reasonable employee would have been dissuaded from making or supporting a discrimination claim and that no adverse consequences occurred immediately thereafter. The Court thus affirmed summary judgment for the employer.

If you would like to speak to an employment law attorney about a discrimination or retaliation claim, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Including a “Release” in a Separation Agreement May Help...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Although employers are not typically required by law to offer severance pay, many choose to do so. In particular, an employer may elect to offer a separation agreement and a severance package if the employer is concerned that the discharged employee may later sue the employer.

An employer concerned about a potential lawsuit can offer an employee a severance package conditioned on the employee’s release of all claims against the employer. In effect, the employer requires the employee to agree not to sue the employer in return for certain benefits (such as severance pay) provided by the employer.

A release of claims included in a separation agreement should clearly state that the employee is waiving any right to sue the employer for claims arising out of the employment relationship, including claims related to the termination of employment. The employer should give the employee ample time to decide whether to sign the release and should suggest that the employee seek independent legal counsel to review the agreement. An employer should never threaten or coerce an employee into signing a release. Special terms are required if the employee is over age forty and the employer is seeking an enforceable waiver of claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Because the law requires certain conditions be met for releases to be operative, an employer should speak to an employment law attorney prior to drafting a release. To speak with an employment law attorney regarding separation agreements, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Responding to Sexual Harassment

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination; it violates the federal anti-discrimination law. A victim of sexual harassment should take steps to preserve her complaints.

First, if an employee believes she has been sexual harassed, she should immediately contact a lawyer, prior to speaking to others at her workplace about the harassment. An employment law attorney may be able to assist the victim navigate her employer’s internal complaint process and help preserve her legal rights.

Second, a sexual harassment victim should take steps to preserve evidence. She should keep a journal of the dates, times, and witnesses to any harassing activity and/or any retaliation that occurs after the victim rebuffed sexual advances or after she reported the sexual harassment. This journal may be used as evidence against the employer and will provide a better record than the victim’s fading memories. She should also keep copies of any e-mails or other written documentation related to the harassment or to a retaliatory act.

Finally, she should strive to keep the matter confidential. She should not speak about the harassment to her co-workers, send e-mail from her work address regarding the harassment or retaliation (or other complaints about her job), or post information regarding the harassment or retaliation on a social networking site (such as Facebook).

To speak with an employment law attorney regarding sexual harassment, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules for Employer in Disability Action

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled for an employer in a disability discrimination case. EEOC v. Argo Distrib. LLC, No. 07-60447, available at: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/07/07-60447-CV0.wpd.pdf (5th Cir. Jan. 15, 2009). Henry Velez’s medical condition prevented him from perspiring, but he could perform manual labor if he drank water, took breaks, or used a fan. When Velez’s employer, Argo Distribution, LLC, asked Velez to assist with a manual labor project, Velez claimed he would get too hot, and he did not report for work. Argo fired Velez.

Velez pursued the matter with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC investigated, attempted to conciliate for a high sum, and later sued on Velez’s behalf. Argo successfully moved for summary judgment and was awarded approximately $225,000 in attorneys’ fees. The EEOC appealed.

The Court first determined that the EEOC’s failure to comply with its statutory duty to attempt meaningful conciliation did not deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court then affirmed summary judgment. First, because Velez regulated his body temperature like a non-disabled person would, his condition did not “substantially limit” a major life activity, and thus he was not “disabled.” Further, because Velez failed to report to work, no evidence suggested that Argo would have denied Velez’s request for an accommodation. Finally, the Court affirmed the attorneys’ fees award because the EEOC’s pursuit of the case after Velez’s deposition was groundless.

To speak to an employment law attorney regarding a discrimination matter, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Negotiating Employment Agreements

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Although most employees do not enter into employment contracts with their employers, many corporate executives do work pursuant to written employment agreements. An employment agreement is an agreement between an employee and an employer that sets forth the terms and conditions of the employment.

Most employment contracts will contain terms related to the following elements:
• Job description and duties;
• Compensation, including salary and bonus pay;
• Grants of stock options;
• Length of the employment relationship, including the starting date;
• Grounds for termination;
• Competition with the company following a separation;
• Fringe benefits; and
• Ownership of intellectual property.

In most circumstances, an individual should seek counsel to review a proposed employment agreement. An attorney can identify terms that could lead to potential problems and suggest ways to restructure the agreement. Oftentimes an attorney can render advice without getting involved in the negotiation process itself. This may enable the individual to handle the negotiations in an amicable manner with his new employer. Or, if the individual is worried that the negotiation process could become strained, he may ask his attorney to handle the situation.

To speak with an employment law attorney regarding an employment agreement, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Corporate Executives Must Prepare to Negotiate Severance Pay Agreements

With the recent economic downturn, some corporate executives are concerned about receiving fair severance packages when separating from a company. While many executives work pursuant to employment contracts that address severance pay, any executive without the benefit of such pre-negotiated terms who is concerned about a possible separation should prepare to negotiate a separation agreement that addresses severance pay.



Severance packages vary greatly and depend upon factors such as: the employee’s status, the length of time the employee worked for the company, company policy, the employer’s size and financial condition, industry customs, and the circumstances surrounding the separation. Typically, severance pay amounts are calculated in terms of time; for example, an executive might receive a lump sum amount equivalent to three months’ salary. In addition, some severance packages include funds to reflect commission payments or bonuses that were earned (or expected), but unpaid. Stock options may also be addressed.



When confronted by a potential termination, an executive should seek legal counsel to assess his rights and develop a negotiation strategy. While the company has the upper hand in negotiations when a separation is imminent, a well-planned strategy and a careful approach may result in an increased severance pay package for the executive.



To speak with an employment law attorney regarding a separation agreement or severance pay, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.



Media Information:



Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201Phone: 214-888-5000URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Houston, Texas Court of Appeals Rules for Employer in Non-Compete Matter

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

A Houston court recently ruled for an employer in a non-compete agreement case. Gallagher Healthcare Ins. Servs. v. Vogelsang, No. 01-07-00478-CV (Tex. App—Houston [1st Dist.] August 21, 2009. Gallagher employee Vogelsang agreed not to compete with the company upon leaving. She later began working for a direct competitor and Gallagher sued. The trial court granted summary judgment for Vogelsang, finding the non-compete agreement unenforceable. Gallagher appealed.

The Court first found that Vogelsang’s promise not to compete was made in consideration of Gallagher’s implied promise to provide her with confidential information and, thus, as required by law, the non-compete agreement was ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement. It then addressed the non-compete agreement’s limitations, noting that Texas law requires limitations as to time, geographical area, and scope of activity to be restrained to be reasonable. Here, the non-compete provision prevented Vogelsang from working with clients with whom she had worked in the past two years for a two-year time period. It contained no geographical limit. The Court, however, found that a non-compete agreement that is limited to an employee’s former clients provides a reasonable alternative to a geographical limit. Thus, the Court found the restrictions reasonable and the non-compete agreement enforceable.

To discuss a non-compete agreement with an employment lawyer, please contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules for Employer in Discrimination Case

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed summary judgment for an employer in a race discrimination case concerning the discharge of a company’s top salesperson. Taylor v. Peerless Indus. Inc., __ F.3d __ (5th Cir. March 30, 2009), available at: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-20216.0.wpd.pdf.

Darrell Taylor, an African-American employee at Peerless, was the company’s top salesperson in 2002 and was ahead of his sales quota in 2003 when Peerless terminated his employment. Taylor filed suit, alleging race discrimination. Peerless responded by alleging that Taylor was fired for failing to comply with management’s directives regarding customer calls, generation of new business, and internal communications. Peerless received summary judgment on the grounds that Taylor failed to show that Peerless’s stated reasons for firing Taylor were pretextual or that race was a motivating factor in its decision.

The Court affirmed the summary judgment. It rejected Taylor’s argument that his position as the top salesperson created an inference of discrimination. Instead, the Court found that Taylor’s sales numbers alone did not raise a fact issue of pretext because the alleged performance deficiencies were significant and because Taylor failed to submit evidence to rebut those allegations. Likewise, the Court rejected Taylor’s argument that race was a motivating factor in the termination decision because Taylor produced no evidence to support this allegation.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Age Discrimination in Employment Act

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”) protects individuals age forty or older from employment discrimination based on age, whether the individual is an employee or a job applicant. The ADEA applies to employers that (1) are engaged in an industry affecting commerce; and (2) employ twenty or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks during the current or preceding year. The ADEA also applies to employment agencies and labor organizations.

The ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person because of the person’s age with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. The ADEA also prohibits an employer from retaliating against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on age or for filing an age discrimination charge, testifying, or otherwise participating in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under the ADEA.

If an individual demonstrates that an employer discriminated against the individual based on age, the person may be entitled to receive unpaid wages. A court may also order injunctive relief (such as reinstatement if an employee had been discharged) or liquidated damages if the court finds that the employer willfully violated the ADEA.

If you would like to speak to an employment law attorney regarding age discrimination, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Employers Should Create Powerful Job Descriptions

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Many employers operate without creating written job descriptions. Yet, concise, well-written job descriptions can guide employers when making—and defending—employment decisions related to recruiting, hiring, training, compensation, performance evaluations, disability accommodations, and termination. For example, if an employer maintains accurate job descriptions, it can easily determine if a job candidate possesses the skills required by an open position or whether an employee who exceeds expectations in performing all the tasks required of her position deserves a promotion or a raise.

An employer should strive to create a short and accurate job description for each position. Basic information, such as job title, pay range, and position within the organization’s hierarchy should be included. Then, an employer should list the essential job duties and tasks to be performed by the person filling the position. This information should be prioritized and explained in sufficient detail. Next, an employer should list the qualifications needed to perform the stated tasks, such as educational requirements or previous experience. Throughout the job description, an employer should use specific language. For example, rather than stating that an employee must “possess computer skills,” an employer should state that an employee must “be proficient with Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel.” Finally, an employer should review its job descriptions periodically and update them if necessary.

If you would like to speak to an employment law attorney about an employment-related matter, please contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Union Organization in Texas May Increase

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Historically, Texas has not been considered a pro-union state, however, with the recent presidential election, this could change. Many commentators believe that President Barack Obama will push to enact the Employee Free Choice Act (“Act”). The Act would amend the National Labor Relations Act to enable employees to more easily form labor organizations and to quickly negotiate initial collective bargaining agreements with employers.

If signed into law, the Act would require an employer to recognize a union if a majority of workers in a proposed bargaining unit indicated a desire for representation. Further, under the proposed law, if a newly formed union and an employer cannot agree on an initial collective bargaining contract within ninety days, either party could request mediation to help create a contract. If such mediation proved unsuccessful after thirty days, the parties would be required to submit to binding arbitration.

If the Act is passed, pro-union organizations may seek to boost union involvement in Texas by seeking out workers who desire to form unions and assisting those workers in fulfilling the necessary requirements. If new unions are created in Texas, the effects on the state’s workforce could be far-reaching and may potentially include higher wages and better benefits for lower-paid workers.

To speak with an employment law attorney regarding the Employee Free Choice Act or any other labor-related matter, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### United States Supreme Court Expands Anti-Retaliation Law

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply not only to employees who speak out about discrimination on their own initiative but also to employees who answer questions during an employer’s internal investigation. Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t, No. 06-1595, 555 U.S., available at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/06-1595.pdf (Jan. 26, 2009).

Metropolitan Government conducted an internal investigation to determine if a supervisor sexually harassed its employees. When questioned, Crawford, a thirty-year employee, confirmed that she had witnessed inappropriate behavior and described several instances of harassment directed at her by the accused supervisor. The company ultimately did not discipline the supervisor. Instead, it discharged Crawford, allegedly for embezzlement, shortly thereafter. Crawford sued under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision. This provision prohibits an employer from terminating an employee because the employee opposed a practice made unlawful by Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer, holding that Crawford could not show she “opposed” discrimination because she had not instigated a complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Court reversed the summary judgment. It rejected the notion that an employee must actively initiate or pursue a matter in order to “oppose” discriminatory behavior. Instead, it held that a person can “oppose” discrimination by responding to questions during an employer’s investigation.

If you would like to speak to an employment law attorney regarding employment discrimination, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### President Obama Signs Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Into Law

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
On January 29, 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (“Act”). The Act overturns a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the time frame for bringing pay discrimination claims.

Nineteen years into Ledbetter’s employment, she learned that she received significantly less pay than male co-workers who were performing the same work. She sued. The United States Supreme Court ultimately decided her case. It ruled that the time limits for filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (a prerequisite to filing a discrimination lawsuit) begin to run when the employer makes a discriminatory decision about an employee’s pay. It found that Ledbetter had not timely filed her charge because the later effects of past discrimination could not be considered.

The Act reverses that decision. It allows an employee to file a charge based on every instance the employee is affected by the application of a discriminatory compensation decision, including each time wages are paid. For example: In 1987, a supervisor decided to pay a female employee less than a male employee based on gender-related reasons. This pay differential was not addressed by subsequent raises. If, in 2010, the employee learns that she earns less than her male co-workers, she may bring a charge of discrimination against the company.

If you would like to speak to an employment law attorney regarding unequal pay or other discriminatory conduct, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Employment Law Issue: Sarbanes Oxley Whistleblower Law

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

In response to corporate scandals, the United States government enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”). SOX establishes new standards for all public companies, their boards, their management, and public accounting firms. SOX also protects certain whistleblowers from retaliation. This protection applies to an employee who works for a public company and who alleges that he was retaliated against for reporting any conduct that the employee reasonably believes violates federal laws relating to fraud against shareholders.

Under SOX, a public company may not discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass or otherwise discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because the employee provided information to or assisted in an investigation conducted by a law enforcement agency, a member of Congress, a person with supervisory authority over the employee or who has the authority to investigate perceived misconduct. Likewise, an employer cannot retaliate against an employee who files or assists in a proceeding related to an alleged violation of federal anti-fraud laws.

An employee who alleges termination or other discrimination in violation of this statute may file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor. If the employee prevails, the employee may be entitled to reinstatement, back pay, and compensation for any special damages.

A public employer accused of retaliating against a whistleblower should contact legal counsel. To speak with an employment law attorney about corporate whistleblowing, please contact the employment lawyers at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Federal Law Requires Some Employers to Provide Notice of Mass Layoffs

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

In today’s economy, layoffs seem inevitable; however, federal law requires some employers to provide advance notice of mass layoffs. This enables workers to either find new employment or to enter training courses. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN”) requires covered employers to provide sixty days written advance notice of plant closings or mass layoffs to employees or their representatives (such as a labor union), the state rapid response dislocated worker unit, and local government. WARN applies to employers who employ one hundred or more workers, not including workers who have worked less than six months in the preceding year or employees who work less than twenty hours a week.

A covered employer must give notice when the closing of an employment site will result in an employment loss for fifty or more employees during a thirty day period or when a mass layoff will cause an employment loss for (1) 500 or more employees or (2) 50-499 employees if those employees comprise at least 33% of the employer’s workforce. An employer who violates WARN is liable to each aggrieved employee for back pay and benefits for the period of the violation, up to sixty days. Some exceptions exist, such as where unforeseeable business circumstances force an employer to conduct a mass layoff.

To speak with an employment law attorney about WARN or a potential layoff, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Property Owners Found Not Entitled to Diminished Value...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

In State v. Dawmar Partners, Ltd., --- S.W.3d ---, 2008 WL 4370687 (Tex. 9/26/08), the State of Texas challenged the lower court’s award to Dawmar Partners regarding (1) the value of land taken by the State as part of a highway improvement project, and (2) compensation for "severance damages" associated with the remaining land’s ("remainder") permanent loss of direct access to the highway.

The State condemned approximately 13 acres of an unimproved 80 acre tract of land owned by Dawmar Partners and others as part of a highway improvement project to widen and elevate a highway in Hewitt, Texas. Safety concerns related to the highway improvement project eliminated all direct access from the remainder property to the highway and its frontage roads.

The landowners argued they should be compensated not only for the portion of the land taken by the State, but also for the diminished value of the remainder property. They claimed the elimination of direct access from the remainder property to the highway and its frontage roads changed the highest and best use of the property from commercial use to residential use, despite the existence of direct access to two small public roads that intersect with the highway.

In response to this argument, the Texas Supreme Court noted that while "a change in a property’s use due to condemnation is relevant to the fair market value of the property… that does not mean all diminished value is compensable." The Court went on to state that "diminished value resulting from impaired access is compensable only when access is materially and substantially impaired."

The Court noted that Texas courts do not evaluate degree of impairment in light of a property’s theoretical highest and best use. Instead, "in light of the actual or intended uses of the remainder property as reflected by existing uses and improvements and applicable zoning," the Court held that "severance damages" were not appropriate in this case because: (1) while the remainder property no longer had direct access to the highway and its frontage roads, it did have access to two public roads that intersect the highway; (2) the property was unimproved, with "no evidence of existing driveways or drainage systems that would make access to the available roads impossible or impracticable;" and (3) under Texas law "access is not materially and substantially impaired merely because other access points are significantly less convenient."

If you would like a copy of this opinion, or more information on the topic, please contact the Business Litigators at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Real Estate Developers Plead and Prove They Are Ready

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Generally, a party must show that it has substantially performed its obligations under a contract and/or is able to continue such performance ("tender performance") to be entitled to the equitable remedy of specific performance on the contract (that is, to force the opposing party to fulfill its obligations under the contract).

On October 20, 2008, the Supreme Court of Texas held that, even when an opposing party refuses to perform or repudiates the contract at issue, a real estate purchaser must plead and prove it is ready, willing and able to perform under the terms of a purchase contract to be entitled to specific performance.

DiGiuseppe v. Lawler, --- S.W.3d ---, 2008 WL 4605951 (Tex. 10/20/08), involved a dispute between Nick DiGiuseppe d/b/a Southbrook Development Company and Richard Lawler regarding a real estate purchase agreement for approximately 756 acres of Mr. Lawler’s land near Frisco, Texas. Lawler "cancelled" the contract based on DiGiuseppe’s alleged breach thereof, and thereafter entered into a new purchase with a subsequent potential buyer. In reaction to DiGiuseppe’s demand that Lawler honor the purchase agreement, Lawler filed suit in Collin County seeking a declaration that the contract was terminated. DiGiuseppe counterclaimed for, among other things, specific performance of the purchase agreement.

The trial court granted DiGiuseppe specific performance of the contract and attorneys’ fees. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s order granting specific performance, holding that DiGiuseppe "failed to conclusively establish, or to request and obtain a finding of fact on, an essential element of his claim for specific performance – that he was ready, willing and able to perform under the terms of the purchase contract." DiGiuseppe appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.

Agreeing with the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of Texas reasoned that granting a plaintiff specific performance on a contract without requiring him to prove he was ready, willing and able to perform his obligations at the time required by the contract, would "grant the plaintiff more than he is entitled to under the contract." In support of its decision, the Court noted that "a plaintiff who could not arrange funding in time for closing may be able to marshal all the funds he needs by the time he files… a lawsuit for specific performance."

If you would like a copy of this opinion, or more information on the topic, please contact the Business Litigators at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act Protects Whistleblowers

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
President George Bush recently signed into law the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (“Act”). This legislation includes protection for whistleblowers.

The underlying purpose of whistleblower protection is to allow employees to report or testify against illegal or unhealthy actions taken by their employers. The whistleblower provision in the Act protects employees involved in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of consumer goods. It ensures that an employee can report defective and/or hazardous consumer goods to a superior or to a regulatory agency without fear of being discharged or otherwise discriminated against with respect to the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

The protection extends to an employee who: (1) provided, caused to be provided, or is about to provide or cause to be provided to the employer, the federal government, or a state’s attorney general any information relating to a violation of (or an act or omission the employee reasonable believes to be a violation of) any provision of the Act or related regulations; (2) testified or is about to testify in a proceeding concerning such violations; (3) assisted or participated or is about to assist or participate in such a proceeding; or (4) objected to, or refused to participate in, an activity or task the employee reasonably believed to be in violation of the Act or related regulations.

To speak with an employment law attorney regarding whistleblower protection laws, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Employee Free Choice Act

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Employee Free Choice Act (“Act”) is a proposed federal law that would amend the National Labor Relations Act to enable employees to more easily form labor organizations and negotiate initial collective bargaining agreements with employers.

If signed into law, the Act would require an employer to recognize a union if a majority of workers in a proposed bargaining unit signed forms indicating that they wanted representation. The Act would also provide that when a newly formed union and an employer are unable to agree on an initial contract within ninety days, either party could request mediation. If such mediation proved unsuccessful after thirty days, the parties would then be subject to binding arbitration.

Finally, the Act would strengthen penalties against companies that break laws during organizing campaigns and the negotiations of a first contract. It would impose civil fines of up to $20,000.00 per violation on employers who willfully or repeatedly violate workers’ rights. It would also require employers to pay triple back pay damages to workers who have been illegally fired or discriminated against during union campaigns.

To speak with an employment law attorney regarding labor issues, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Federal Discrimination Laws

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Several federal laws prohibit discrimination in the workplace. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (“Title VII”). The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”) protects workers who are age forty or older from discrimination. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities.

Under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA, it is illegal for employers to discriminate in: hiring and firing decisions; compensation; layoff decisions; job advertisements; testing; recruitment; training, fringe benefits; retirement plans; disability leave; or other terms and conditions of employment. Employers and their employees are also prohibited from harassing an individual or from retaliating against a person for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in a discrimination investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices.

An employee who is discriminated against may be entitled to relief, including: back pay, promotion, front pay, reinstatement, reasonable accommodations, and attorneys’ fees. Punitive damages may also be available where an employer intentionally discriminated against an individual.

To speak with an employment law attorney regarding employment discrimination, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Analyzes Employee/Independent Contractor Issue

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded that sales leaders for an insurance company were employees, not independent contractors. Hopkins v. Cornerstone America, No. 07-10952, available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/07/07-10952-CV0.wpd.pdf (5th Cir. Oct. 13, 2008). Fourteen former sales leaders sued for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Because the FLSA applies to employees and not to independent contractors, the lower court first examined the threshold issue of employment status and, in doing so, granted summary judgment for the sales leaders. Cornerstone appealed.

The Court analyzed whether the workers were economically dependent on Cornerstone, examining five non-exhaustive factors: (1) degree of Cornerstone’s control; (2) extent of the workers’ and Cornerstone’s relative investments; (3) degree to which the workers’ opportunities for profit or loss was determined by Cornerstone; (4) workers’ skills and initiative; and (5) permanency of the relationship.

Cornerstone’s sales agents were independent contractors who were paid commissions. The sales leaders (most of whom had been with Cornerstone for years) managed these agents and derived income from overwrite commissions. Cornerstone controlled the hiring and firing of the agents, determined sales territories, and prevented sales leaders from operating other businesses. Based on these facts, the Court concluded that, as a matter of economic reality, the sales leaders were dependent on Cornerstone to such an extent that they could not be considered in business for themselves.

To speak with an employment law attorney regarding issues related to employment status, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Federal Law Prohibits National Origin Discrimination

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

Federal law prohibits an employer from treating an employee less favorably than other employees because the employee comes from a particular country, is of a certain ethnicity, or has a particular accent. So-called national origin discrimination is forbidden by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits employers from making employment decisions, including recruiting, hiring, and firing, based on national origin. Title VII also prohibits offensive conduct (such as ethnic slurs based on national origin) that creates a hostile work environment.

National origin discrimination moved to the forefront of employment litigation in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Since then, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has documented a significant increase in the number of charges alleging discrimination based on religion and/or national origin. For example, an employer may be accused of refusing to hire an otherwise qualified person for fear that the person’s religious turban would make customers “uncomfortable” or of requiring job applicants who hail from particular countries to undergo background investigation checks that other applicants are not subjected to.

Employers should educate their employees about Title VII to ensure compliance with the law and should develop policies that reflect the federal standards.

To speak with an employment law attorney about discrimination in the workplace, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Discovery Matters in Lawsuits over Employment Law Issues

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Employers and employees may find themselves in litigation with one another over a breach of contract issue, the breach of a non-compete agreement, or a discrimination or retaliation matter. Sometimes, the parties can resolve their differences easily. But if the parties are not able to resolve the case at the outset, they must participate in the discovery process. This is the process whereby each side learns more about the facts and matters at issue in the lawsuit.

Discovery can take several forms, including written questions to be answered by the other side, requests for certain categories of documents and oral depositions. In most discrimination or retaliation matters, the parties will depose the former employee, the person who made the decision to discharge the former employee, and other witnesses who may have knowledge of critical facts. In a breach of contract situation, the parties may need to depose individuals both inside and outside the company.

Once the discovery process draws to a close, the parties are armed with the necessary information to either try the case or to make a second attempt at settlement. To speak with a Texas attorney who both settles and tries employment disputes, please contact the employment law lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Supreme Court Rules on Evidentiary Issue in Age Discrimination Case

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that statements made by an employee not connected to another employee’s discharge did not comprise sufficient evidence to support an age discrimination claim. AutoZone, Inc. v. Reyes, __ S.W.3d __, No. 07-0773 (Tex. Dec. 5, 2008).

Salvador Reyes, an AutoZone employee, was accused of sexually harassing a co-worker in violation of the company’s sexual harassment policy. Based on the company’s investigation and Reyes’ admissions, AutoZone discharged Reyes for violating its policy. Reyes sued AutoZone for age discrimination and won. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that a manager’s statements regarding “old people” and evidence that younger employees who violated the policy were not disciplined similarly supported the jury verdict.

The Texas Supreme Court disagreed. First, for statements to constitute proof of discrimination, they must be: (1) related to the employee’s protected class; (2) close in time to the employment decision; (3) made by a person with authority over the decision; and (4) related to the decision. Because the speaker here was not involved in the disciplinary action, no evidence supported Reyes’ claim. Second, to prove discrimination based on disparate discipline, the underlying conduct must be “nearly identical.” Here, the situations Reyes presented involved fundamentally different conduct. And, although some evidence showed that not all employees were disciplined similarly, as a whole, the evidence did not support recovery on a disparate discipline theory.

To speak with an employment law attorney regarding age discrimination, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Addresses Enforceability...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a noncompete agreement. Ray Mart Inc. v. Stock Building Supply of Texas LP, No. 07-50609, available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/07/07-50609.0.wpd.pdf (5th Cir. Nov. 5, 2008). Stock Building Supply of Texas LP and Weldon Vybiral negotiated an employment agreement which included: a three year term; a statement that Stock could terminate Vybiral for “good cause”; a noncompete covenant; and a nondisclosure of trade secrets covenant. Vybiral left Stock for a competitor, and litigation ensued. Following an adverse ruling, Stock appealed.

Under Texas law, a noncompete covenant is enforceable if: (1) it is ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement at the time the agreement is made; and (2) it contains reasonable restraints on the employee’s competitive activity. Here, an otherwise enforceable agreement existed because each party made enforceable promises—in addition to the noncompete provision—which created an employment relationship terminable only for good cause.

For the noncompete provision to be ancillary to this agreement, Stock’s consideration had to give rise to its interest in restraining Vybiral from competing and the covenant had to be designed to enforce Vybiral’s consideration. The Court found that Stock’s promise to employ Vybiral for three years implicitly, but necessarily, involved Stock providing Vybiral with confidential information, giving rise to an interest in protecting this information. Further, the noncompete agreement was clearly designed to enforce Vybiral’s promise of nondisclosure.

To speak with an employment law attorney regarding noncompete covenants, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Mediation Frequently Resolves Lawsuits

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Legal clients are often asked to mediate their disputes; in fact, many courts require parties to undergo mediation prior to trial. But just what is mediation?

Mediation is a confidential process whereby parties to a lawsuit are aided in settling their disputes by negotiating settlement terms via a mediator. A mediator is a neutral third party who facilitates settlement by pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s position or by helping the parties develop creative solutions. Typically, the parties first meet for a joint session. During this session, the attorneys summarize the parties’ positions, relying upon law and/or evidence as support. Then, the parties caucus in separate rooms while the mediator travels between the two rooms, attempting to broker a deal. The mediator does this by assessing the parties’ goals and needs and then steering them towards a resolution that will satisfy everyone.

If an agreement is reached, the parties usually commit key terms to writing at that time. Later, the attorneys draft a formal settlement agreement which the parties sign prior to dismissing any lawsuits. Even if the parties fail to settle at mediation, it is still a valuable process. Oftentimes the information gleaned from it will lead parties to settle at a later date.

To learn more about the mediation process, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fair Labor Standards Act’s Provisions Regarding Overtime Pay

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) establishes standards for minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor. Generally, it applies to employers engaging in interstate commerce. Disputes often arise between employers and employees regarding the FLSA’s overtime pay provisions.

Often, these disputes concern eligibility for overtime pay, since the FLSA exempts certain employees from its overtime pay provisions. For example, executive, administrative, and professional employees are exempt from overtime regulations. An employee may bring an overtime claim to challenge an employer’s classification of the employee as “exempt.”

A non-exempt employee is entitled to receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek at a rate of not less than one and one-half the employee’s regular rate of pay. The FLSA places no limit on the number of days or hours per day that employees can be required to work; its requirements concern only compensation. Non-exempt employees may bring overtime claims to allege that an employer failed to compensate “off-the-clock” hours an employee spent performing job-related tasks (such as mailing packages on the way home from work) or to allege that an employer failed to include “wage augments” (such as increased pay for working a particular shift) when calculating an employee’s overtime rate.

To speak with an employment law attorney regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act and its implications for both employees and employers, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Proposed Employee Misclassification Prevention Act Would Penalize Employers...

Federal lawmakers are currently considering the Employee Misclassification Prevention Act (“Act”). This legislation would impose penalties on employers who improperly classify employees as “independent contractors” to avoid paying benefits to the workers. Full-time workers who are misclassified as independent contractors miss out on rights such as workers’ compensation coverage, unemployment benefits, overtime protection, and family and medical leave.



The proposed Employee Misclassification Prevention Act would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act. The amendment would make it possible to penalize employers up to $10,000.00 for each misclassification. The law would require an employer to keep records regarding the status of its workers. In addition, employers would need to notify “non-employees” of their right to challenge a classification. If signed into law, the Act would require state unemployment insurance agencies to conduct audits to identify employers who may be misclassifying employees. It would also require the United States Department of Labor to perform targeted audits. These audits would focus on employers in industries where frequent misclassification occurs. Lastly, the Act would allow the Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service to share information on cases involving misclassifications.



To speak with an employment law attorney regarding the distinctions between independent contractors and employees, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.



Media Information:



Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201Phone: 214-888-5000URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Employers May Not Interfere with an Employee’s Duty to Serve on a Jury

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Texas Constitution guarantees all people the right to a trial by an impartial jury. Justice depends on citizens devoting time to serve on a jury. To this end, Texas law prohibits employers from firing an employee because of the employee’s service on a jury.

In Texas, a private employer may not discharge a permanent employee because the person serves as a juror. If an employer does terminate a juror’s employment, the employee is entitled to reinstatement to his former position, monetary damages in an amount equal to one to five times the employee’s compensation, and reasonable attorney’s fees. Additionally, a court may punish by contempt an employer who terminates, threatens to terminate, penalizes or threatens to penalize an employee because the employee performs jury duty.

Employers may require proof that an employee’s absences are attributable to jury service, and courts will provide jurors with such verification. Employers are not required to pay employees while the employees serve on juries, however, many employers choose to do so.

To speak with an employment law attorney regarding jury service or any other employment law matter, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Employers Should Address “Blogging” by Employees

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

“Blogging” has become the new medium for many people to communicate with their friends and family (as well as strangers who stumble upon the blog). A blog is an on-line journal where the writer submits reflections, comments, links to other web material, and pictures. Often bloggers post about their family, friends, and hobbies, but a few bloggers also post about their jobs. These postings can lead to trouble.--Employers have purportedly terminated employees for posting offensive blog material, such as: risqué photographs of an employee in a company uniform, vents about work conditions and bosses, complaints about co-workers, and disclosure of confidential company information.

To prevent employees from posting offensive or inappropriate material, employers should adopt policies to address blogging by employees. An employer should require that employees: (1) refrain from blogging on company time or utilizing company resources; (2) comply with the employer’s code of conduct, anti-discrimination policies, and anti-harassment policies; (3) not represent or imply that the blog expresses the employer’s opinion; and (4) not disclose the employer’s confidential or proprietary information. Employees should be advised to be open and honest about blogs and to use judgment when posting potentially offensive material regarding an employer, its employees, or its clients. Employees should also receive training on these policies.

For more information on this issue or to seek help in drafting a policy to address blogging, please contact the Business Litigators at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Making the Switch to Arbitration: Texas Supreme Court Finds Party Invoked Litigation Process

The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that once a party has substantially invoked the litigation process, the party cannot switch to arbitration shortly before trial. While a strong presumption against waiver of arbitration rights exists, the presumption can be rebutted with evidence that the party seeking arbitration substantially invoked the litigation process, prejudicing another party.

In Perry Homes v. Cull, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. May 2, 2008), a homebuilder challenged whether homeowners seeking damages from the homebuilder and two warranty companies for faulty construction could switch to arbitration after pursuing the case in court for over a year. The Court found that whether a party has so substantially invoked the litigation process as to waive its right to arbitration requires a case-by-case determination. Because the homeowners sought extensive discovery, vigorously opposed arbitration when other parties raised the issue, and moved for arbitration late in the trial process (four days before a trial setting), the Court found that the homeowners had substantially invoked the litigation process. The Court further found that the homeowners’ conduct prejudiced the homebuilder and the warranty companies. Thus, the homeowners waived their right to seek arbitration.

For more information on arbitration policies and procedures, please contact the Dallas arbitration lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### Employers Must Provide Employees with Guidelines for E-Mail Communications

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Electronic mail can be a lifesaver for busy employees; it can also be a noose. Employers must ensure that employees follow guidelines to avoid problems that may arise if e-mails later become discoverable in litigation.

The informal nature of e-mail communications leads many employees to say things via e-mail that the employees would never say in person or in a written memorandum. For example, employees may recite offensive jokes or make rude comments about other employees. Of even greater concern are the e-mails that begin, “You didn’t hear this from me…” or “This is off the record….” Not only does the e-mail then become a record, but because of the incriminating introduction, a jury might believe the accuracy of the e-mail, even if the e-mail does not accurately reflect the truth or provide the full story.

Employers should develop policies to address e-mail etiquette. More importantly, employers should caution employees to always verify a communication’s recipients and to thoughtfully consider an e-mail’s text to ensure accuracy.—If an employee has any doubt regarding whether he can clearly convey a message electronically, the employee should arrange for an in-person meeting. Simply put, perhaps the best recommendation employers can give employees is not to say anything in an e-mail that the employee would not want to see displayed on a giant screen in a courtroom.

Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group are available to help employers develop policies to address these issues. For more information, please write to info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
Url: Rogge Dunn Group

### President Bush Signs into Law Changes to the Family Medical Leave Act

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
President Bush recently signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008. This act amends the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”) by creating two new qualifying events for which an employee may take leave. Both address leave to be taken by employees who are related to Armed Services members.

First, the act authorizes a spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin to take up to twenty-six workweeks of leave during a twelve month period to care for a member of the Armed Forces who: is undergoing medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy; is otherwise in outpatient status; or is otherwise on the temporary disability retired list for a serious injury or illness. Second, it allows an employee to take leave for a “qualifying exigency” arising out of the fact that the spouse, son, daughter, or parent of the employee is in the Armed Forces and is on active duty or has been notified of an impending call or order to active duty. By its express terms, this provision is not effective until the United States Secretary of Labor issues final regulations defining “qualifying exigency.”

These changes impact employment law and employers who are governed by the FMLA. Such employers should notify employees of the new leave entitlements and should review and update their FMLA policies and procedures to reflect these changes. Employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group are available to review and revise these policies. For more information, please write to info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### United States Supreme Court Examines Arbitration Provision and Limits Judicial Review

Employers must be mindful of a recent United States Supreme Court opinion that calls into question the validity of a key arbitration provision. The Court recently held that when a party seeks to vacate or modify an arbitration award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act's (“FAA”) procedure for expedited judicial review, the FAA’s prescribed grounds for vacatur or modification are exclusive, and courts cannot vacate or modify an arbitration award based upon a contractual expansion of those grounds. Thus, an arbitration award granted pursuant to the FAA must be confirmed by a court unless the FAA expressly permits a court to vacate, modify, or correct it.

In Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., No. 06-989, __ U.S. __ (March 25, 2008), the Court examined an arbitration provision in which the parties attempted to contractually expand the FAA’s narrow grounds for vacating an award to include judicial review where the arbitrator’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence or where the arbitrator’s conclusions of law were erroneous. The Court ruled that the FAA’s statutory grounds are exclusive; contracting parties cannot alter or extend the scope of review prescribed by the FAA.

Employers contractually bound to arbitrate disputes with their employees pursuant to the FAA should evaluate whether those contracts attempt to expand the available grounds for judicial review of arbitration awards. The Dallas arbitration lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group are available to review current arbitration agreements and to draft new arbitration agreements.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Companies Must Guard Against Resume Fraud

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

With the latest economic downturn, employers should step up programs to vigilantly screen job applicants for resume fraud and must develop tools to deal with current employees who have committed resume fraud. When job availability decreases, some applicants may “pad” their resumes to help land a position. Researchers estimate that up to forty percent of resume writers exaggerate or misrepresent information.

Companies must both guard against hiring a candidate who has misrepresented his credentials and develop a plan to address current employees who have committed resume fraud.

To prevent resume fraud, an employer should thoroughly screen all job candidates’ credentials—either through an in-house program or via a specialized resume-verification company—and should conduct reference checks. Employers should also place a disclosure statement on job applications and require applicants to sign and verify that all the information the applicant provided is true and that the applicant understands that providing false information will disqualify the applicant from employment. A similar disclosure statement should be placed in an employee handbook and state that resume fraud will result in an employee’s discharge.

If an employer learns that a current employee lied about his background, the employer should discharge the employee. Failing to consistently do so may risk a discrimination claim if the employer chooses to fire an employee within a protected class for resume fraud.

For more information, please contact the Business Litigators at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Lifestyle Discrimination

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Recently, a Whirlpool Corporation factory in Indiana suspended thirty-nine workers who had signed statements claiming that the workers did not use tobacco products but who were seen on company property smoking or chewing tobacco. The employees apparently signed the statements to avoid paying the extra $500 in annual health insurance premiums the company charges employees who smoke or who use tobacco products. While no one would argue that a company cannot or should not encourage its employees to engage in healthy behaviors, how far can a company go in regulating its employees’ off-duty legal behaviors?

Advocates for employers argue that employers have the right to adjust health care premium contributions according to employees’ smoking status because of the greater costs associated with providing health care to smokers and overall rising health care costs.

Advocates for employees argue that allowing employers to discriminate against employees based upon the employees’ private lifestyle choices could lead to employers excluding people from the workforce who have unhealthy habits but who are otherwise capable. Further, advocates argue that allowing employers to make employment decisions based upon legal off-duty behavior permits employers to control employees’ personal, private lives—contrary to a free society.

For more information on this topic or to meet with an employment lawyer to discuss a similar program that impacts you, please contact the Business Litigators at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Supreme Court Rules on Premises Liability Case

On April 18, 2008, the Texas Supreme Court ruled on a premises liability case. The Texas Supreme Court found that a premises owner was not liable for a student's injury sustained when he tripped over over a water hose lying across a campus sidewalk. The reasoning was that there was no evidence of the University's actual knowledge that a water hose lying across a sidewalk was an unreasonably dangerous condition.

In University of Texas-Pan American v. Aguilar, --- S.W.3d ---, 2008 WL 1765553 (Tex.), 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 795 (4/18/08), Tony Aguilar - - a student at the University of Texas-Pan American - - was walking to class when he tripped on a water hose lying across a campus sidewalk and broke his knee. The student and his wife sued the University to recover damages alleging premises liability. The University filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a waiver of governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The trial court denied the motion, and the University appealed.

The court of appeals concluded the University's safety manual was sufficient to create a fact issue about whether the University had actual knowledge that the water hose presented an unreasonable risk of harm, and affirmed the trial court's decision.

The Texas Supreme Court reversed, and dismissed the plaintiffs' case. In so doing, the Court recognized that a unit of state government (such as the University) has a duty under the Texas Tort Claims Act either to warn a licensee of, or make reasonably safe, a dangerous condition of which the governmental unit has actual knowledge and the licensee does not. It also found that, although there is not one test in a premises liability case to determine actual knowledge that a condition presents an unreasonable risk of harm, Texas courts generally consider whether the premises owner has received reports of prior injuries or reports of the potential danger presented by the condition.

However, it held that the University's workplace safety manual - - which warned of the dangers of obstructing office walkways with exposed electrical cords - - was not evidence of the University's actual knowledge that a water hose lying across a sidewalk was an unreasonably dangerous condition. Therefore, it did not constitute the actual knowledge necessary to give rise to a duty under Texas Tort Claims Act to either warn the student who was injured or to make the condition reasonably safe.

If you would like a copy of this opinion, or more information on the topic, please contact the personal injury lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### LEGAL UPDATES

03/29/2012 //  (press release)
On April 11, 2008, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion finding (or perhaps more accurately predicting) that Texas law does not except post-sale negligence claims from the "economic loss doctrine," thereby precluding a helicopter owner's recovery of purely economic losses on its claim against the manufacturer for damage caused to helicopter.

In Memorial Hermann Healthcare System Inc. v. Eurocopter Deutschland, GMBH, --- F.3d ---, 2008 WL 1113339 (5th Cir. 4/11/08), Memorial Hermann owned a helicopter it bought from the manufacturer, Eurocopter. When the helicopter's door separated and struck the rotor blades, it damaged the helicopter - - but caused no additional harm or injuries. Memorial Herman sued Eurocopter for post-sale negligence. Specifically, it alleged that Eurocopter assumed a duty to warn its customers of defects to its products - - even after a sale. And Eurocopter breached this duty when it failed to warn Memorial Hermann of a potential door defect despite knowledge of a similar accident.

Eurocopter moved to dismiss the lawsuit arguing that, even if it had this duty, the economic loss doctrine under Texas law precluded Memorial Hermann from recovering only economic losses. Agreeing with this defense, the district court dismissed the claim. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the economic loss rule under Texas law provides that no duty in tort exists when plaintiffs have suffered only economic losses, therefore barring plaintiffs from recovering economic losses due to a defective product based on a negligence theory. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit reasoned:

Appellants invite us to carve out an exception to Texas's economic loss rule for post-sale negligence claims. We decline this invitation. The Texas Supreme Court has unequivocally adopted a broad interpretation of the economic loss rule. According to the Texas Supreme Court, "the nature of the injury" may preclude plaintiffs from seeking relief in tort, and "[w]hen the injury is only the economic loss to the subject of a contract itself, the action sounds in contract alone."Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Reed, 711 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.1986)…. The gravamen of Appellants' argument is that the Texas Supreme Court has not explicitly rejected an exception to the economic loss rule for post-sale negligence claims. Therefore, Appellants claim that we are free to create this exception under the guise of making an "Erie guess" as to what we believe the Texas Supreme Court would likely do…. Because Appellants have failed to provide a meaningful difference between post-sale negligence claims and other negligence claims, we are far from convinced that the Texas Supreme Court would recognize Appellants' proposed exception.

If you would like a copy of this opinion, or more information on the topic, please contact the Business Litigators at Rogge Dunn Group PC at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Commercial Building Owner Sues Manufacturer

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
On April 11, 2008, the Texas Supreme Court held that attorneys' fees are recoverable in an action for breach of express warranty.

In Medical City Dallas, Ltd. V. Carlisle Corporation, --- S.W.3d ---, 2008 WL 1146752 (Tex.), 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 753 (4/11/08), Medical City Dallas contracted with Charley Company of Texas to re-roof one of its buildings. Carlisle Corporation issued express warranties to Medical City, one of which was a Twenty Year Membrane Material Warranty. The Warranty promised that the roof membrane would not deteriorate prematurely. Within months of the installation, Medical City encountered leaks in the building's roof. Despite Charley's repeated repairs, the leaking continued.

Medical City sued Charley and Carlisle, alleging breach of the express warranties, breach of implied warranties, and negligence. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Medical City, finding that Carlisle breached its Twenty Year Membrane Warranty. Carlisle appealed. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part; and Medical City petitioned for review on sole issue of attorney fees.

The Texas Supreme Court explained that attorneys' fees are recoverable in Texas only as allowed by statute or applicable law, and are recoverable in Texas for breach of oral or written contracts. Although recognizing that breach of warranty and breach of contract are distinct causes of action with separate remedies, the Court reasoned that an express warranty is a part of the basis of a bargain and is contractual in nature. Therefore, Medical City was entitled to attorney fees.

If you would like a copy of this opinion, or more information on the topic, please contact the Business Litigators at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Property Insurer Entitled to Piece of Insureds' Settlement Funds

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
On April 17, 2008, the Austin Court of Appeals found that a property insurer which paid almost $2 million for mold-related claims by its insured had subrogation rights in the settlement proceeds of a lawsuit brought by its insured concerning those claims.

In Osborne v. Jauregui, --- S.W.3d ---, 2008 WL 1753553 (Tex.App.--Austin 4/17/08), Dr. Osborne and his wife bought a home whose architect and builder was Jauregui. State Farm insured the home. After mold was discovered in the house, State Farm paid $1,874,687 to the Osbornes in mold-related claims. Despite receiving those payments, the Osbornes sued Jauregui and various subcontractors, asserting tort and contractually-based claims. The Osbornes then settled with certain subcontractors before trial for more than $1 million. After the jury found the Osbornes had suffered $835,000 in damages, the trial court applied a settlement credit in Jauregui's favor and, accordingly, entered a judgment that the Osbornes take nothing on their claims. The trial court denied State Farm subrogation rights in the proceeds from the Osbornes' settlement with the subcontractors.

The court of appeals reversed, holding that the insurer was entitled to subrogate against the settlement proceeds paid to its insureds. In so holding, the court recognized the "one-satisfaction rule," which guards against a plaintiff receiving a windfall by being compensated twice for the same injury. The court also recognized that the principle of "subrogation" provides that once an insured is made whole from his damages, the insurer which paid for the insured's covered losses is entitled to the insured's rights and remedies against a third party for those losses.

Thus, the court reasoned that an insurer which paid benefits under a policy in an amount more than the jury awarded to its insureds was entitled to subrogate against the settlement proceeds paid to its insureds by settling subcontractors where: (1) the insureds suffered one injury, that being the defective house, (2) the policy contained a clause giving the insurer the right to seek an assignment of rights and requiring the insureds to cooperate in such an assignment, and (3) the insurer overpaid the insureds by $893,600 for damage to the structure (even though the insurer underpaid on some subcategories of damages, such as clothing or personal effects).

Of note, the court did recognize that absent a contractual provision, subrogation is based on equitable principles. Thus, if either an insured or an insurer must go to some extent unpaid on a category of damages, the loss should be borne by the insurer. However, if the policy provides for subrogation regardless of whether the insured is first made whole, the contract's specific language controls. "[I]f a contract provides for subrogation regardless of whether the insured is first made whole, '[t]he contract's specific language controls ... and the equitable defense of the 'made whole' doctrine must give way.' Fortis Benefits v. Cantu, 234 S.W.3d 642, 651 (Tex.2007). '[C]ontract-based subrogation rights should be governed by the parties' express agreement and not invalidated by equitable considerations that might control by default in the absence of an agreement.' Id. at 650."

If you would like a copy of this opinion, or more information on the topic, please contact the Business Litigators at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Complex Dispute Over Oil Drilling Rights

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
On April 10, 2008, the 14th District Houston Court of Appeals held that a Texas trial court did not have jurisdiction over the foreign parent company of various foreign subsidiaries with minimum contacts to the state, as well as the sole shareholder of that parent company, because the parent and shareholder were not the alter ego of those subsidiaries for the purposes of imputing the subsidiaries' jurisdictional contact.

In Greenfield Energy, Inc. v. Duprey, --- S.W.3d ---, 2008 WL 961312 (Tex.App.--Houston [14 Dist.] 4/10/08, certain energy companies sued numerous foreign companies and the parent company's sole shareholder, alleging a litany of tort and contract claims concerning drilling rights to foreign oil and gas property. The parent company and its sole shareholder filed special appearances requesting dismissal of the claims against them because the court lacked jurisdiction. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting the special appearances.

In so doing, the court of appeals recognized the parent owned the property, while its subsidiaries pursued development of the property. Nonetheless, the court found that the parent and its sole shareholder did not control the internal business operations and affairs of the subsidiaries and, thus, were not the alter ego of the subsidiaries for the purposes of imputing their jurisdictional contacts. The companies had independent management, boards of directors, and accounting practices. The subsidiaries had a different chief executive officer than parent; there was no overlap between the daily operations of the parent and the subsidiaries; the entities filed separate tax returns, kept separate accounts, and had separate home offices; and the subsidiaries were not operating on behalf of their parent when negotiating regarding the property.

The court also held the subsidiaries did not serve as parent's agents for the purposes of imputing the subsidiaries' jurisdictional contacts, where the parent did not exert control over the details of subsidiaries' work, there were no communications indicating either actual or apparent authority, and the parent did not ratify the subsidiaries' activities in pursuing development of the property (but only transferred the rights to the property to one of the subsidiaries). In addition, the parent's negotiations with another entity in Texas was not a minimum contact with the state sufficient to support jurisdiction over the parent where those negotiations were initiated by the other entity, the agreement resulting from the discussions was an agreement with another foreign entity, and the parent was not a party to the resulting agreement.

If you would like a copy of this opinion, or more information on the topic, please contact the Business Litigators at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Litigation Over Purchase of Apartment Complex

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
On March 12, 2008, the San Antonio Court of Appeals found that an "as is" clause in a contract may not necessarily mean a purchaser is buying the property "as is" - - even if the contract also had a merger clause.

In San Antonio Properties, L.P. v. PSRA Investments, Inc., --- S.W.3d ---, 2008 WL 647781 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 3/12/08), PSRA purchased an apartment complex "as is." After PSRA purchased the complex, it began experiencing problems with the plumbing, a decline in occupancy rate, and crime. After failing to obtain concessions on the payment schedule, PSRA stopped making payments. The seller reclaimed possession of the property, and sued PSRA for the balance of the payments owed under the Contract for Deed. PSRA filed a counterclaim against the seller alleging various fraud-based causes of action.

The Contract for Deed at issue contained the following provision: "Buyer agrees to. . . accept the Property in its present condition 'AS IS,' after having inspected the Property to Buyer's satisfaction." It also contained a merger clause that stated: "This contract, including any attached exhibits, is the entire agreement of the parties, and there are no oral representations, express or implied warranties, agreements, or promises pertaining to this contract not incorporated in writing in this contract."

The court of appeals found these terms in the purchase agreement did not, as a matter of law, bar PSRA's fraud counterclaims against the seller of the property. Thus, it affirmed the jury's verdict for PSRA on one of the fraud claims.

More specifically, the court explained that a buyer is not bound by an agreement to purchase something "as is," if it is induced to make such an agreement due to a fraudulent representation or concealment of information by the seller. Then, despite the "as is" provision, the court held that the "even sophisticated buyers have the right to rely on the veracity of the financial information provided to them by the sellers. We therefore conclude the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury's common law and statutory fraud findings."

Further, the court held the merger clause did not negate PSRA's fraud claims, as a matter of law, because "if SAP is correct in its argument that the merger clause precludes PSRA's fraud claims because it negates the element of reliance, 'there could never be a cause of action for fraud in the sale of real estate unless the misrepresentation were contained in the deed itself.'" In sum, the court confirmed that a merger clause can be avoided for antecedent fraud or fraud in its inducement.

If you would like a copy of this opinion, or more information on the topic, please contact the Business Litigators at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Discharging an Employee

03/29/2012 //(press release)
Unfortunately, firing an employee is not nearly as much fun as Donald Trump makes it appear. And, if an employer fails to do so properly, the employer could face a lawsuit. Dallas business and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group PC, who routinely advise companies on termination issues, suggests that an employer follow the tips outlined below when discharging an employee.

As a threshold issue, an employer must carefully review a situation and determine that a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason exists for the discharge. Then, prior to the termination, the responsible manager or human resources official should gather documentation regarding the employee’s job performance and review company policies regarding termination. Severance pay, the return of company property, the backing up of the employee’s computer files, and similar issues should be considered at this time.

The manager should then schedule a face-to-face meeting with the employee. At least one witness should be present. During this meeting, company policies should be followed precisely. The manager should explain, directly and concisely, the reason for the termination. Then, the manager should review exit procedures and ask the employee to sign any required paperwork. The manager should arrange for the employee to collect personal items and, if possible, make a graceful, un-escorted exit from the premises.

If an employer fears that an employee might challenge a planned discharge, the employer should seek counsel in advance. For assistance in discharging an employee, contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Warning Signs May Indicate a Potential Firing

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
With the recent economic downturn, many Americans fear their jobs are at risk. Economic troubles force companies to reduce their workforce and mergers (with accompanying layoffs) are likely. These external factors give employees reason to be concerned. But employees should also be aware of internal signs of trouble; while companies frequently discharge employees for committing major mistakes or ethical violations, less severe conduct may also lead to discharge. Thus, less-obvious signs may indicate trouble.

Warning signs include an employee’s: (1) exclusion from meetings or e-mail communications and a general feeling of being “out of the loop”; (2) poor performance review; (3) reduction in responsibilities or in the number of direct reports; (4) pay cut or pay freeze; (5) difficulty in getting choice assignments or approval for projects; (6) receipt of “grunt work” and/or seemingly impossible, unreasonable assignments; and (7) disagreements with superiors and peers.

Recognizing these warning signs enables an employee to act prior to being fired—by resolving issues with the employer or by finding new employment. If an employee believes his job is in jeopardy and wishes to leave the company gracefully, an employment lawyer may be able to negotiate an exit strategy. To discuss this issue with an employment lawyer, please contact the lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Signed into Law

03/29/2012 /// (press release)
President George Bush recently signed into law the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”). The GINA prohibits health insurers and employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of genetic information. Group health plans and health insurers may not deny coverage to a person or charge a person higher premiums based solely on the person’s genetic factors. Employers may not use employees’ genetic information when making employment decisions and, with few exceptions, may not request genetic information from employees. Victims of genetic information discrimination must prove intentional discrimination and may seek remedies similar to those provided under Title VII, including both compensatory and punitive damages.

Proponents of the GINA argue that the law is necessary to both ensure that biomedical research continues and to protect individuals’ privacy rights. Opponents argue that the law is overly broad and may result in frivolous litigation. Opponents also argue that the law is premature since it does not appear that employers currently discriminate against employees on the basis of genetic information.

The GINA will take effect eighteen months after being signed into law. Attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group PC advise employers to update employee handbooks, job application forms, training programs, and other materials to reflect compliance with the GINA prior to its effective date. For assistance in preparing for the GINA’s effective date, corporate lawyers, trademark lawyers, employment law attorneys, denied insurance claim lawyers, intellectual property lawyers, employment attorneys, rogge dunn, Donald Trump

### Corporation did not Waive Contractual Right to Arbitration Notwithstanding...

On May 16, 2008, the Supreme Court of Texas held a corporation that spent seven months removing a case to various federal courts before filing an answer in state court with a contemporaneous motion to compel arbitration did not waive its contractual right to arbitration.

In In re Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., --- S.W.3d ---, 2008 WL 2069835 (Tex 5/16/08), Robert and Natalie Nickell - - who had investment accounts with Citigroup and signed agreements to arbitrate any disputes “concerning or arising from” their accounts - - allegedly lost more than $4 million after they invested in WorldCom, Inc. based on research reports by a Citigroup analyst.

The Nickells sued Citigroup in state court. Citigroup immediately removed the case to federal court on the ground that it related to WorldCom’s bankruptcy proceedings; the Nickells countered with a motion to remand. Citigroup then moved to transfer the case to a federal multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) court in New York managing similar WorldCom-related suits against Citigroup and moved to stay the proceedings in federal court pending the MDL panel’s decision - - specifically reserving its defense that “Plaintiffs arbitrate, not litigate, their claims.” Once in the MDL, a stay order excused Citigroup from filing an answer or pleading any defenses.

The Nickells filed another motion to remand in the MDL. Citigroup conceded the jurisdictional battle, agreed to remand the case back to state court, and contemporaneously filed an original answer and motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, and the court of appeals denied mandamus relief on the ground that Citigroup expressly waived arbitration by stating its intent to litigate the dispute. The court of appeals decision rested on Citigroup’s written explanations for the removal and transfer of the case, and the accepted rule that “a party waives an arbitration clause by substantially invoking the judicial process to the other party’s detriment.” Perry Homes v. Cull, --- S.W.3d --- (Tex. 2007).

The Supreme Court of Texas found that Citigroup’s statements regarding this case’s similarity to others already in the MDL, and the potential convenience of the parties and witnesses in consolidated proceedings, were required by statute to justify transfer to the MDL; that its statements about the discovery that could be avoided by transfer to the MDL could reflect an effort to avoid litigation activity rather than duplicate it; and that Citigroup’s transfer to the MDL did not indicate it had abandoned arbitration. The Supreme Court also found that Citigroup’s actual litigation conduct was limited to jurisdictional issues, not the merits of the case - - it did not send or respond to any discovery, conduct any depositions, file any motions (or even an answer) relating to the merits before seeking arbitration, or engage in any “litigation conduct whatsoever other than transferring the case to the federal and MDL courts.” Thus, it held Citigroup did not substantially invoke the judicial process.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted Citigroup’s petition for writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to compel arbitration because the Plaintiffs failed to show Citigroup waived its contractual right to arbitration.

If you would like a copy of this opinion, or more information on the topic, please contact the Dallas Arbitration Lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Creating a Company Dress Code Policy

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

Company dress code policies help ensure that employees report for work dressed appropriately. A strong policy establishes clear guidelines in simple language.

To create an effective policy, an employer should first define its expectations. For example, a policy may state, “An employee should dress in a way that is appropriate given the employee’s duties on a particular day.” If an employer has previously addressed specific issues, the employer may wish to include a list of clothing items that are unacceptable, however, any list should be drafted in a manner indicating that other items may be deemed unacceptable, too. Additionally, if the employer plans to impose consequences for dress code violations, its policy should set out the consequences and detail the procedure to address dress code violations. Further, to avoid violating discrimination laws, an employer should draft its policy to generally allow a clothing item worn for religious reasons, even if the item would not be allowed otherwise. Finally, an employer’s policy should state that the employer reserves the right to amend or modify the dress code policy at any time.

After the policy has been drafted, an employer should distribute a copy to all employees. An employer should also train supervisors and managers to ensure that expectations are consistent and that any issues are handled appropriately and with sensitivity.

If you would like to speak to an employment law attorney about an employment handbook issue or another employment law issue, please contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Employers Should Anticipate "Hot" Vacation Issues

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
With summer’s arrival, employers should address a typically “warm weather” issue: vacations.

During the summer months, many employees want to take time off to spend with their children and to travel. A small business should review its vacation policy to ensure that it addresses all necessary topics. This can help eliminate confusion and complaints of favoritism. A vacation policy should describe:
• how much time off an employee is allowed, how the time is accrued, and whether accrued days carry over into the following year;
• when an employee is allowed to take time off and if a “black out” period exists in which no employee may take time off;
• the process by which an employee gets a vacation approved; and
• how conflicts with other employees’ vacation requests are handled (For example, will the person who first requested time off be granted the time off or will the person with the most seniority be granted the time off?).

A small company should also ensure that its business will run smoothly, no matter who is on vacation. To do so, a business should consider both cross-training employees so that another employee can take over an absent employee’s responsibilities and also hiring temporary help for the summer months.

For assistance in drafting vacation policies, contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Supreme Court Examines Arbitration Dispute

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Texas Supreme Court recently examined an arbitration agreement between an employee and an employer. In re Poly-America, L.P., Ind., No. 04-1049, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008). When hired by Poly-America, Johnny Luna agreed to submit any claims against his employer to arbitration. Luna suffered a work-related injury and was later fired. Luna sued, asserting retaliatory discharge under the Workers’ Compensation Act. After the trial court granted Poly-America’s request for arbitration, Luna sought a writ of mandamus from the appellate court and obtained a ruling that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. Poly-America then sought review by the Texas Supreme Court.

An arbitration agreement covering statutory claims is valid if it does not require a party to waive a statute’s substantive rights and remedies. Here, the arbitration agreement prohibited an award of either punitive damages or reinstatement—key remedies under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Because of this, the Court found those provisions unconscionable and void. The Court next examined a fee-splitting provision and a discovery-limiting provision. The Court concluded that the arbitrator would be better able to determine whether those provisions would hinder Luna from pursuing his statutory rights and thus declined to rule on their enforceability.

Because the agreement contained a severability clause, the Court found that the liability-limiting provisions should be severed from the otherwise enforceable agreement and conditionally granted the writ of mandamus.

To learn more about arbitration agreements, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Arbitrating Employment Disputes

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
An arbitration agreement between an employer and an employee requires the parties to allow an impartial third party (or a panel of neutral decision-makers) to resolve disputes arising between them instead of filing a traditional lawsuit at the courthouse. Typically, an employer requires an employee to sign an arbitration agreement at the outset of the employment relationship, and the employer drafts the agreement broadly enough to require arbitration of all claims that arise out of the employment relationship.

Arbitration can be less expensive and faster than litigation. Further, those who favor arbitration believe arbitration achieves fairer results since a trained arbitrator decides the verdict rather than a potentially emotional jury. Those who criticize arbitration argue that it deprives an employee of a “day in court.”

To begin the arbitration process, a party provides a filing fee to the arbitrator or the arbitration service (such as the American Arbitration Association), and the parties select an arbitrator. Following a brief discovery process, the arbitrator holds a hearing. During this hearing, each party presents evidence. Within a short time following the hearing, the arbitrator issues a decision. This decision is final, and it may be appealed on few grounds.

To speak with an employment law attorney regarding arbitration, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Federal Law Protects an Employee from Religious Discrimination

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

Federal law protects an employee from religious discrimination and prohibits an employer from treating an employee differently because of the employee’s religious beliefs or practices. For example, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may not: treat an employee more or less favorably because of the employee’s religion; force an employee to participate in a religious activity; or allow one employee to harass another on religious grounds. Further, an employer may not retaliate against an employee who: opposes a discriminatory employment practice, complains about discriminatory conduct, or participates in an investigation, internal proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.

An employer is required to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Such accommodations may include flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions, or dress code modifications. For example, an employer may refrain from scheduling an employee to work on the employee’s holy day or relax a dress code so that an employee may wear clothing with religious significance. An employer is not required to make an accommodation if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the business such as increased administrative costs, diminished efficiency, impaired workplace safety, or an increased workload for the accommodated employee’s co-workers.

If you believe you have been discriminated against because of your religion and you would like to discuss the matter with a Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyer, contact the business and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Non-Compete Agreements in Texas

Texas employers and employees alike should understand the laws surrounding non-compete agreements in Texas. Employers frequently require high-level employees to agree not to compete with the employer should the employee leave the company. Such an agreement, referred to as a non-competition agreement or a covenant not to compete, typically restrains a person from engaging in a competing business with a former employer within a certain geographic area for a specified time period. These agreements must comply with the provisions outlined in the Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act and the holdings found in relevant case law.



While courts have historically disfavored non-compete agreements in Texas because these agreements hinder a person’s ability to work, recent developments indicate that Texas courts are now more likely to enforce these agreements, provided the terms are reasonable.



An employee who is asked to sign a non-competition agreement should carefully consider whether the agreement’s terms are reasonable. An employee should also consider hiring a business and employment law lawyer to review the proposed agreement, provide insight into how the agreement could affect the employee in the future, and help negotiate additional terms.



An employer who seeks to enforce a non-competition agreement should draft the agreement’s terms carefully to avoid imposing conditions that a court might consider too restrictive. For this reason, an employer may wish to hire an experienced business and employment law attorney to draft such agreements.



If you would like to discuss non-compete agreements in Texas with a Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyer, contact the business and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.



Media Information:



Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201Phone: 214-888-5000URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### US Supreme Court Holds FAA provides "Exclusive Regime" for Review

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ARBITRATION AWARDS: U.S SUPREME COURT HOLDS FAA PROVIDES “EXCLUSIVE REGIME” FOR REVIEW

More and more, arbitration panels are resolving business litigation — instead of judges and juries. Traditionally, the panels’ decision has been the “end of the road” for the parties, with very limited right of appeal and judicial review under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). For example, Section 10 of the FAA allows vacating an award if it was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means, and where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct or exceeded their powers, and Section 11 allows modifying an award if there was an “evident material miscalculation” or “evident material mistake.” Not surprisingly, some parties attempted to expand the scope of judicial review for an award under the FAA in their arbitration agreements.

In Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., however, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that Sections 10 and 11 of the FAA provide the exclusive regimes for the review provided by the statute for expedited vacatur and modification of arbitration awards under the FAA.

The case involved a lease agreement between Hall Street and Mattel. In the agreement, Mattel agreed to indemnify Hall Street for any costs resulting from Mattel’s or any prior tenant’s failure to follow environmental laws while leasing the premises. During Mattel’s tenancy, tests revealed the prior tenant had contaminated the property’s water well with various environmental pollutants. Mattel subsequently entered into a consent agreement with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to cleanup the property it had leased from Hall Street. Soon thereafter, Mattel gave notice to Hall Street that it was terminating the lease.

Hall Street sued Mattel in federal court in Oregon, claiming it improperly had terminated the lease and was obligated to indemnify Hall Street for costs associated with the environmental cleanup. After Mattel prevailed on the termination issue, the parties unsuccessfully attempted to mediate the indemnification issue — which they ultimately agreed to submit to arbitration. The parties drafted an arbitration agreement which the federal court approved and entered as an order. In relevant part, the arbitration agreement provided that the district court “shall vacate, modify or correct any award: (i) where the arbitrator’s findings of facts are not supported by substantial evidence, or (ii) where the arbitrator’s conclusions of law are erroneous.”

The arbitrator first ruled for Mattel. Hall Street filed a motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award. Pursuant to its authority under the district court-approved arbitration agreement between the parties, the federal district court vacated the award based on legal error by the arbitrator. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held the provisions in the parties’ arbitration agreement which expanded judicial review beyond the grounds specifically enumerated in the FAA were unenforceable, because (1) the FAA does not allow courts to modify or vacate awards for legal error, and (2) parties cannot contractually expand the FAA’s exclusive grounds for modification and vacatur. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit, reasoning that “[i]nstead of fighting the text, it makes more sense to see the three provisions, §§9-11, as substantiating a national policy favoring arbitration with just the limited review needed to maintain arbitration’s essential virtue of resolving disputes straightaway.” Of note, the Court limited its decision to arbitration agreements under the FAA.

If you would like a copy of this opinion, or more information on the topic, please contact the Business Litigators at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Employers Should Rid the Workplace of Bullies

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Unfortunately, workplace bullying occurs at many companies. The cost to employers is obvious: Targeted employees often have higher absenteeism rates and are less productive. Employees who are bullied will almost certainly leave their employer, leading to a high turnover rate.

Bullying takes several forms. A bully may make derogatory remarks, sabotage an employee’s work, or blame mistakes on others. Sometimes bullies spread office rumors or use subtle physical intimidation tactics (such as blocking a doorway) to gain power over victims.

Although several states have moved to enact anti-bullying laws, employers should initiate actions on their own to rid their workplace of bullies. To this end, managers should be trained in handling workplace conflicts with a level approach. All employees should be encouraged to speak to a superior or to a human resources representative if an employee either feels troubled by a workplace relationship or witnesses bullying. Following any such reports, the company should investigate the situation and discipline the bully, if necessary. In addition, some companies may choose to draft specific anti-bullying employment policies, identifying the behaviors that the employer will not tolerate and detailing the consequences for violations.

To speak with an employment law attorney about drafting anti-bullying company policies or other employment policies, please contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Gives Plaintiff a Chance...

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed summary judgment on a race discrimination claim. Lee v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., No. 08-30444 (5th Cir. June 30, 2009), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/08/08-30444-CV0.wpd.pdf. Marcus Lee, an African-American train engineer, sued his former employer for race-based employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge after he was fired for failing to obey a stop signal. The district court granted summary judgment on all claims. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment on the retaliation claims but reversed summary judgment on the discrimination claim.

In a race discrimination matter, a plaintiff must demonstrate, among other factors, that he was treated less favorably because of his race. The Court noted that Lee had to identify a co-worker of another race and show that the employer disciplined the two differently under nearly identical circumstances. Here, the Court focused upon a white engineer who was fired for a similar infraction but who was later reinstated. Because this engineer and Lee held identical positions, compiled a similar number of serious moving violations over a similar time period, and were fired and/or reinstated by the same decision-maker, the Court found that Lee had identified a comparator and that he could proceed to trial.

If you would like to discuss an employment law issue with an employment law attorney, please contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Bell-Ratheon

03/29/2012 // (press release)

A United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently granted summary judgment to an employer in an age discrimination claim. Bell v. Raytheon Co., No. 3:08-CV-0702-G (N.D. Tex. July 31, 2009), available at https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv0702-101. Three employees of Raytheon alleged the company discriminated against them by denying one a promotion, unfairly disciplining another, and giving away the job duties of the third. The employees also alleged that a hostile work environment existed because their boss verbally abused them and treated younger employees more favorably.

The Court first found that no evidence showed the decision not to promote one employee was related to his age. The Court also found that the discipline of the second employee and the reassignment of the third employee’s job duties did not constitute adverse actions upon which age discrimination claims could be based. The Court next examined the collective hostile work environment claim. Because the employees presented no evidence that the alleged verbal abuse was related to their age and because yelling alone is insufficient to state a claim of hostile work environment, the Court granted summary judgment for the employer.

To discuss employment discrimination with an employment lawyer, contact the Dallas employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Navigating the EEOC's Administrative Process

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) enforces federal anti-discrimination laws. Before an employee may file a federal lawsuit against an employer (or former employer) for alleged discrimination, the employee must first file a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. As part of the EEOC process, the EEOC then investigates the Charge and/or attempts to settle or mediate the matter.



The EEOC Proccess



The EEOC will do one of three things: (1) close its file without completing an investigation; (2) conclude that evidence does not establish that the employer violated the law; or (3) conclude that substantial evidence supports the employee’s claim. If the EEOC finds evidence of discrimination, it will attempt conciliation with the employee and the employer and, if that fails, decide whether to file suit in federal court. However, if the EEOC closes its file, is unable to find evidence of a violation, or decides not to file suit, the EEOC will issue a Notice or Right to Sue letter. The employee then has ninety days to file a federal lawsuit regarding the matter. Once that ninety day time period expires, the employee may not pursue a federal lawsuit.



When to Contact an EEOC Lawyer



If you have filed a Charge with the EEOC or if you have received a Right to Sue letter, an employment lawyer may be able to help. For instance, an experienced EEOC lawyer can assist you in successfully navigating the EEOC process or filing a federal discrimination lawsuit. The attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group have years of experience handling the EEOC process. To speak with an employment lawyer who specializes in the EEOC process, contact Rogge Dunn Group today at info@roggedunngroup.com. Our lawyers have the expertise needed to help you navigate the EEOC process from start to finish.



Media Information:



Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201Phone: 214-888-5000URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### When an Employee is Under Investigation at Work

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Employers must investigate perceived discrimination and allegations of criminal activity, even if the initial complaint appears frivolous. An employee who becomes the target of such an investigation may wish to:
• Consult with an attorney. Workplace investigations are serious and may signal the end of an employer/employee relationship. An attorney may be able to provide guidance during the investigation and/or negotiate a severance agreement.
• Review company policies. An employee under investigation should familiarize himself with any applicable policies and alert his employer if the correct protocol is not followed.
• Cooperate and provide truthful answers. An employee has a duty to cooperate during an investigation; failure to do so could result in discharge. An employee should never deliberately deceive his employer or provide dishonest information.
• Learn about the complaint. An employee should ask for details regarding any allegations.
• Bolster the evidence. An employee should submit to the investigator relevant documents and the names of witnesses who could testify on his behalf.
• Avoid retaliation. An employee under investigation usually learns who filed the initial complaint. The employee should refrain from engaging in any conduct that could be viewed as retaliation against the complainant.
• Ask for the results. An employee should ask to review the investigator’s findings and conclusions.

If you would like to speak to an employment lawyer about a workplace investigation, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### EEOC Issues Press Release Regarding 2010 Statistics

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently issued a press release detailing statistics from its fiscal year 2010 (available at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-23-10.cfm). The EEOC is the federal agency charged with enforcing federal civil rights laws that protect America’s workers from discrimination and retaliation, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The EEOC reports that it has both hired more employees and dedicated substantial resources to better train its employees. As a result, the EEOC ended its fiscal year 2010 (in September) with 86,338 pending charges--an increase of less than one percent--despite receiving a record 99,922 charges the same year. The EEOC also reports achieving historic monetary relief for individuals, having secured more than $319 million.

The EEOC also announced that its mediation program resolved a record number of matters and that the agency has expanded its reach to underserved communities by providing educational training and public outreach events to approximately 250,000 people.

The Dallas, Texas employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group regularly resolve charges of discrimination with the EEOC. To speak to a Dallas discrimination lawyer, please contact the employment attorneys at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Internet Privacy in the Employment Context

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

Should an employer be able to fire an employee based upon material that the employee posted on-line? Or, should a company be able to refuse to hire an otherwise qualified job applicant because the applicant posted questionable material on a MySpace account or a personal blog?

Regulation by an employer of an employee’s off-duty behavior brings into conflict competing concerns regarding an employee’s personal freedom and an employer’s need for respectability. Yet in several states, employees (in particular, public school teachers) have been suspended or discharged for posting suspect material on social networking websites. Further, many companies now initially screen job applicants via a peek on social networking websites.

While the limits to which an employer may regulate its employees’ off-duty behavior remain fuzzy, all employees and job applicants should consider this issue. An employee should be mindful of both his position and his employer’s reputation when posting material on-line. Job candidates, especially, should critically examine any material posted on-line and should refrain from posting any pictures or material that could lead prospective employers to form negative perceptions. This includes obviously inappropriate material, such as risqué photographs or descriptions of drunken escapades, but also includes subtle political messages, complaints about an applicant’s current job, or links to friends’ pages that contain questionable material.

For more information regarding Internet privacy issues in the employment context, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Dallas Court of Appeals Rules on Non-Compete Agreement

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently found a confidentiality and non-compete agreement unenforceable for lack of consideration. Powerhouse Prods., Inc. v. Scott, No. 05-07-00700-CV, 2008 WL 3196174 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 8, 2008, no pet. h.).

Since the 1990’s, Eric Scott worked for Powerhouse Productions, Inc., piloting a rocket pack in commercial shows. In 2004, he signed a confidentiality and non-compete agreement, but soon thereafter left Powerhouse to work for a competitor. Powerhouse sued Scott for breaching the agreement.

To be enforceable, a non-compete agreement must be supported by consideration. The contract at issue stated that, in exchange for his agreement not to compete with Powerhouse, Powerhouse would provide Scott with the opportunity to “become” a pilot. Because at the time he signed the agreement Scott had worked as a Powerhouse pilot for years, the trial court concluded that the stated consideration failed as a matter of law.

On appeal, Powerhouse argued that unstated consideration supported the agreement. The Court rejected Powerhouse’s argument that consideration existed in the form of continued opportunities to pilot because continued employment cannot support a non-compete agreement. The Court likewise rejected Powerhouse’s argument that it provided Scott with confidential information and training as consideration; past consideration cannot support a non-compete agreement and evidence failed to show that Powerhouse provided Scott with training or confidential information after he signed the agreement. The Court thus found the agreement unenforceable.

For more information regarding non-compete agreements, contact the employment law attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Negotiating the Best Deal Possible When Leaving a Company

03/29/2012 // (press release)
Although companies are not required to offer severance packages, many choose to. An employee who believes his employment may end soon should be prepared to negotiate the best deal possible.

To do this, an employee should review relevant documents such as an employment contract, employee handbook, communications, or other documents that may provide insight into how a potential severance package might be structured. For example, the parties may have provided for this in an employment contract or the company may have a policy that dictates severance pay.

Severance benefits vary in amount and type, depending upon, among other factors, the employee’s position, the company’s size and financial well-being, and the circumstances surrounding the employee’s departure. Possible severance package benefits include: money reflecting base salary for a particular time period, bonus money or commissions, stock options, payment for unused vacation time, renegotiation of a non-compete agreement, and positive future employment references. In exchange for a separation agreement, an employer typically requires a departing employee to release any claims against the company. Thus, if an employee believes that he has potential claims that may be more valuable than the proposed agreement, the employee could use this factor as leverage in his negotiation and/or could consult with an attorney to discuss other options.

Lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group PC regularly negotiate separation agreements for departing employees. For assistance in negotiating a severance package, contact the Dallas employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Just What is Sexual Harassment?

03/29/2012 // (press release)
All too often, an employee questions whether certain actions or words constitute sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It exists in two forms:
• “Quid pro quo” harassment occurs when an employee’s superior bases an employment decision on the employee’s submission to or rejection of sexual conduct. For example, if an employee’s boss demands sexual favors in exchange for the employee’s promotion or threatens to fire an employee who refuses sexual advances, sexual harassment has occurred. Only a person with supervisory authority can perpetrate quid pro quo harassment.
• Hostile environment harassment occurs when sexual conduct is so severe that it creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. Harassing behavior may include: unwelcome sexual advances, sexual jokes, comments about a person’s body, or inappropriate touching. The conduct must be: (1) subjectively offensive to the victim and (2) objectively offensive to a reasonable person. Hostile environment harassment may be perpetrated by an employee’s superior and/or co-worker.

Men and women can be both victims and harassers, and harassment may occur in same sex situations. Further, anyone offended by the sexual conduct may be a victim; the victim need not be the person actually targeted.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas employment law attorney contact the Dallas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group PC at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Receiving a Dismissal Notice from the EEOC

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Employees and former employees may file charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding workplace discrimination and/or retaliation. If the parties decline to mediate their dispute, the EEOC will investigate the matter to determine whether a violation of employment law occurred. If the EEOC is unable to determine that a violation occurred, it will send the individual a dismissal and notice of rights letter (often called a “notice of right to sue” letter). This letter serves as notice that the EEOC is closing its file on the matter and that the individual has permission to sue on the claims alleged in the charge.

An individual has only ninety days to file a lawsuit following receipt of a notice of right to sue letter. Therefore, an individual who wishes to move forward with a lawsuit must act quickly to hire employment law counsel and file the necessary pleadings with the proper court.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas employment lawyer about employment discrimination or retaliation or about a charge pending before the EEOC, contact the Dallas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### An Employer May Not Retaliate Against Employees

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who complains about workplace discrimination, participates in a discrimination proceeding, or otherwise opposes discrimination.

The statute protects employees who engage in “protected activities” such as: complaining about alleged discrimination; cooperating with an internal investigation into alleged discriminatory practices; or serving as a witness in discrimination litigation. If an employee engages in a protected activity, an employer may not take an “adverse action” against the employee in retaliation for the employee’s protected activity. Adverse actions include: termination, demotion, or any other action that a reasonable employee would find to be materially adverse (and hence would dissuade a reasonable employee from engaging in a protected activity).

To prove a retaliation claim, an employee must prove that: (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) he was subjected to an adverse action; and (3) a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action exists. An employer may then rebut the employee’s claim by showing that a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action exists. If the employer provides evidence of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action, the employee must show that the employer’s stated reason is pretext only and that retaliation actually motivated the adverse action.

If you believe you have been retaliated against by your employer and you would like to speak to an employment law attorney, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### United States Supreme Court Places Burden of Proof on Employers

03/29/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
Knolls, a government contractor, reduced its work force. It used established criteria to determine which employees to lay off. With one exception, the discharged employees were age 40 or older. The former employees sued, alleging Knolls violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") because the process it used to determine which employees to dismiss had a disparate impact on older workers. The company asserted that the factors it considered in making those decisions were "reasonable factors other than age" ("RFOA"). If true, the company would not be liable to the former employees.

The Supreme Court examined which party had to prove or disprove whether the factors considered by the company in deciding which employees to lay off were RFOA. The Court found that this burden belonged to the employer. The Court based its decision in large part upon the ADEA’s text and phrasing.

In light of this holding, an employer considering a reduction in force should carefully craft the criteria to be used in termination decisions to avoid a disparate impact on older workers. For assistance in conducting a reduction in force, contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Labor and Employment Alert

03/17/2012 //  (press release)
Recent amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) require employers to provide nursing mothers with adequate break times and space in which to express breast milk. This law requires employers to provide “reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for one (1) year after the child’s birth each time such employee has need to express the milk.” This provision also requires employers to provide “a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public, which may be used by an employee to express breast milk.”

The Department of Labor (DOL) has issued Wage and Hour Fact Sheet #73 to help employers with the compliance of this new law: “Break Time for Nursing Mothers Under the FLSA.” A list of Frequently Asked Questions has also been posted on the DOL’s website.

Are you required to comply? Do you have to pay nursing mothers for break time?

To speak to an employment law attorney about the creation and distribution of a lactation policy, employee handbook or other employer-related document that contains such policies, contact the Dallas employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Regional and State Unemployment in 2011

03/16/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics recently issued a news release regarding the 2011 averages for regional and state unemployment statistics.

According to the news release, annual average unemployment rates declined in 48 states and rose in 2 states and the District of Columbia. Eight of the nine geographic divisions reported statistically significant decreases in unemployment rates in 2011. For the fourth year in a row, the Pacific area recorded the highest unemployment rate (11 percent in 2011).

Employment-population ratios (the proportion of the civilian population 16 years old or older with a job) decreased in 24 states and the District of Columbia, increased in 19 states, and remained unchanged in 7 states. West Virginia reported the lowest employment-population ratio, 49.5 percent; this state has held the lowest employment-population ratio each year since 1976.

The overall jobless rate in the United States in 2011 was 8.9 percent, and the overall employment-population ratio was 58.4 percent.

The attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group represent employers in employment-related matters, including those regarding unemployment issues. To speak to a Dallas, Texas employment lawyer about an employment law matter, contact the employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC via email at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com or telephone at 214-888-5000.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Texas Supreme Court Addresses Jury Trial Waiver in an Employment Law Matter

03/15/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)
The Texas Supreme Court recently held that a threat to fire an at-will employee for refusing to sign a jury waiver does not amount to coercion that would invalidate the jury waiver agreement. In re Frank Kent Motor Co., No. 10-0687 (Tex. March 9, 2012), available at http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2012/mar/100687.pdf.

The at-will employee had worked for the employer for twenty-eight years. Although he initially resisted signing a jury waiver that would require him to forego a jury trial in a dispute with his employer, he immediately signed the jury waiver after his supervisor warned him that he would be fired if he did not. Almost a year later, the employee was terminated. He sued and demanded a jury trial. The employer moved to strike the jury demand, and the trial court denied this motion.

The employee argued that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting him a jury trial because he was coerced into signing the jury waiver by his supervisor’s threat of termination. The Court disagreed: because the employer had the right to fire the employee for almost any reason, including his refusal to sign the jury waiver, threatening to terminate him for failing to sign the waiver could not amount to coercion.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas employment lawyer about an employment-related legal issue, contact the employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC via email at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com or telephone at 214-888-5000.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for Employer

03/04/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group  // (press release)

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed summary judgment for an employer in a discrimination case. Jackson v. Cal-W. Packaging Corp., No. 09-20411 (5th Cir. March 2, 2010), available here.

The plaintiff sued his former employer for age discrimination after allegedly being fired for non-compliance with the company’s sexual harassment policy. The employer moved for summary judgment. The plaintiff asserted that a factual issue existed as to whether the employer’s stated reason for the discharge was pretextual because, among other things, a supervisor referred to the plaintiff as an “old, gray-haired fart.” The lower court granted summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed.

The Court explained that comments are only evidence of discrimination if the comments are: (1) related to the plaintiff’s protected class; (2) proximate in time to the adverse employment decision (here, the termination); (3) made by a person with authority over the adverse employment decision; and (4) related to the adverse employment decision. Comments that do not meet this standard are considered “stray remarks” and are insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Here, the comment was made about a year before the termination and appeared unrelated to the termination. Thus, alone, this comment was insufficient to establish a triable issue of fact as to pretext. The Court affirmed the summary judgment.

To speak to a Dallas discrimination and retaliation lawyer, please contact the Texas employment law lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### EEOC Launches Small Business Task Force to Focus on Improving Outreach

02/24/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group // (press release)
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency charged with enforcing the federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination, recently announced that it has launched an internal task force that will focus on expanding and improving its outreach efforts and technical assistance to small businesses. The task force will strive to find ways in which the EEOC can better collaborate with small business owners to ensure compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws.

Specifically, the task force will develop recommendations on how to:
• Utilize new technology to expand outreach;
• Develop technical assistance and training initiatives;
• Identify specialized approaches to aid small businesses owned by women and minorities;
• Identify specialized approaches for businesses with fewer than 50 employees; and
• Enhance small business information and training on the EEOC’s website.

Many small business owners struggle to find the time and resources to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws. They may also mistakenly believe these laws do not apply to their businesses. But, for example, the Equal Pay Act applies to virtually all employers and both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act apply to employers who have at least 15 employees.

To speak to a Texas employment law attorney about an employer’s legal obligations under state and federal anti-discrimination laws, please contact the employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group PC via email at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com or telephone at 214-888-5000.

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### United States Supreme Court Rules on Employment Matter

02/20/2012 // Rogge Dunn Group // (press release)
The United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar lawsuits brought by ministers against churches if the ministers claim to have been terminated in violation of employment discrimination laws. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC et al., No. 10-553, (Jan. 11, 2012), available here.

Here, a church school employed a teacher as a "called" teacher and a commissioned minister. In addition to teaching secular courses, she taught a religion class and participated in chapel services. After taking disability leave, the teacher was told that her position had been filled. She threatened legal action, and the school fired her. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued, claiming the church school discharged the teacher in retaliation for threatening to bring a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Court recognized that a ministerial exception to employment discrimination laws exists. If the government required a church to retain an unwanted minister or punished a church for failing to do so, that action would interfere with the internal governance of the church. Here, the teacher was a minister within the ministerial exception because both the church school and the teacher held her out as a minister, her title required significant religious training and formal commissioning, and her job duties carried out the church’s mission.

To discuss an employment law matter with an employment law specialist, contact the Dallas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group at info@roggedunngroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Arbitration Provision in an Employee

02/18/2012 //
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled on an arbitration provision in an employee handbook. Carey v. 24 Hour Fitness, USA, Inc., No. 10-20845 (5th Cir. Jan. 25, 2012), available here. The defendant employer issued an employee handbook that contained a provision requiring all employment-related disputes to be resolved through arbitration. The plaintiff employee signed an acknowledgment indicating that he received the handbook.

Later, the plaintiff filed an employment-related class action lawsuit against his former employer. The employer requested that the district court compel arbitration. The district court denied this request because it agreed with the plaintiff that the arbitration agreement was illusory. The employer appealed.

On appeal, the Court affirmed the judgment. Under Texas law, an arbitration clause is illusory if one party can avoid its promise to arbitrate by amending the provision or terminating it. Here, the acknowledgment signed by the plaintiff gave the employer the right to revise, delete, and add to the employee handbook. Because the employer could thus alter the arbitration agreement unilaterally, the agreement was illusory and the employer could not compel arbitration.

To speak to a Texas employment law attorney about an employment law issue, contact the Dallas employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Texas Supreme Court Rules on Workers’ Compensation Coverage Issue

02/09/2012 //  (press release)
The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled on a workers’ compensation coverage issue. Port Elevator-Brownsville, L.L.C. v. Casados, No. 10-0523 (Tex. Jan. 27, 2012), available here. The plaintiffs’ son suffered a fatal work-related injury while working as a temporary worker for Port Elevator. The plaintiffs did not seek workers’ compensation benefits from Port Elevator’s insurer, and, instead, sued Port Elevator for negligence. The plaintiffs obtained a jury award of $2.5 million. The appellate court affirmed this award. Port Elevator appealed, arguing that the Texas workers’ compensation scheme provided the exclusive remedy for the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs argued several reasons why Port Elevator’s workers’ compensation insurance policy did not cover their son: (1) Port Elevator did not pay premiums for temporary workers; (2) their son was not covered by a code classification; and (3) Port Elevator’s insurer denied coverage. The Court addressed each argument. It then concluded that Port Elevator subscribed to workers’ compensation insurance and that the plaintiffs’ son was covered by that insurance. Therefore, the Court found that the remedy provided by the Texas workers’ compensation scheme was the exclusive remedy for the plaintiffs’ son’s injury and that the plaintiffs’ lawsuit against Port Elevator was barred. The Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court and rendered judgment for Port Elevator.

To discuss a labor or employment law issue with a Texas employment lawyer, contact the Dallas employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules for Plaintiff in Same-Sex

01/25/2012 //  (press release)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled for the plaintiff in a same-sex sexual harassment matter. Cherry v. Shaw Coastal, Inc., No. 11-30403 (5th Cir. Jan. 19, 2012), available at here. A supervisor sent the plaintiff sexually charged text messages and regularly touched the plaintiff. Both the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s immediate supervisor complained to management. When the company failed to take action, the plaintiff resigned and sued. The jury found for the plaintiff, but the district court overturned the jury’s verdict. The plaintiff appealed.

The Court stated that a plaintiff may support a claim of same-sex harassment by providing credible evidence that the harasser is homosexual, such as evidence that the harasser intended to have sexual contact with the plaintiff or evidence that the harasser made same-sex sexual advances to others. Here, the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that the harasser’s conduct was severe and pervasive as well as sexual in nature; one text message could be taken as an explicit sexual proposition and the harasser repeatedly touched and caressed the plaintiff. Evidence also supported the jury’s finding that the employer did not take prompt remedial action to end the harassment. The Court vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case to the district court with directions to enter a judgment on the verdict.

To discuss an employment law matter with a labor and employment law attorney, contact the Dallas employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division Issues Fact

01/13/2012 //(press release)
The United States Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division released a Fact Sheet last month regarding retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). This division administers and enforces the FLSA.

The FLSA regulates wages and hours of work for many employers. All covered nonexempt employees must be paid at least federal minimum wage for all hours worked and must receive overtime pay at one and one half times the regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

The FLSA also protects workers who allege their employers have violated the FLSA. It prohibits an employer from discharging or in any other manner discriminating against an employee because the employee filed a complaint, instituted a proceeding under or relating to the FLSA, testified or will testify in any such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee.

An employee who has been retaliated against may file a retaliation complaint with the Wage and Hour Division or may file a private cause of action seeking appropriate remedies, including employment, reinstatement, lost wages, and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.

To speak to an employment law attorney about compliance with the FLSA, contact the Dallas employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Federal False Claims Act Issue

01/11/2012 // (press release)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the plaintiff in a False Claims Act retaliation matter. Riddle v. Dyncorp Int’l, Inc., et al, No. 11-10155 (5th Cir. Jan. 5, 2012), available here.

The plaintiff brought a retaliation suit pursuant to the federal False Claims Act 178 days after his employment terminated. The district court, borrowing the ninety-day statute of limitations from the Texas Whistleblower Act, held that the complaint was untimely filed and dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiff appealed this decision, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment.

Because the federal False Claims Act contained no statute of limitations, to determine if the complaint was timely filed, the district court had to apply the most closely analogous state statute of limitations. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the district court’s selection of the Texas Whistleblower Act, however, and found the analogy between the False Claims Act and the Texas Whistleblower Act lacking. First, the state statute creates a cause of action available only to public employees. Second, it contemplates administrative remedies intervening to stop the running of the short limitations period.

Instead, the Court held that the most analogous Texas statute of limitations is the two-year period applied in personal injury cases. Because the plaintiff filed the lawsuit within two years after his termination, his claim was timely filed.

To speak to an employment law attorney about workplace retaliation, contact the Dallas employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Texas Trade Secret Attorney Insight: Employers Must Take Steps to Protect Their Trade Secrets

No employer wants to litigate a case involving the theft of its trade secrets, but employees can and do walk away from companies with confidential information. To avoid these situations, a Texas trade secret attorney will advise an employer to implement proper trade secret protection initiatives. Doing so may prevent an employee from stealing confidential information; if not, it will likely put the employer in a better position should trade secret litigation be necessary.



Trade Secret Protection Checklist



First, an employer must identify the company’s trade secrets and stamp them "confidential". The employer must ensure that employees understand they are to keep trade secrets confidential. An employer should be careful not to “over-identify” documents and items as trade secrets. Indiscriminately marking documents as confidential could weaken the employer’s argument for items and documents that truly are trade secrets.



It's also important to utilize security measures, such as computer passwords and locked cabinets, to restrict access to confidential material. Only those who need such information to perform their jobs should have access. An employer may need to take measures to prevent an employee from downloading confidential information onto an external drive or from emailing the information to an outside email account. Finally, an employer should create a termination check-list. This ensures that when an employee leaves the company, the employer can ensure that all confidential information has been returned.



To speak to a trade secret lawyer about implementing trade secret protection initiatives or anything else involving confidential information, contact the Dallas employment and business lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Summary Judgment

12/30/2011 // (press release)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a summary judgment for an employer in a race discrimination case. Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, No. 11-60102 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2011), available here.

Although she received a favorable performance review, the plaintiff was fired for “unsatisfactory conduct” after the employer conducted a “climate survey” of the workplace. The plaintiff established a prima facie case, so the employer had to proffer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for firing the plaintiff. The employer presented evidence that the plaintiff made inappropriate comments that created a perception of racial discrimination and a lack of confidentiality.

The plaintiff then offered evidence to rebut the employer’s proffered reason for the termination. This included evidence that the employer never expressed concern over the plaintiff’s conduct prior to the climate survey even though the employer was aware of each of the alleged occurrences well before then. The Court concluded that this rebuttal evidence cast doubt on the employer’s proffered reason for firing the plaintiff and undermined its credibility. Because a jury could draw inferences from this evidence and reasonably conclude that the employer intentionally exaggerated its concern over the plaintiff’s conduct, summary judgment was inappropriate.

To discuss a potential race discrimination matter with an employment law specialist, contact the Dallas employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Employment Law Mistake: Misclassifying Employees as Independent Contractors

12/23/2011 // (press release)
In these tough economic times, many companies attempt to cut costs by hiring independent contractors instead of employees. Using independent contractors can be financially advantageous since a company that hires an independent contractor does not pay certain taxes, health benefits, unemployment compensation insurance, or workers’ compensation insurance. But, while many employers hire independent contractors legally, some employers attempt to skirt the law by merely misclassifying their employees as independent contractors.

The United States Department of Labor recognizes this presents a serious problem for the affected workers since the workers are often denied benefits and other protections, such as family and medical leave, overtime compensation, and minimum wage. Employee misclassification also generates losses to the United States Treasury and the Social Security and Medicare funds.

Therefore, the Department of Labor has launched a Misclassification Initiative to combat this problem. The Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service have entered into an agreement to share information, and eleven states have signed similar agreements with federal agencies to better coordinate enforcement efforts.

Companies that are found to have misclassified workers expose themselves to liability for back wages, employment taxes, and penalties. For more information regarding the classification of workers, contact the Dallas employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### End-of-Year Employment Law Considerations

12/22/2011 // (press release)
Many companies are scrambling right now to get through the busiest part of the year and to resolve end-of-year financial issues. That said, this time is ideal for a company’s human resources team to review the company’s employment files, policies, and practices and to make changes for the upcoming year.

The human resources team should review all employment policies and the employee handbook each year. By conducting a thorough review, a company can determine which policies remain effective. If a policy and the practice regarding the policy vary, the company can change one or both accordingly.

A company will likely wish to make a quick call to an employment law attorney to make sure that any changes in employment laws are reflected in both the handbook and in the company’s practices. If significant changes have been made, the company may wish to schedule a training session with an employment law attorney to ensure that all management-level employees understand the changes and can relay the information to other workers.

The human resources team should also review employment files to make sure the files contain all critical documents. Finally, the human resources team should ensure that all employment-related posters that must be posted by law remain posted and in good shape.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas employment lawyer about end-of-year employment law considerations, contact the Dallas employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Department of Labor Oversees Enforcement of Many Laws

12/14/2011 // (press release)
The United States Department of Labor administers and enforces more than 180 federal laws that cover workplace activities for approximately 10 million employers and 125 million workers.

A few of the most commonly applied laws administered by the Department of Labor include:
• Fair Labor Standards Act. This law prescribes standards for wages and overtime pay and applies to most private and public employers.
• Occupational Safety and Health Act. This law regulates safety and health conditions in most private industries.
• Federal Employees' Compensation Act. This law establishes a workers' compensation program to pay for the disability or death of a federal employee resulting from injuries sustained while at work.
• Employee Retirement Income Security Act. This law regulates employers who offer pension or welfare benefit plans to their employees.
• Family and Medical Leave Act. This law requires certain employers to give eligible employees unpaid, job-protected leave for the birth or adoption of a child or for the serious illness of the employee or the employee’s spouse, child, or parent.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas employment lawyer about a particular employment-related federal statute or about an employment-related legal problem, contact the Dallas employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Examines Workers’ Compensation Benefits

12/08/2011 //  (press release)
Following a collision that rendered him paraplegic, an employee was paid workers’ compensation benefits. He and his wife sued several third parties for causing the wreck. His employer intervened to protect its subrogation rights for the workers’ compensation benefits it had paid to the employee. Following a vacated jury verdict, the parties settled. The trial court then allocated the settlement proceeds between the employee and his wife. The employer appealed this allocation, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed it in Hodges v. Indiana Mills & Manufacturing Inc., No. 10-41152 (5th Cir. Nov. 29, 2011), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/10/10-41152.0.wpd.pdf.

Texas law requires that the first money recovered by an injured worker from a tortfeasor go to the workers’ compensation carrier. The trier of fact must allocate a settlement according to the relative merits and worth of the claims involved. Here, the district court found that the plaintiffs’ claims were of equal merit but that the wife’s claims were worth approximately one-fourth as much as the employee’s claims. The employer argued that the vacated jury verdict awarding the wife zero damages should trump the district court’s evaluation of other evidence. The Court disagreed and concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s finding. It affirmed the settlement allocation.

To speak to Dallas employment law specialists about workers’ compensation benefits, contact the Dallas employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### EEOC Ends Fiscal Year on a High Note

12/02/2011 // (press release)
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency responsible for enforcing the nation’s anti-discrimination laws, issued a press release following the close of its fiscal year 2011. According to the press release, the EEOC finished its fiscal year with a ten percent decrease in its pending charge inventory. This decrease is the first such reduction since 2002.

The EEOC also reported that it achieved the highest ever monetary amounts through administrative enforcement, more than $364.6 million in monetary benefits for victims of workplace discrimination. The EEOC also received a record number of charges of discrimination (99,947).

The EEOC reports that, due to its enforcement programs in both the private and federal sectors, 5.4 million people benefited from changes in employment policies or practices. In addition, the EEOC’s public outreach and education programs reached approximately 540,000 people directly. The EEOC’s private sector national mediation program also achieved success, obtaining more than $170 million in monetary benefits for individuals and securing the highest number of resolutions ever.

The EEOC continues to build a strong national systemic enforcement program. In 2011, it filed 261 lawsuits, 23 of which involved systemic allegations affecting large numbers of people.

To speak to a Dallas discrimination law attorney about the handling of an EEOC charge of discrimination, contact the Dallas employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Non-Disparagement Clauses in Employment-Related Settlement Agreements

11/30/2011 // (press release)
Employment law attorneys frequently include non-disparagement clauses in settlement agreements that resolve litigation between employers and former employees and in severance agreements between employers and departing employees. In a typical non-disparagement clause, one party agrees not to make any statements, either written or verbal, that disparage or criticize the other party.

In agreeing to a non-disparagement clause, a party agrees not to disparage the other party in exchange for the stated consideration. In some situations, the stated consideration is money; an employer agrees to pay an employee a certain sum for the employee’s promise not to speak ill of the company. In other situations, the parties both promise not to disparage the other, and the reciprocal promises serve as consideration.

Proving damages in an action alleging the breach of a non-disparagement clause can be difficult. Therefore, some employment law attorneys include a liquidated damages provision. A liquidated damages provision requires a party to pay a certain amount for each breach of the non-disparagement clause.

To speak to Dallas, Texas employment law attorneys who regularly draft and review employment-related settlement agreements and severance agreements, contact the Dallas employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### It’s the Season: Time Off for Holidays in Texas

11/18/2011 //(press release)
With the holidays rapidly approaching, employers and employees alike may be asking questions about holiday pay and time off for special days. Although many employers offer paid holidays to their employees as a benefit, no Texas or federal law actually mandates that employees be paid for taking time off to celebrate a holiday.

The Fair Labor Standards Act does not require employers to pay workers who are not exempt from its provisions for time that these workers did not work. Therefore, if an employee does not work on a holiday, either because the employee took the day off or because the employer opted to close the business for the day, the employer need not compensate the employee for that day.

Further, no Texas or federal law requires employers to provide employees with time off on holidays; employers may require employees to work any day of the year. Finally, no law requires an employer to pay its employees who work on holidays at increased “holiday pay” rates.

To avoid misunderstandings this holiday season, employers should establish their holiday policies and ensure that all employees understand them. Managers should discuss any scheduling issues in advance. Often, a little flexibility from an employer goes a long way towards keeping employees content and productive.

For more information about business and employment law, contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### EEOC Files Age Discrimination Lawsuit Against Texas Roadhouse

11/17/2011 //  (press release)
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency charged with enforcing the federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination, recently issued a press release regarding its decision to file suit against Texas Roadhouse, a restaurant chain.

According to the EEOC, Texas Roadhouse has engaged in a nationwide pattern of age discrimination in hiring hourly “front of the house” employees. The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits an employer from denying a job to a qualified applicant who is over the age of 40 on account of the applicant’s age.

The EEOC alleges that Texas Roadhouse has hired few “front of the house” employees who are over the age of 40 and has instructed its managers to hire younger applicants. Texas Roadhouse hiring officials also allegedly told applicants that they “seem older to be applying” for particular jobs and that “there are younger people here who can grow with the company.” The EEOC noted that applicants are rarely told that they have been denied a job because of their age and that the EEOC acts aggressively to remedy a violation when it uncovers evidence that an applicant’s age motivated an employer to refuse to hire an otherwise qualified applicant.

Discriminating against a worker based on the worker’s age is illegal. To discuss age discrimination with a discrimination lawyer, contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Releases Information

11/08/2011 //(press release)
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics conducted a program, the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, to determine the number of fatal work injuries recorded in the United States. According to the results, a preliminary total of 4,547 workers sustained fatal work injuries in 2010. This amounts to a rate of 3.5 deaths per 100,000 full-time workers. The news release is available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.nr0.htm.

Broken out by industry, some industries, such as the private mining industry, reported substantial rises in fatal work injuries while other industries, such as the private construction sector, recognized declines. Work-related fatalities resulting from fires more than doubled.

Most employers engaged in industries that are known to be high-risk (such as the construction, mining, and transportation industries) implement numerous strategies and programs to ensure the safety of their workers. However, all employers need to be aware that fatal injuries can occur in low-risk situations, too. For example, employees may be fatally injured in car accidents while traveling on sales calls or fatally injured in workplace fires. Therefore, all employers should take steps to promote the safety of their workers.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas business and employment attorney about an employer’s responsibilities to ensure a safe workplace or about another workplace legal matter, contact the business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### EEOC Posts Guidance Regarding Americans with Disabilities Act

11/04/2011 // (press release)
The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits an employer from discriminating against a qualified individual on the basis of a disability. Many employers struggle to interpret and apply this law, especially in light of amendments made by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. Fortunately, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the governmental agency charged with enforcing federal laws that prohibit discrimination, provides helpful resources on its website.

One such resource is “The Americans With Disabilities Act: Applying Performance and Conduct Standards to Employees with Disabilities.” This resource provides practical guidance, including examples, to demonstrate an employer’s responsibilities when performance and conduct problems arise concerning a disabled employee. This publication discusses the role of reasonable accommodations in preventing or addressing performance or conduct problems and the circumstances in which an accommodation should be granted. It covers topics such as attendance issues, dress code violations, alcohol use, and confidentiality concerns.

This publication uses a question and answer format to address questions employers might raise. For example, the publication addresses whether an employer may use the same evaluation criteria for employees with disabilities as for employees without disabilities and whether an employer may discipline an employee if the employee’s disability caused a violation of a conduct rule.

To speak to a Dallas attorney about the Americans with Disabilities Act or about a disability law issue, contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Fifth Circuit Affirms Judgment for Employer in Disability Case

11/02/2011 //(press release)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a decision for an employer in a disability case. Griffin v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 10-30854 (5th Cir. Oct. 19, 2011), available here.

Following leave and because his previous position had been filled, an employee was assigned to an overnight shift. The employee sent an “Accommodation Request” and stated that his doctors required him to work daytime hours to accommodate his diabetes. The employer denied the request. The employee retired, sued, and then appealed the trial court’s summary judgment for the employer.

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employment discrimination against a qualified individual on the basis of his disability. In this case, the Court concluded that the employee was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Further, even if he were, the Court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that the employer was unwilling to, in good faith, participate in an interactive process to reasonably accommodate the employee’s needs. The ADA provides a right to a reasonable accommodation, not a right to the employee’s preferred accommodation. Here, the employee’s doctors suggested that a daytime shift would be preferable but did not state that it was necessary. Because the employee terminated the interactive process by retiring, the Court could not determine what measures may have been taken had the discussions continued.

To speak to a Dallas attorney about a disability law issue, contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Current Employment Law Issue: Fired Over Facebook

10/21/2011 // (press release)
Social media use has exploded in recent years, leaving employers and employees alike wondering about the contours of novel legal issues. Employers and employees may wonder whether an employer may prevent an employee from posting about the employer, whether an employer may prevent an employee from posting items it deems inappropriate, and what disciplinary measures an employer may use when an employee violates its social media policy. Navigating the use of social media requires employers and employees to balance the potentially competing interests of an employer’s need to protect itself and an employee’s right to free expression.

According to a recent news article, a judge in Georgia recently ruled against a former school teacher who allegedly lost her job because of a Facebook post. The teacher resigned from her position after she was told that someone claiming to be a parent complained because she had posted pictures of herself holding alcoholic drinks while on a trip to Europe. The plaintiff sued to get her job back, but the judge issued a summary judgment decision for the employer.

Social media use by employees remains a hot topic and will likely remain so for years to come as employers and employees map out the boundaries of acceptable social media use. To speak to a Dallas-based business and employment law attorney about creating a social media policy, contact the business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### EEOC Enters Into National Mediation Agreements With Employers

10/20/2011 //  (press release)
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently issued a press release detailing its National Universal Agreement to Mediate with Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. The press release is available at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-27-11.cfm. More than 200 national and regional private sector employers, including several Fortune 500 companies, have entered into similar mediation agreements with the EEOC. These mediation agreements provide non-adversarial frameworks for employers to resolve workplace disputes with employees. Such agreements can save employers the expense and the time of going through the EEOC investigation process and can help employers avoid discrimination lawsuits.

The EEOC is the federal agency charged with enforcing the federal laws that make it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees. The EEOC’s mediation process can help an employer and an employee resolve issues related to employment discrimination informally and confidentially. The EEOC’s mediation process avoids the risks associated with a courtroom trial and allows an employer and an employee to reach a solution that benefits both parties.

Since implementing the EEOC’s National Mediation Program in 1999, more than 136,000 charges of employment discrimination have been mediated. Nearly 70% of those mediations resulted in a successful resolution. The EEOC remains focused on expanding its mediation efforts to improve its overall efficiency and effectiveness.

For more information about mediating a business and employment law dispute or to speak with a business and employment law mediator and lawyer, contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Private Employers Can Learn from Federal Government’s Guide to Telework

10/14/2011 // (press release)
The United States Office of Personnel Management recently published a Guide to Telework in the Federal Government. It is intended to provide practical information to assist federal agencies implement telework arrangements with their employees. Telework (also known as telecommuting or working remotely) provides a way for employees to work from a different location. The benefits include decreased real estate costs for employers and increased flexibility for employees. Employment law legal risks do exist, so an employer should not jump into a telework arrangement without considering a few key issues.

A private employer who plans to implement a telework policy may wish to review the government’s publication since it outlines some initial issues an employer should consider. Such considerations include:
• Communication expectations (whether the employee will be available by telephone or e-mail and the expected time frame for the employee to respond to messages)
• Equipment needed by the employee to work off-site
• Security measures to protect sensitive data or other confidential information
• Training for teleworkers
• Eligibility for telework arrangements (whether based on past performance or other factors)
• Safety issues
• Whether a written agreement is needed to set forth the expectations and understandings of the employer and employee

To speak with a DFW business and employment lawyer about setting up a telework arrangement or about another business or employment law matter, contact the business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Holds that a Hostile Work Environment Claim Based

10/07/2011 // (press release)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently determined that a plaintiff’s age-based hostile work environment claim could be advanced. Dediol v. Best Chevrolet, Inc. No. 10-30767 (5th Cir. Sept. 12, 2011), available here.

Over a two-month period, the plaintiff’s supervisor made daily age-based and religion-based comments to the plaintiff. The plaintiff quit work and filed suit, alleging a hostile work environment claim based on age, religion harassment, and constructive discharge. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer. The plaintiff appealed.

The Court noted that it had never before held that Title VII could be extended to address a claim for hostile work environment based on age. The Court then determined that a plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim based on age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act can proceed if the plaintiff establishes: (1) he was over the age of 40; (2) he was subjected to harassment, either through words or actions, based on age; (3) the nature of the harassment was such that it created an objectively intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (4) there exists some basis for liability on the part of the employer. Here, the Court found that genuine issues of material fact existed. It ruled that summary judgment was granted in error and reversed the trial court’s judgment.

To speak with a Texas employment lawyer about age discrimination or religion discrimination under federal or state law, contact the Dallas employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### EEOC Issues Press Release Regarding Impact of 9/11 on Employment Discrimination

10/06/2011 // (press release)
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency charged with enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against employees, recently issued a press release regarding the effect of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 on employment discrimination.

In the initial months after 9/11, the EEOC saw a 250% increase in the number of religion-based discrimination charges involving Muslims. The EEOC created a special code to track charges related to 9/11 from people who were, or were perceived to be, Muslim, Arab, Afghani, Middle Eastern, or South Asian, or from people who alleged retaliation related to 9/11. And, in the ten years since the terrorist attacks, the EEOC has filed more than 80 lawsuits alleging backlash discrimination.

Following the attacks, the agency conducted vigorous outreach and education programs for employers and employees. It created fact sheets on immigrant employee rights and on discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, or country of origin and translated these fact sheets into several languages. EEOC staff members met with members of certain ethnic groups and traveled to mosques, churches, and community centers to provide counseling and to take charges. The EEOC remains vigilant in ensuring employers and employees are aware of their rights and responsibilities under the federal laws enforced by the EEOC.

To speak with a Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyer about employment discrimination under federal or state law, contact the business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Finder’s Fee Agreement Under Texas Law

09/29/2011 //  (press release)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed finder’s fees under Texas law. CB Legal Search, L.L.C. v. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith, L.L.P., No. 11-20127 (5th Cir. Sept. 16, 2011), available here.

In 2006, a legal recruiter introduced LBBS, a law firm, to two partners at BRG, another law firm. The two partners declined LBBS’s employment offers. In 2009, CB Legal Search, a different legal recruiter, helped negotiate the transfer to LBBS of several partners at BRG (including the two partners who contemplated a move in 2006). Ultimately, LBBS decided not to hire the group, but LBBS continued negotiations with the two BRG partners it recruited in 2006. When LBBS announced that it had acquired those two BRG partners and their associates, CB Legal Search sued to recover its finder’s fee. The trial court ruled for the recruiter on the basis of quantum meruit, and LBBS appealed.

The Court determined that the legal recruiter was a “procuring cause” of LBBS’s acquisition of the BRG attorneys. A procuring cause need not be a “but-for” cause of a transaction; a “contributing or concurrent” cause can sustain the award of a finder’s fee. Here, evidence was sufficient to prove that CB Legal Search was a procuring cause of the transaction, and the district court did not commit clear error in awarding the finder’s fee.

To speak with a Dallas lawyer about finder’s fee agreements or other Texas business and employment law issues, contact the Dallas business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Texas Supreme Court Rules on Workers’ Compensation Issue

09/15/2011 //  (press release)
The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled on an issue involving the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Ins. Co. of the State of Penn. v. Muro, No. 09-0340 (Tex. Aug. 26, 2011), available here.

The plaintiff sought lifetime workers’ compensation income benefits after she fell at work and injured her hips, back, shoulder and neck. The injuries affected the use of the plaintiff’s feet and right hand to the extent that she could no longer work. The trial court awarded lifetime income benefits, and the Dallas appellate court affirmed this award. The insurance company appealed.

The Court reversed the decision. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Act authorizes the award of lifetime income benefits to employees who lose the use of certain body parts or suffer certain injuries in work-related accidents. These qualifying body parts and injuries are enumerated in the statute. The Court determined that the statute limits the award of lifetime benefits to people who have suffered an injury enumerated in the statute or lost the use of a body part listed in the statute. Here, because the plaintiff’s injuries were not enumerated in the statute, she was not entitled to lifetime benefits.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyer about workers’ compensation or other Texas business and employment law issues, contact the business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Survey Reports that Many Employers Have Not Implemented Social Media

09/13/2011 // (press release)
According to a recent survey of employers, just over half of the responding employers have implemented social media and networking policies. “Social media” refers to the use of internet-based and mobile technologies for interactive dialogue to enable individuals to participate in the creation of the content. Social media includes internet forums, blogs, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, and Facebook.

While more than seventy-five percent of the respondents use social networking for business purposes, just fifty-five percent have implemented social media policies for their employees. Significantly, forty-three percent of the respondents have dealt with employee misuse of social networks and nearly one third have disciplined employees for social network misuse.

Establishing a social media and networking policy enables an employer to mitigate certain risks associated with social networks. A strong social media policy can help an employer avoid embarrassing public relations issues (such as an employee posting negative comments about an employer) and can help an employer prevent legal problems (such as the release of information protected by a non-disclosure agreement).

To speak to a Dallas, Texas business and employment law attorney about drafting and implementing a social media policy or about another business and employment law issue, contact the business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules for Employer in FMLA Matter

09/09/2011 //  (press release)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled for an employer in a dispute centered on the Family Medical Leave Act. Baham v. McLane Foodservice, Inc., No. 10-10944 (5th Cir. July 1, 2011). While on vacation, the plaintiff’s daughter was injured. The plaintiff completed some FMLA paperwork while he stayed with his daughter out-of-state. The plaintiff then returned to Texas, two weeks before his wife and injured daughter returned. Shortly after their return, the plaintiff went back to work. That day, the plaintiff left the worksite, and the employer sent a letter terminating the plaintiff’s employment.

The plaintiff sued, claiming that his employment was terminated in violation of the FMLA. The district court concluded that the plaintiff did not qualify for FMLA leave because he was not actively caring for his daughter during the two weeks she remained in another state after he returned to Texas.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s summary judgment decision. To be entitled to FMLA leave, an employee must show that he is needed to care for a family member with a serious health condition. Because the plaintiff was not taking care of his daughter after he returned to Texas, the plaintiff was ineligible for FMLA leave. Therefore, he was not engaged in a protected FMLA activity when his employment ceased.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas business and employment law attorney about FMLA leave or about another business and employment law issue, contact the business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### It’s Summer Time: Are You Required to Pay Your Intern?

08/10/2011 // Dallas Employment Lawyer  // (press release)

As students prepare to return to school, many are seeking to obtain work experience during the semester, even if it means taking an unpaid internship. However, employers need to understand their obligations when an internship is unpaid and when it is not. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) an internship will be viewed as employment when the intern is providing services to “for-profit” sector employers. Interns that are within this “for-profit” sector must be paid minimum wage and overtime compensation, unless the 6-part test for an unpaid intern is met.

The following 6-part test must be applied when determining whether an internship is paid or unpaid:

1. The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;

2. The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;

3. The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;

4. The employer that proves the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern;

and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;

5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; AND

6. The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time

spent in the internship.

Under the FLSA, if this 6-part test is met an internship will not be viewed as employment, but rather an unpaid internship or training program. For more information on unpaid internships view the Fact Sheet on unpaid internships under FLSA here.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas business and employment law attorney about paying interns or any other business and employment issue, please contact the business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Employer Liability

08/08/2011 // Dallas Employment Lawyer  // (press release)

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employer can be liable for a supervisor’s discrimination if such discrimination plays a role in a later adverse employment action. Staub v. Proctor Hospital. Staub, a member of the U.S. army reserve and an employee of Proctor, was discriminated against by two of his supervisors. The supervisors were hostile towards Staub’s military obligations and fabricated several accusations against Staub; claiming he violated rules that didn’t exist and complaining that he was frequently unavailable. As a result of theses accusations, Staub was fired by Buck, Proctor’s vice president, who was unaware of the supervisor’s discrimination.

Staub sued Proctor claiming his termination was discriminatory because Buck lacked any discriminatory animus towards him, and she based her termination on information from Staub’s supervisors, which was discriminatory. The Supreme Court agreed with Staub and held his termination was discriminatory. As a result, if an agent of an employer commits an action based on discriminatory animus, intending to and causing an adverse employment action, the employer will be liable regardless if the employer knew of discrimination at the time of termination.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas business and employment law attorney about workplace discrimination, contact the business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Workplace Hazards

06/14/2011 //  Dallas Business and Employment Lawyer  // (press release)
More than 50% of the United States prohibit drivers from texting while driving. The National Conference of State Legislatures maintains a chart of the current laws for each state on its website.

According to studies conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI), new data provides insight into cell phone use and driving distraction. They found that texting while driving increases the risk of vehicle accidents 23 times more than that of the other activities studied (such as dialing, talking/listening to cell phone). You can find more details regarding these findings here.

“The Departments of Labor (DOL), Transportation (DOT) and Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) are joining forces in a campaign to stop distracted driving and save lives.” OSHA considers “texting while driving” to be a workplace hazard and an OSHA violation. See OSHA’s Distracted Driving page wherein employers are urged to take action to prohibit their employees from texting while driving:

“It is your responsibility and legal obligation to create and maintain a safe and healthful workplace, and that would include having a clear, unequivocal and enforced policy against the hazard of texting while driving. Companies are in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act if, by policy or practice, they require texting while driving, or create incentives that encourage or condone it, or they structure work so that texting is a practical necessity for workers to carry out their job.”

Employers are also warned that OSHA will investigate complaints received, will issue citations and impose penalties on those who fail to comply.

If your company does not have a cell phone usage policy, driver policy, employee handbook or other employer-related document that contains such a policy, contact the Dallas, Texas business and employment lawyers at Rogge  Dunn Group about the creation and distribution of a cell phone usage policy at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Employers -- Are You in Compliance?

04/10/2011 // Rogge Dunn Group

Employers too often overlook their obligations to post updated labor law posters in the workplace. Requirements of employers to display compliance posters in places where employees congregate or can easily reference depend on various factors such as size and nature of the business. Failure to follow these requirements may bring about heavy fines and penalties by the government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Labor, if violation and non compliance of labor laws are found during inspections.

Labor law posters are available in many formats. These posters have been designed as a way to help the millions of Americans employed in different organizations become aware of the many rights and regulations that favor employees. Labor Law posters, like safety posters, are often ignored or overlooked by employees. These posters provide protection from employer exploitation and enable employees to understand their rights under the law. Labor Law posters help both the employer and employee by providing up-to-date information about Compliance. The following lists are examples of some of the compliance topics posted:

I. Texas Labor Law Postings

OIEC Posting
Payday Notice
Child Labor Laws
Employer Notification of Ombudsman Program
Workers' Compensation in Texas
Equal Employment Opportunity in Texas
Workers Compensation (Non-Coverage)
Emergency Phone Numbers

II. Federal Labor Law Postings

Equal Employment Opportunity is the Law (EEOC) Posting - Includes New GINA Posting
Federal Minimum Wage
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA Posting)
Employee Polygraph Notice
USERRA - Your Rights Under USERRA

Reduce unnecessary liability to your company, and avoid costly fines. Prevent work place related law suits by informing your employees of the importance of the Safety and Labor Law Posters.

To speak to an attorney about effective company policies regarding the compliance of posters in your workplace, contact the business and lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Negligence Actions in Texas Against an Employer

02/13/2011 // Rogge Dunn Group

Many employers in Texas subscribe to Texas Workers’ Compensation. This is a state-regulated insurance program that provides benefits to employees who suffer work-related injuries or illnesses. But employers are not required to subscribe to the program. If an employer opts not to subscribe, an employee may sue the employer for negligence if the employee is injured on the job. To encourage employers to subscribe, Texas law mandates that certain defenses ordinarily available in negligence actions cannot be asserted by a non-subscribing employer when sued by an employee for negligence.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries or death sustained by an employee in the course and scope of the employment against an employer who does not have workers' compensation insurance coverage, it is not a defense that: (1) the employee was guilty of contributory negligence; (2) the employee assumed the risk of injury or death; or (3) the injury or death was caused by the negligence of another employee. An employer may, however, assert that the injury occurred while the employee was intoxicated and/or by an act of the employee that was intended to bring about the injury.

To speak to an attorney about workers’ compensation coverage, laws affecting non-subscribers or other Texas business and employment law issues, contact the business and employment lawyers of Rogge Dunn Group PC at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

Media Information:

Address: 500 N. Akard St., Suite 1900, Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-888-5000
URL: Rogge Dunn Group

### Employment Law Issue: Reference Letter as a Condition

02/11/2011 // (press release)
Certain situations may lead a former employee to ask an employer for a reference letter. These requests frequently occur when parties settle an employment-related lawsuit or when parties negotiate a separation agreement. How should an employer respond to these requests? At a basic level, the employer most likely should respond to these requests the same way it would respond to the request of a departing employee who is not engaged in a dispute with the employer.

In an effort to avoid litigation over reference letters, some employers opt not to provide reference letters to any employee and to verify nothing beyond basic information when contacted by telephone. If so, an employer likely should not agree to provide a favorable reference letter to a departing employee in a settlement or severance agreement. Doing so could expose the employer to allegations of discrimination. On the other hand, an employer who takes a more flexible approach to reference letter requests could agree to draft a letter in accordance with its guidelines; however, the employer may wish to ask employment law counsel to review a draft letter to ensure that the letter does not expose the employer to liability.

To speak to a Dallas, Texas business and employment law attorney about issues related to the departure of employees, contact the business and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group PC  at info@RoggeDunnGroup.com

### Live Webcast - Rogge Dunn to Speak

Join speakers Rogge Dunn of Rogge Dunn Group, PC,

Join speakers from @RoggeDunn @DrinkerBiddle @SidleyLaw in a #LIVEWebcast on December 11th at 12:00 PM ET & learn the latest trends and developments of #FINRA’s regulation on high-risk #brokers.


 


Click here for more info and register! #risk #compliance


 


https://t.co/hgJ0OwhskE


## Pages

### Appellate Work

Appellate Lawyers



The Rogge Dunn Group has attorneys experienced in winning appeals in both the Federal and State courts.



Partner Harvey Joseph is Board Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in Civil Appeals. After clerking on the Sixth Court of Appeals and being a permanent staff attorney for the Fifth Court of Appeals, he has successfully prosecuted and defended appeals in the Texas Courts of Appeals, the Texas Supreme Court, and the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as submitted Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.  Rogge Dunn clerked for Judge Garza on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dunn has won and defeated appeals in the Texas Court of Appeals and the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as well as defeating a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.  If you're forced to go all the way to a jury trial, it's an added benefit to have trial lawyers involved who have knowledge of potential appeal issues.

### Alexandria M. Twiss

Alex Twiss is a compassionate and skilled trial lawyer dedicated to supporting clients through the often-overwhelming journey of litigation in both state and federal courts.

### Harvey G. Joseph

Harvey Joseph is a native Texan with extensive experience in appellate law, commercial and employment litigation, and insurance defense.

### Drew A. Jones

Drew Jones is a trial lawyer with broad commercial litigation experience, representing clients in contract, corporate governance, bankruptcy, and data privacy disputes.  He employs a keen legal insight, as well as a strong business background, navigating his clients though complex and sensitive business disputes. 

### Alison R. Ashmore

A seasoned litigator recognized for her sharp strategic thinking and persuasive advocacy, she represents individuals in complex cases against domestic and international corporations across jurisdictions nationwide.

### M. Collin Quigley

Collin Quigley represents and advises employees and employers at all levels in connection with a wide array of labor and employment matters.

### Patrick McShan

Patrick is a seasoned trial lawyer with a strong track record in complex business and employment litigation.

### Lane M. Webster

Lane Webster has counseled a wide array of clients in the healthcare, technology, sports, and financial services sectors, from multimillion-dollar corporations to corporate whistleblowers.

### Alec E. Pedigo

Alec has considerable experience litigating complex commercial matters focused on employment and corporate/partnership disputes.  

### Mass Torts

Mass Torts Lawyers



All of us, including our families, kids, and neighbors, deserve to use safe products. Unfortunately, even careful and knowledgeable consumers have been victimized by defective products with hidden dangers. Dangerous or defective products can hurt people anytime, anywhere.



The mass torts and product liability lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group take great pride in helping individuals who have suffered harm or significant injuries from defectively dangerous products.



First and foremost, we are seasoned trial lawyers who care. We have a proud reputation of never backing off or slowing down until our clients receive the maximum compensation they deserve. Our multi-disciplinary, nationwide law practice enables us to be innovative when trying mass torts and product liability cases to jury verdict.



The lawyers in our firm have won more than $2 billion net in judgments and settlements for our clients. Past results are no guarantee of future results.



We give you our full attention. Rogge Dunn Group prioritizes the interests of our clients and are totally committed to holding manufacturers and corporations accountable when they put profits above consumers’ safety. Although the defective products we fight against have seriously injured tens of thousands of people, we keep our case docket small, so that we can give each client the individual, particularized support, focus, and prompt responses they deserve.



We currently represent consumers injured by Roundup weed killer and talcum powder. We look forward to helping you navigate the legal process to obtain the just compensation you and your family deserve.

### Skyler M. Howton

Zealous advocate for individuals in personal injury and product liability class action and mass tort claims nationwide in single-party or multi-plaintiff litigations against major business organizations. 

### Earl Nesbitt

Earl's practice has included diverse civil litigation and legal disputes in State and Federal Courts and administrative and civil service proceedings.

### Severance Lawyer for Severance Negotiations

Perhaps in connection with a reduction in force, an involuntary termination, or a mutually agreed separation, your employer has presented you with a severance agreement offering you financial and other consideration (“Severance Benefits”) in exchange for your signing a release of all claims. Should you accept the offered Severance Benefits and sign the agreement presented to you by your employer?



How Can a Severance Lawyer Assist?



A severance lawyer can assist you in answering that question by, among other things, (1) identifying any leverage you may have to enhance the Severance Benefits being offered, (2) developing a strategy to obtain enhanced Severance Benefits, (3) ensuring that implementation of that strategy does not “burn bridges” between you and your former employer, and (4) addressing, regardless of whether additional Severance Benefits are obtained, any problematic severance agreement language. 



Common Severance Terms



Most severance agreements require that a former employee, in exchange for Severance Benefits to be provided by the employer, whether in a lump sum or a stream of payments:



Release all claims against the employer and its past and present officers, directors, and employees,Keep confidential the terms of the severance agreement as well as all other confidential information of the employer,Agree not to disparage the employer and its past and present officers, directors, and employees, andCooperate with the employer should the employee’s knowledge be needed in connection with litigation or otherwise.



Considerations That May Provide Leverage for Employees to Enhance Offered Severance Benefits



Former employees with legitimate claims that their termination or their treatment while an employee was because of discrimination, retaliation or harassment will often have significant leverage to enhance the Severance Benefits being offered by their former employers. A severance lawyer is uniquely suited to assessing the strength of the potential discrimination, retaliation or harassment claims and the appropriate strategy to obtain a better severance.



In some instances, it may be appropriate for an employee to utilize the good cop – bad cop strategy by negotiating directly with the employer (often utilizing language suggested by a severance lawyer). In other instances, a pre-suit demand letter from a severance lawyer is most effective in obtaining enhanced Severance Benefits.



Because employers typically prefer to resolve employee disputes quietly and confidentially and before a lawsuit is filed, they often are inclined, but not always, to consider adjustments to the offered Severance Benefits or the language of the severance agreement, or both. Employers may also be motivated to enhance offered Severance Benefits because they:



Wish to avoid adverse publicity concerning embarrassing events or statements;Wish to avoid threatened litigation;Will likely need the cooperation of or a “brain drain” from the departing employee;Will likely need the departing employee to testify relating to pending or threatened litigation;Believe that claims or a suit by the departing employee could negatively impact upcoming capital events;Want the departing employee’s assistance in transitioning client relationships and preserving client goodwill; orWant to restrict potential competitive activities by the departing employee who is not subject to non-competition or non-solicitation of client restrictions (even though the enforceability of such restrictions agreed to at the time of termination or post-termination may be questionable).



Other Severance Negotiation Considerations



A release of all claims requested from an employee 40 years of age or older must, by federal law, state that the employee has 21 days (and in some instances 45 days) to decide whether to sign the release in exchange for the offered Severance Benefits. In many instances, such agreements state that the offered Severance Benefits will be withdrawn if the employee does not accept and sign the agreement within the decisional period. An employee’s willingness and ability to ignore this arbitrary deadline and negotiate beyond the decisional period can be an effective negotiation tactic and a sign of strength.  Whether to do so, of course, should be discussed with a severance lawyer.



A severance lawyer can also assist in identifying potential “asks” in addition to a larger severance payment.  Some examples of additional “asks,” which may or may not be of value to the departing employee, are:



Garden leave (a period of time during which the departing employee remains employed but has no work obligations and can negotiate with prospective employers without having to acknowledge or explain having been terminated);A letter of recommendation;Reimbursement of COBRA premiums (because the reimbursement obligation typically will end when new employment is obtained, this provision serves as a disincentive for employers to interfere with the efforts of their former employees to obtain new employment); andRetention of the Company cellphone or other Company property used by the employee.



Negotiating Severance Agreement Language



In order to incentivize former employees to comply with their post-employment obligations including, for example, obligations of confidentiality, non-disparagement, non-competition, and non-solicitation, employers often condition the receipt of Severance Benefits upon continued compliance with those obligations. In some instances, employers require that the Severance Benefits be returned to the employer in the event any of those obligations are breached by the former employee.



With the assistance of a severance lawyer, such problematic language may be removed or it may be limited in its application. For example, severance agreement language could be revised to provide that the loss or reduction of Severance Benefits will be triggered only if the former employee’s breach was “material” or only after the former employee was notified of the breach and failed to timely cure the breach.



A severance lawyer can also assist in determining whether it would be advisable or beneficial to obtain from the former employer (1) a release in favor of the former employee or (2) a commitment not to disparage the former employee. While employers are typically reluctant to do so, modified or limited employer releases and employer non-disparagement agreements are not uncommon.



Key Takeaways from a Severance Lawyer



Developing and implementing the appropriate strategy to enhance your severance is critical.A severance lawyer can identify leverage points and the appropriate “asks” and strategy.Seeking and obtaining better Severance Benefits need not result in “burning bridges.”Even in the absence of obtaining better Severance Benefits, changes to the language of the severance agreement can substantially minimize the likelihood that payment of the Severance Benefits will stop or worse, that the Severance Benefits must be returned to the employer.



Contact a Severance Lawyer at Rogge Dunn Group



The Dallas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group handle all aspects of severance negotiations. To learn more about the severance lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, you may contact Bryan Collins (collins@roggedunngroup.com 214-239-2762), Rogge Dunn (dunn@roggedunngroup.com 214-220-0077), or any of our other severance lawyers.



To contact a severance lawyer at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### Executive Contract Lawyer

The Role of an Executive Contract Lawyer



Presented with a proposed employment contract, executives are often:



reluctant to ask for additional consideration;not sure what additional consideration would be reasonable to request; andnot aware of contract language that can or should be rejected or modified.



An executive contract lawyer can provide advice with respect to these three areas and other areas as well while at the same time always being attentive to the executive’s legitimate desire not to become antagonistic or burn bridges with senior management.



Protecting Job Status and Regular Compensation



No one is entitled to permanent employment. Employers are entitled to terminate employees at any time and for any nondiscriminatory or nonretaliatory reason. However, changing employers is risky and executives rightly should expect a degree of job and compensation protection.  An executive contract lawyer can ensure that appropriate contract language provides both.



Job protection can be in the form of contractually specified severance payments to the executive if the executive is terminated before the end of the contract term without “good cause” or if the executive resigns for “good reason” because the employer, for example, has reduced the executive’s regular compensation or earning potential.



Other contract terms that can similarly provide protection to the executive include:



required advance written notice before termination;a reasonable opportunity for the executive to cure any alleged breach;a narrower definition of “good cause;”a broader definition of “good reason;” anda no-mitigation clause.



Change of Control Provisions



New owners following a Change of Control often will want to make extensive changes in senior management.  In addition to protecting job status and regular compensation, an executive contract lawyer can assist in defining what constitutes a Change of Control (whether a broad or narrow definition) as well as the necessary trigger or triggers for enhanced severance benefits. 



A single trigger could be the Change of Control event while a double trigger could be the Change of Control event as well as an executive separation within a specified time after the Change of Control because of an employment termination “without cause” or a resignation for “good reason.”



Examples of enhanced severance benefits include enhanced severance payments, automatic vesting of equity components, and gross-up provisions for additional taxes to be paid by the executive associated with the enhanced severance payments.



Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Provisions



Restrictive covenants including agreements not to work for a competitor, solicit employer clients or encourage the departure of other employees of employer (“Restrictive Covenants”), benefit employers by allowing them to retain intellectual capital, inhibit “brain drain,” and protect their client relationships and goodwill and their employees. 



In most jurisdictions, Restrictive Covenants are enforceable if they are not overbroad in terms of the activities prohibited, the geographic restrictions in which competition may not occur, and the period of time during which the restrictions apply. 



An executive contract lawyer can assist executives in identifying carve-outs or exceptions to non–compete restrictions including, for example, geographic exclusions, job position exclusions, particular industry exclusions, application of the noncompete only to companies specified in the contract, and application of the noncompete only to companies over a certain market cap/gross revenue level. 



Carve-outs or exceptions to non-solicitation of employees could include limiting the restrictions to solicitation of current employees and permitting solicitation of the executive’s key staff. Carve-outs or exceptions to non-solicitation of clients could include limiting the restrictions to solicitation of those clients of the employer with whom executive had material dealings during the 12-month period before the executive’s separation.



Indemnities Protecting the Executive



An executive contract lawyer can also assist in minimizing the executive’s financial exposure for executive’s actions taken on behalf of the employer and for executive’s actions, if any, negatively impacting executive’s former employer.  This is typically done through indemnification provisions in the executive employment contract.



Minimizing the executive’s financial exposure can take many forms including, for example:



obtaining employer representations in the executive employment contract that the employer has and will have adequate D & O insurance;the employer agreeing to indemnify executive (including paying executive’s attorneys’ fees), in addition to, or as a supplement to, any D & O insurance, for any claims based upon actions taken by the executive in the course and scope of executive’s employment; andthe employer agreeing to indemnify executive (including paying executive’s attorneys’ fees), for any claims by executive’s former employer against executive including, for example, alleged trade secret breaches, alleged violations of executive’s non-compete non-solicitation agreements, alleged unfair competition violations, or any other alleged tort claims.



Attorneys’ Fees Provisions: Retaining an Executive Contract Lawyer



In the event of a dispute at the time of separation, executives and employers are much more likely to amicably resolve their disputes if each will potentially have to pay the attorney’s fees incurred by the other side if the other side prevails in litigation, whether by a jury verdict or the decision of an arbitrator or otherwise.



An executive contract lawyer can, among other things, determine and address whether the proposed language of the executive employment contract, or the applicable law, or both will provide the executive with the ability to recover attorney’s fees in the event that the executive is the prevailing party in any subsequent dispute.



Additionally, the legal fees associated with retaining an executive contract lawyer may be minimal given that employers often agree to pay executives’ legal fees in obtaining the assistance of an executive contract lawyer in negotiating and revising a proposed executive employment contract.



Contact an Executive Contract Lawyer at Rogge Dunn Group



The Dallas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group handle all aspects of executive contracts to best situate the executive for meaningful contract negotiations. To learn more about the executive contract lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, you may contact Bryan Collins (collins@roggedunngroup.com 214-239-2762), Rogge Dunn (dunn@roggedunngroup.com 214-220-0077), or any of our other executive contract lawyers.



To contact an executive contract lawyer at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### Hostile Work Environment Lawyer

Hostile Work Environment Lawyer for Discrimination, Retaliation, and Harassment Claims



Despite having an excellent performance record, you dread coming to work. You don’t understand why you are being treated unfairly. It feels like your management wants you to quit. Promptly obtaining legal advice from a hostile work environment lawyer is essential if you believe that this is the result of discrimination, retaliation or harassment. For example, this could include:




a hostile environment created by your co-workers or management;



inappropriate sexual comments, gestures, and touching;



your being treated differently because of your sexual orientation;



your new manager treating men or younger employees more favorably;



negative comments and reactions because of the FMLA leave you took;



a reluctance on the part of management to reasonably accommodate your disabilities;



management’s failure to address your complaints; or



retaliatory, adverse actions against you following your complaints to management.




An experienced hostile work environment lawyer can evaluate your circumstances and the events, as you understand them. Then, they can provide you with an opinion as to whether your legal claims against your employer are potentially worth pursuing. Of course, this would only be a preliminary opinion because relevant and critical information from the employer would not likely be available.



Nevertheless, an experienced hostile work environment lawyer can provide you with the advice necessary to optimize your ability to achieve your objectives, whether those are to (a) remain with your employer and stop the discrimination, retaliation, harassment, (b) leave your employment with a fair severance and without burning bridges, or (c) otherwise.



Voicing an Internal Complaint May Be Necessary



Many employers welcome employee complaints. In the absence of such complaints, they may not be aware of the problems or able to resolve them. That is why most employee handbooks not only encourage but also require employees to make management aware of their complaints. However, employees are often naturally reluctant to voice internal complaints or file formal internal complaints with HR for fear of retaliation.



The failure to voice or file a complaint, in some instances, can jeopardize potential legal claims. For example, if an employee is subjected to harassment from a coworker, whether sexual in nature or because of the employee’s sexual orientation or any other protected trait, and the harassment is not known by management, the employer likely would not be liable because the employee failed to complain and provide the employer with an opportunity to address and correct the problem.



Timely Filing A Complaint with the Government Typically Is Required to Preserve Legal Claims



In order to properly preserve the ability to pursue legal claims against employers, employees must, with respect to most discrimination, retaliation, and harassment claims, timely file charges of discrimination. These charges should involve the federal agency responsible for investigating and remedying discrimination, retaliation and harassment (the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission “EEOC”) and the comparable state agency (in Texas, the Texas Workforce Commission “TWC”).



Any claimed event of discrimination, retaliation or harassment occurring more than 300 days prior to the filing of a charge with the EEOC is most often time-barred.  An even shorter time period applies with respect to claims submitted to the TWC. Any claimed event of discrimination, retaliation or harassment occurring more than 180 days prior to the filing of a charge with the TWC is most often time-barred.



Importance of Promptly Contacting a Hostile Work Environment Lawyer



A hostile work environment lawyer can provide critical information and assistance to employees who are experiencing discrimination, retaliation or harassment and have not yet resigned or been terminated. Among other things, advice to such employees could include:




whether they have legitimate claims for discrimination, retaliation, or harassment;



whether an internal complaint should be asserted and the language or terminology to be used;



what employees should expect will happen should the Company initiate an investigation;



how employees should respond and act in the course of an investigation;



whether statements or affidavits from coworkers should be solicited;



whether filing a charge of unlawful treatment with the EEOC or the state agency is advisable; and



the best strategy to accomplish the goals of the affected employees. This can include whether to stay with the employer or to depart under favorable terms and with a favorable severance.




A hostile work environment lawyer can also provide advice and assistance to former, terminated employees who experienced discrimination, retaliation or harassment. Advice to such former employees should take into account the desire of most former employees not to burn bridges and could include, for example:




whether they have legitimate claims for discrimination, retaliation, or harassment;



whether statements or affidavits from former co-workers should be obtained;



the best strategy to accomplish the goals of the affected former employees. Typically, this would be obtaining a favorable severance or, if a severance was offered, to obtain enhanced severance benefits; and



review of and proposed revisions to any severance agreement presented by the employer which, invariably, includes a release of all claims and continuing obligations of confidentiality and non-disparagement.



whether filing a charge of unlawful treatment with the EEOC or the state agency is advisable.




Key Takeaways



If your employer admittedly fired you because you had complained that the employer’s coffee was never hot enough, that would undoubtedly be retaliatory. However, that would not give rise to a cognizable legal claim for wrongful termination.



An experienced hostile work environment lawyer can, in connection with your termination, advise you whether you have potential, cognizable legal claims for discrimination, retaliation, harassment. They can also assist with other employment-related claims and help you avoid any pitfalls in accomplishing your goals.



Employees who have not been terminated and are experiencing what they believe to be discrimination, retaliation or harassment should be cognizant of the need to, among other things:




promptly contact a Hostile Working Environment Lawyer;



comply with any employer reporting or complaint procedures;



respect and comply with the requests and requirements of any employer investigation;



never, whether true or not, admit any inability or unwillingness to comply with future employer directives or to continue to work with the employer; and



timely comply with the requirement to submit claims to the federal and/or state employment agencies.




The Dallas employment lawyers have extensive experience handling claims involving discrimination, retaliation, and harassment. To learn more about the hostile work environment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, visit their attorney biographies here: 





Rogge DunnCollin QuigleyDavid GrossBryan Collins





To contact a hostile work environment lawyer at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### Whistleblower Attorney

Whistleblowing & Qui Tam



More and more employees and executives are stepping forward and alleging wrongdoing, claiming that their employer committed fraud or violated government laws regulating financial reporting and other corporate governance issues. To clarify, these laws run the gamut from federal and state statutes protecting employees in various industries to securities laws like the Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd Frank Acts. These laws are extensive and many carry big fines, penalties and criminal liability. Moreover, they have the potential for significant monetary awards for whistleblowers. Because of this, you will need an experienced whistleblower attorney to successfully wade through these complicated laws.



Qui Tam Lawsuits and the Role of a Whistleblower Attorney



Qui tam lawsuits are a subspecialty of whistleblower actions. Moreover, they permit an individual to pursue a lawsuit for the government and potentially recover a large monetary award for his or her efforts. Specifically, qui tam lawsuits prevent fraud against the government and recover damages resulting from such fraud. Furthermore, these lawsuits are often pursued under the federal False Claims Act. However, there are similar state laws that provide the basis for qui tam actions and the potential for large recoveries for successful individual whistleblowers. The guidance and assistance provided by an experienced whistleblower attorney is needed when you have knowledge of fraud against the government that may give rise to a qui tam action.



The Sabine Pilot Doctrine



In addition to federal and state statutes governing whistleblowers, the Texas Supreme Court created the Sabine Pilot doctrine. This important Texas law provides that an employee who is fired for refusing to perform an illegal act that carries criminal penalties can sue his or her former employer for wrongful discharge.



We went to trial on a Sabine Pilot whistleblowing case back in 1992. Since then, we have gone all the way to trial on other whistleblowing and qui tam cases. When you face these issues, you need an experienced whistleblower attorney who has successfully litigated difficult and highly specialized cases. 



Find an Experienced Whistleblower Attorney at Rogge Dunn Group



View Page



At the Rogge Dunn Group, you won’t find just one such whistleblower attorney – you will find a team of them. As a result, the Dallas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group will provide you with the experience and perspective of true trial lawyers who have successfully handled whistleblowing and qui tam cases from the investigative stage all the way through trial. To learn more about the whistleblower attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group, visit their attorney biographies here:





Rogge DunnGregory CliftBryan CollinsDavid GrossLane Webster





To contact a whistleblower attorney at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### Non-Solicitation Agreement Attorney

A non-solicitation agreement usually seeks to restrict solicitation of customers and/or employees. Those covenants’ functions overlap but are also different. Thus, we’ll refer here to “Customer Non-Solicits” and “Employee Non-Solicits.” A little history about both types is a good place to start.



Pre-2011



Non-solicit lawyers and courts generally agreed that Texas's Non-Compete Act (the "Act") covered Customer Non-Solicits. Thus, those Customer Non-Solicits were required to comply with Act as an anti-trust exception. But litigators and courts were uncertain whether the Act applied to Employee Non-Solicits. This uncertainty was significant because if Employee Non-Solicits were not covered by the Act, then the covenant was simply viewed as a contractual provision (not an anti-trust exception), which is a much lower bar for enforcement.



Post-2011



After Texas’s Supreme Court’s Marsh opinion, many litigators and courts began following the court’s logic to show that Employee Non-Solicits were also covered by the Act. Marsh USA Inc. v. Cook, 354 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. 2011). Now, Texas courts appear to overwhelmingly support that both Employee Non-Solicits and Customer Non-Solicits are covered by the Act. See e.g., Ally Financial v. Gutierrez, No. 02-13- 00108-CV, 2014 WL 261038 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 23, 2014, no pet.).



Key Considerations of a Non-Solicitation Agreement



To comply with the Act, a non-solicitation agreement must be carefully drafted. Specifically, there are five primary issues to cover.



Ancillary



Non-solicitation agreements must be “ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement at the time the agreement is made.” To be “ancillary to or part of” an otherwise enforceable agreement, the business interest being protected must be reasonably related to consideration given. See Marsh, 354 S.W.3d at 775. Thus, the covenants requires a protectable business interest for the employer (e.g., protecting confidential information) and consideration to the employee (e.g., confidential information, training, or goodwill). See Marsh, 354 S.W.3d at 775.



Scope



In addition, non-solicitation agreements require a reasonable scope of restrained activity. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.50(a). However, this “reasonable” determination varies on a case-by-case basis. For example, a restriction against soliciting all company employees was not reasonable in Forum US, Inc. v. Musselwhite, No. 14-17-00708, 2020 WL 4331442 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th], July 28, 2020, no pet. h.).



Geography



Non-solicitation agreements require a reasonable geographic restriction. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.50(a). Moreover, to comply with this restriction, careful drafting often considers where the employee works and locations of her customers (Customer Non-Solicit) and co-workers (Employee Non-Solicit).



Time



Lastly, non-solicitation agreements require a reasonable time restriction. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.50(a). This limitation is highly fact-dependent and requires looking at the rationale for the restriction and the business interest being protected.



In short, enforcing non-solicitation agreements may include demand letters, pre-suit litigation, lawsuits, and injunctions. Compared to non-compete covenants, courts have generally been more favorable to entering injunctions that enforce non-solicitation agreements. Furthermore, whether enforcing or defending, parties should consider issues such as confidentiality; counterclaims; related claims (e.g., fiduciary duty and tortious interference); and points raised on our other pages, such as trade secrets [HYPERLINK] and non-competes.



The Dallas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group routinely draft non-solicitation agreements and litigate non-solicitation agreement lawsuits. To learn more about the non-solicitation agreement attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group, visit their attorney biographies here:





Rogge DunnGregory CliftBryan CollinsDavid GrossCollin Quigley





To contact a non-solicitation agreement attorney at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### Non-Compete Lawyer

A non-compete lawyer in Texas is well versed in Texas’s Non-Compete Act (the “Act”). Under the Act, non-compete covenants are assessed as an anti-trust exception, not merely a contractual provision. Thus, a valid non-compete covenant “facilitates economic competition and is not a naked restraint on trade.” Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.04; see also Marsh USA Inc. v. Cook, 354 S.W.3d 764, 770 (Tex. 2011).



Primary Issues of a Non-Compete Covenant



To comply with the Act, a non-compete lawyer must carefully draft covenants. Furthermore, for most employee non-competes, there are five primary issues to cover.



Ancillary



Non-compete covenants must be “ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement at the time the agreement is made.” To be “ancillary to or part of” an otherwise enforceable agreement, the business interest being protected must be reasonably related to consideration given. Thus, non-competes require a protectable business interest for the employer (e.g., protecting confidential information) and consideration to the employee (e.g., confidential information, training, or goodwill). See Marsh, 354 S.W.3d at 775.



Scope



Non-competes require a reasonable scope of restrained activity. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.50(a). Moreover, this “reasonable” determination varies on a case-by-case basis. For example, a restriction against working for a competitor in any capacity may be unenforceable in some cases. That “any capacity” argument is often referred to as the “janitor rule” because a party may argue it is not a reasonable scope limitation to prevent a salesperson from leaving her employer to work at a competitor as a janitor.



Geography



Non-competes require a reasonable geographic restriction. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.50(a). Therefore, to comply with this restriction, careful drafting often considers where the employee works and where the employer operates.



Time



Lastly, non-competes also require a reasonable time restriction. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.50(a). However, this limitation is fact-dependent and requires looking at the rationale for the restriction and the business interest being protected.



Non-Compete Lawyer Considerations 



A non-compete lawyer has additional considerations in certain scenarios. For example, a non-compete’s reasonable limitations (especially time limitations) may be more expansive against a person selling a business than limitations against an at-will employee.



On the other hand, a non-compete’s restrictions against a “person licensed as a physician by the Texas Medical Board” require additional provisions to comply with the Act. As a result, the absences of such restrictions, and/or public interest may lead a court to determine a non-compete is invalid. For example, a non-compete was not enforceable against a doctor in Nacogdoches, partially because preventing the doctor from practicing medicine in the restricted geographic area could adversely affect public interest.



Certainly, a non-compete lawyer’s efforts may include demand letters, pre-suit litigation, lawsuits, and injunctions. Whether enforcing or defending, a non-compete lawyer should consider issues such as confidentiality; counterclaims; related claims (e.g., fiduciary duty and tortious interference); and points raised on our other pages, such as trade secret litigation and non-solicitation agreements. 



The Dallas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group routinely draft non-competes and litigate non-compete lawsuits. To learn more about the non-compete lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, visit their attorney biographies here:





Rogge DunnGregory CliftBryan CollinsDavid GrossCollin Quigley





To contact a non-compete lawyer at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### Trade Secret Litigation

What is a trade secret? How do I protect my company’s trade secrets? If you find yourself looking for the answers to these or similar questions, or if you are involved in trade secret litigation, you need an experienced trade secret lawyer.



What Are Trade Secrets?



Trade secrets are a form of intellectual property. Trade secrets essentially include any business information or data that is kept secret or “confidential” by you or your company. If disclosed to others, the trade secret would give another company a competitive advantage. The confidential information or “secret sauce” could include something as simple as a secret family recipe that is used at a restaurant or in the manufacturing of food products. On the other hand, it could include the most complex business formulas, techniques, strategies, customer lists, or processes. Although trade secrets have been around for a very long time, recent federal laws and a general shift in business concerns are creating an increased focus on trade secret protection and trade secret litigation related to any unauthorized disclosure.



Protecting Trade Secrets



Our experienced trade secret lawyers at the Rogge Dunn Group can assist in properly protecting trade secret information from unlawful disclosure. This could include drafting and advising on non-compete agreements, non-disclosure agreements, and non-solicitation agreements. All of these may include provisions designed to protect against unlawful disclosure of your company’s trade secret information to others. A trade secret lawyer can also advise on best practices to maintain the confidential nature of trade secret information. This reduces the risk of inadvertent disclosure. Among other things, this could include accurate identification of trade secrets and addressing security and monitoring of trade secret information. It could also include employee training and policies with regard to trade secret protection.



How Can a Trade Secret Litigation Lawyer Help?



In the event someone has obtained your company’s trade secret information unlawfully, a trade secret lawyer can help. They will help you take the necessary steps to prevent further disclosure and/or seek recovery of damages to your company.  Above all, in the event of disclosure, time is often of the essence. A lawyer familiar with the process can initiate trade secret litigation seeking to immediately enjoin or restrict others, including your company’s former employees, from disclosing or using your company’s trade secret information by obtaining a temporary restraining order and other injunctive relief. Additionally, quick assessment and advice regarding maintaining and/or searching for forensic evidence related to an unlawful disclosure can be essential for success in trade secret litigation. Ultimately, our trade secret lawyers can also seek to recover any damages you or your company has suffered from unauthorized use of your trade secrets through trade secret litigation.



Lastly, on the flip side, employees are increasingly more mobile and change jobs more frequently. Furthermore, it’s often within the same industry and among competitors. In this environment, a company runs the risk of allegations of trade secret misappropriation in trade secret litigation filed against them. This is especially true if a new employee previously worked for a competitor. As a result, an experienced trade secret lawyer can evaluate allegations of trade secret misappropriation and rigorously defend your company should it develop into trade secret litigation.



Rogge Dunn Group's Trade Secret Litigation Experience



Rogge Dunn Group’s trade secret lawyers have extensive experience advising on trade secret protection issues and handling trade secret litigation. To learn more about the trade secret lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, visit their attorney biographies here:





Rogge DunnGregory CliftDavid GrossCollin Quigley





To contact the business lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

### COVID-19 Media Appearances

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised many questions regarding employment rights for both employers and employees. Because of this, Rogge Dunn Group's attorney, Rogge Dunn, has appeared on multiple news segments to share their insight on employment laws as they pertain to COVID-19.



COVID-19 Media Appearances























Rogge Dunn Q&A on Dallas Business Journal About COVID-19 Employment RightsDallas Business Journal  |  May 7, 2020



Rogge Dunn answers common questions about COVID-19 employment rights in a Dallas Business Journal article.




Read More


















Rogge Dunn on Star Local Media About Client's Coronavirus Related LawsuitStar Local Media  |  April 29, 2020



Star Local Media interviewed Rogge Dunn on his client's coronavirus-related wrongful termination lawsuit.




Read More


















Rogge Dunn Addresses Workers' Concerns on KPRC NBC News SegmentKPRC 2 News  |  April 28, 2020



As Texas businesses reopen amid the COVID-19 pandemic, some Texas workers have concerns about returning to work. Rogge Dunn answered many of these workers' questions during a KPRC NBC news segment.




Read More






















Rogge Dunn Interviewed on KHOU 11 About Unemployment Benefits Amid COVID-19KHOU 11  |  April 28, 2020



KHOU 11 interviewed Rogge Dunn about the requirements for unemployment benefits as outlined by the Texas Workforce Commission.




Read More






















Rogge Dunn Q&A with Texas Lawyer on Texas Employment Rights As They Pertain to COVID-19Texas Lawyer |  April 21, 2020



In an article by Texas Lawyer, Rogge Dunn answers questions in an effort to help both employees and employers understand their rights and risks as they pertain to COVID-19.




Read More






















Rogge Dunn Interviewed on WFAA Regarding COVID-19 Employment IssuesWFAA  |  April 19, 2020



WFAA interviewed Rogge Dunn on COVID-19 employment issues amid the COVID-19 outbreak.




Read More






















Rogge Dunn Interviewed by Kera News on Janitor Safety Amid COVID-19Kera News  |  April 10, 2020



Star Local Media interviewed Rogge Dunn on his client's coronavirus-related wrongful termination lawsuit.Rogge Dunn was recently interviewed during a Kera News story regarding the concerns over janitor safety during COVID-19.




Read More


















Rogge Dunn Discusses COVID-19 Cases in Denton Living Center on NBC DFWNBC DFW  |  April 2, 2020



Rogge Dunn was interviewed by NBC DFW about the growing concerns inside a Denton State Supported Living Center, which has over 75 cases.




Read More






















Rogge Dunn Talks COVID-19 Employment Laws on KPRC NBC HoustonKPRC NBC  |  March 27, 2020



Dunn gave insight on a KPRC NBC news segment about the legality of essential businesses requiring their employees to come to work during the COVID-19 outbreak.




Read More






















Rogge Dunn on NBC DFW Live Stream About COVID-19 Employment IssuesNBC DFW  |  March 12, 2020



Rogge Dunn joined news anchor Meredith Land on NBC DFW's social media for a live stream to discuss employment concerns amid the coronavirus pandemic.




Read More

### Recent & Upcoming Events



### Paraprofessional Team

The Paraprofessional Team at Rogge Dunn Group supports the Firm's attorneys with legal and administrative matters. Get to know the staff below – they're an indispensable part of what we do. 









Pamela BishopChief Administrative Officer









LaKeisha PhillipsRogge Dunn's Chief of Staff











Tina VanderburgSenior Managing Paralegal









Rashella WiddoesParalegal











YuDaina TaylorParalegal









Judy KennedyParalegal











Samantha BuckParalegal









Monika WhiteParalegal











Lashunda MinnittParalegal









Juan BrionesRecords Intake Specialist











Rhonda DucarReceptionist









Lonni BrownSenior Operations Specialist

### 3rd Party Publications



### Awards



### Clients

See our list of clients:



Rogge Dunn Group









View Corporate Clients









View Executive Clients

### Executive Clients



### Corporate Clients



### Books and Publications



### Community

The success that our clients have enabled us to achieve affords us the ability to give back to our community.  Many of our attorneys are second and third generation Dallasites who, along with their spouses, are active in numerous local charitable and civic causes.



This includes substantial financial contributions to various charities, pro-bono work for non-profit organizations, and substantial time working on committees for numerous charitable and civic causes. Our attorneys also provide free legal service to the economically disadvantaged and have received awards from the Dallas Bar Association for their volunteer pro-bono work.




Perot Museum



Habitat for Humanity

### Radio Appearances



### Speeches



### Significant Personal Injuries

Significant Personal Injury Lawyer



Every personal injury lawyer at the Firm has handled many types of personal injury cases involving death or serious injury including: motor vehicle accidents, oilfield incidents, injuries caused by drunk drivers, consumer and industrial product failures, molestations, secret videotapings, taping of phone calls, boating accidents, assaults and batteries, food poisoning, police “chase” cases, invasion of privacy, fires, explosions, burn cases, premises liability incidents and inadequate security.

### Title IX, Hazing, N.I.L., and Colleges

Our firm has extensive experience representing all constituencies in Title IX, N.I.L. University Code of Conduct, hazing, NCAA Investigations, denial of tenure, and fraternity and sorority charter issues. We have handled these issues on numerous campuses nationwide, including SMU, Notre Dame, Cal-Berkley, Baylor, UTA, UNT, and Texas Tech.



Over the years our lawyers have represented both alleged victims and alleged harassers, male and female students, fraternities, sororities, athletes, coaches, professors, universities, and college administrators.  Rogge Dunn represented Patty Crawford, the courageous Title IX Coordinator who blew the whistle on the football gang rapes at Baylor.  Dunn has also represented the lead Investigator of Baylor’s Title IX office and a Baylor administrator.  Dunn has also represented the President of Texas Tech University.



Dunn has helped students, professors, coaches, and administrators accused of violating a university’s code of conduct.

### Sports and Entertainment

Sports and Entertainment Law Firm



Rogge Dunn Group is a top sports and entertainment law firm. Our attorneys represent ultra-high net worth individuals and sports and entertainment celebrities, including coaches, professional athletes, Olympic gold medal winners, athletic department employees and University Presidents.



One of the highest testaments to Dunn’s abilities is the fact that Senior Partners in some of the largest law firms hire Dunn to represent them.

### Arbitration

Arbitration Lawyer



Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution where parties refer their matter to one or more neutral arbitrators for a binding determination. A neutral arbitrator reviews the evidence and renders a decision that is legally binding. The use of arbitration is often mandated by the terms of employment or commercial contracts. Even without an arbitration lawyer and agreement, parties may also voluntarily submit their dispute to arbitration.



Parties select arbitration as a method to achieve faster resolution of their disputes. There are also perceived cost savings over traditional litigation. Oftentimes, parties select an arbitration lawyer with specific expertise in a subject matter.



If you're in need of an arbitration lawyer, our Firm has extensive experience with arbitrations all across the country. Our Firm’s lawyers have arbitrated with numerous entities. These entities include: the AAA, FINRA, the NLRB, JAMS, Arbitration Forums, Inc. and other private arbitration entities.



Dunn and his team have won numerous arbitration awards for their Plaintiff clients. And, the Firm’s lawyers have defeated plaintiffs’ claims for our Defendant clients.

### Food & Beverage Law

Restaurant Lawyer



We handle all types of restaurant issues. The Firm represents single-unit operations to Fortune 1000 multi-concept restaurant concerns. Before becoming a restaurant lawyer, many of our Firm's partners spent their pre-law years learning the restaurant business working as everything from servers to managers. We know how to “expo.”



One of the restaurant chains we partner with is so pleased with our work over the years that they named their sandwich special the “Rogge Dunn Deal.”  You can enjoy the “Rogge Dunn Deal” at any Sonny Bryan’s Smokehouse location.

### FINRA and Financial Advisors

FINRA Arbitration Attorneys



We handle a variety of matters across the U.S. in the financial industry space. We’ve defeated big firms like Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Citi, BoA, Morgan Stanley, and UBS.



We transition teams to new firms, negotiate LOIs and contracts, fight TROs, non-competes, and non-solicits, ensure the broker recruiting protocol is followed (for signatories), and defend against promissory note enforcement. Our FINRA arbitration attorneys also help financial advisors, branch managers, RIAs, and executives with severance, team splits, regulatory issues, 8210 requests, letters of education, and FINRA, SEC, and CFP investigations.



We’ve assisted numerous Barrons top 100 teams seamlessly move to new firms. We have won numerous multi-million-dollar FINRA awards for FAs and quietly obtained more than $50 million in confidential settlements. We hold the record for the highest wrongful discharge FINRA award against Goldman Sachs.



Our resources include Partner Patrick McShan, who is a licensed FINRA arbitrator. His FINRA training gives us insight into how FINRA arbitrators think.

### Employment Lawyer Dallas

Employment Lawyer in Dallas For All Areas of Employment Litigation



Looking for an experienced employment lawyer in Dallas? The labor and employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group have the experience needed to successfully prevent and/or resolve employment disputes. Two of the Firm’s Dallas employment lawyers are Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization: Rogge Dunn and Bryan Collins

### Gregory M. Clift

Mr. Clift is a trial lawyer representing clients in complex civil cases and arbitration proceedings involving business disputes, misappropriation of trade secrets, violations of non-competes, employment torts, and insurance disputes. Greg has represented clients’ interests throughout the United States and in Brazil and Canada. He has been admitted pro hac vice in Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah.

### Bryan Collins

Collins has been Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization since 1997 and his practice for more than 35 years almost exclusively has involved Labor and Employment matters.

### Testimonials



### Trial Work

Dunn Has Won More Than $2 Billion Net for Clients in Judgments and Settlements.



Below are awards rendered by juries or arbitrators and settlements before a trial. All numbers are the clients’ net recovery.



Rogge Dunn’s top 100 trial verdicts in jury trials and arbitrations include:39th largest Texas Award 20222nd largest Texas Fraud Verdict 20213rd largest Texas Award 201753rd largest Texas Verdict 201758th largest Texas Verdict 201637th largest California Verdict 2014Top 100 California Award 2008Top 75 California Award 20062nd Largest Verdict in Arkansas 2001Top 20 Texas Verdict 1998“Largest verdict ever in products liability action in Louisiana”.   -- National Law Journal, 1993

### Results For Our Clients



### Disclaimer

This website and all materials on it have been prepared by Rogge Dunn Group, PC for informational purposes only. These materials do not, and are not intended to, constitute legal advice.



The materials on this website may be considered advertising in your state. Rogge Dunn Group, PC does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing the materials found on this website in a state where this website fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.



Rogge Dunn Group, PC makes every effort to keep the material on this website current; however, we cannot guarantee that the material is either complete or current. Do not act upon any information contained in this website without seeking the advice of legal counsel licensed in your state.



Transmission of information via this website is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Rogge Dunn Group, PC, or any attorney at Rogge Dunn Group, PC.

### Contact Rogge Dunn Group



### News & Media



### Business and Commercial Litigation

Business Lawyers for Complex Business Disputes



The business lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group represent clients in a wide variety of complex business disputes, including breach of contract, business torts and intellectual property. (These claims include fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and improper, unauthorized use of confidential information, trademarks and trade secrets.)



The broad scope of our Firm’s litigation practice includes representation of both public and private companies, as well as individual shareholders, business owners and investors. Our clients include established manufacturers, high tech software and telecom firms, restaurant chains, financial service companies, oil and gas midstream companies, real estate concerns, and medical and other professional service companies.



Companies around the world trust us as their business lawyers because we have the expertise and resources needed to resolve all types of business disputes. We represent companies and entrepreneurs from start-ups to mid-caps to Fortune global 50 corporations.  Our corporate clients include: Adecco, the world’s largest staffing agency; CBRE, the world’s largest commercial real estate services and investment firm; AIG; Bloomin Brands (Outback Steakhouse, Carrabba’s, Fleming’s Steakhouse, Roy’s Hawaiian Restaurant, Bonefish); Champion Home Builders; CIGNA Insurance Companies; Travelers Insurance; UIS, the largest forensic investigations firm in the U.S.; and Match.com. 



Our business lawyers also represent numerous small to medium sized local businesses and non-profits including: CASE Commercial Real Estate, Cawley Partners, Criswell College, Panda Energy, Perot Museum of Nature and Science, DuraServ, Thackeray Partners, Sonny Bryan’s Smokehouse, Flavor Hook Restaurant Group (Neighborhood Services, Town Hearth, Montlake Cut, Perfect Union Pizza Co., Off-Site Kitchen), MMC Group, Free Range Concepts (the Rustic, Bowl & Barrel, the General Public and Mutts) and Hoffbrau Steaks. Our business lawyers help entrepreneurs protect their founders’ equity as well as assisting them with liquidity events and sales, mergers and acquisition of their business.



In addition, Rogge Dunn Group's business lawyers also represent C-Level executives and entrepreneurs. A representative sample of our C-Level executive clients include: Scott Kirby, President of United Airlines; George Jones, Vice-Chairman of CrossFirst Bank; Fred Perpall, CEO of Beck; Buster Corley, co-founder of Dave & Buster's; Marty Garvey, co-founder of Jake’s Hamburgers; Steve Shlemon, former CEO of Carrabas; and Joe Luongo, former CEO of Massage Envy.






















Reported Cases: Business & Commercial Litigation
  
	  
  
    
		
  	
		
			 
				  
Thomas v BioTE Medical, LLC, 2020 WL 948087 (Tex. App–Dallas February 26, 2020)
			
		

  	
		
			 
				  
Metro Hospitality Partners, Ltd. v. Lexington Insurance Company, 84 F.Supp.3d 553 (S.D.Tex. 2015)
			
		

  	
		
			 
				  
Ennis, Inc. v Dunbrooke Apparel Corp., 427 S.W. 3d 527 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2014)
			
		

  	
		
			 
				  
Hest Technologies, Inc. v. PC Connection Sales Corp., 2014 WL 1327508 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 2014)
			
		

  	
		
			 
				  
In re Michelle Detmer CAMPO and Rosanna Cantu, Realtors, 2013 WL 3929251 (Tex. App. –Dallas 2013)
			
		

  	
		
			 
				  
In re Regal Energy, LLC 2013 W.L 5305240 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 2013)
			
		

  	
		
			 
				  
David O. Kemp, P.C. d/b/a Kemp Lydick v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co., et al., 2012 WL 13019688 (N.D.Tex. 2012)
			
		

  	
		
			 
				  
David Repinski, et al., v. Cunningham Lindsey Group, Ltd., et al., 2012 WL 13018319 (N.D.Ga 2012)
			
		

  	
		
			 
				  
Courtroom Sciences, Inc. v. Cindy Andrews, 2009 WL 1313274 (N.D.Tex. 2009)
			
		

  	
		
			 
				  
Sherrie Gilbert, et. al v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, 2008 WL 4538259 (5th Cir. 2008)
			
		

  	
		
			 
				  
Alexander vs. Lincare, Inc., 2007 WL 4178592 (N.D. Tex. 2007)
			
		

  	
		
			 
				  
Great Host International v. Massey-Fair Industrial, et. al, 2007 WL 667169 (S.D.Tex 2007)
			
		

  	
		
			 
				  
Fair Grounds Corporation v. ADT Security Systems, et. al, 690 So.2d 250 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1997)

### Practice Areas

We handle a variety of legal disputes involving: business, employment, partnerships, FINRA and the financial industry, non-competes, trade secrets, “business divorce,” arbitrations, Sarbanes-Oxley, Qui Tam, class actions, medical practice disputes, NCAA investigations, shareholder oppression, RIAs, creditor’s and debtor’s rights, insurance coverage, whistleblowing, and significant personal injury matters.



We help individuals and corporations in delicate or compromising situations, who need a sophisticated and discrete touch. These include everything from assaults, regulatory violations, sexual battery, secret videotaping, fraternity, and sorority matters to illegitimate children.



We have represented clients in disputes arising in 35+ states in the US, and in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, England, France, Hong Kong, Mexico, the Netherlands, Scotland, Spain and Qatar.

### Rogge Dunn

Rogge Dunn is a third-generation Dallasite and a sixth-generation Texan. Dunn and his wife, Cathy DeWitt Dunn, are active in charitable, political, and civic causes.

### Our Attorneys

Formed by experienced trial lawyers, Rogge Dunn Group is one of the top Dallas law firms for businesses and individuals alike. We are a trial boutique handling business, employment, and FINRA matters. The founding partners have tried cases in 7 states and 13 Texas cities. We assembled a team of lawyers with big firm talent without the bureaucratic constraints, high fees, and conflicts of interests. Our Firm’s approach gives us contingent fee flexibility and the creativity to think and operate outside the box.



Don’t take our word for our courtroom success and client satisfaction. Take a minute to read the verdicts, published legal opinions, and news reports on the results we’ve obtained for clients all around Texas and the United States. Review the numerous client testimonials that satisfied, repeat clients have sent us. 



VIEW TESTIMONIALS



Our track record of pushing to resolve disputes quickly with a minimum of attorneys’ fees—but having the trial experience, litigation muscle, and energy to go all the way to the finish line, when the other side is unreasonable–is the key to our success. It's what makes us the premier choice of Dallas law firms.

### Art Gallery

On the 19th floor of Ross Tower, you will find a collection of World War I and II-era propaganda, graphic arts from all over the world, rare photographs, and an eclectic mix of one-of-a-kind pieces from history. 



The Dallas Business Journal featured the art gallery in an article on the interesting office space. 



Rogge Dunn, a native Dallasite and fifth-generation Texan, has a great love for art. This deep appreciation for the arts led him to build a collection that has been featured in the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Smithsonian Institution, and London’s Victoria and Albert Museum. 



This exhibit puts Rogge’s passion on display for all visitors to enjoy.



Parts of the Rogge Dunn art collection have been displayed at the Texas Hall of State and is on temporary loan to the Frontiers of Flight Museum.



Rogge Dunn's art collection has been featured in multiple publications, including Park Cities People for unique items in his collection, including the bed of nails from the Addam's Family and the original T-Rex dinosaur model used in the first Jurassic Park movie. For more pictures of the Art Gallery, check out this article from Dallas Business Journal.




     D Magazine          Read More



     Dallas Business Journal          Read More



     Dallas Holocaust Museum/Center for Education and Tolerance     Read More



     Flight Museum          Read More

### About Us



### Rogge Dunn Group, PC

ABOUT THE FIRM 



Formed by experienced Dallas trial lawyers, Rogge Dunn Group, PC  is a business dispute, employment law, and trial boutique. The founding partners have tried cases in 7 states and 13 Texas cities. We assembled a team of Dallas trial lawyers with big firm talent without the bureaucratic constraints, high fees, and conflicts of interests. We have contingent fee flexibility and the creativity to think and operate outside the box.



Our Attorneys


## Testimonials

### Scott Kirby

"Rogge, thanks for making my transition from American to United a smooth, short and affordable flight."






---Scott KirbyPresident, United Airlines (Chicago)

### Donnie Nelson

"Rogge is the go to attorney for sports executives."






-Donnie NelsonFormer President of Basketball Operations & GM Dallas Mavericks (Dallas)

### Brian Horan

"Rogge, You are one of those five special people in a life. Serious, talented but with a big heart."
"You remained so accessible and always attentive during a period of upheaval in our lives.  We are forever grateful for your confidence, expertise, and personal touch - - I owe you."






---Brian HoranFormer Director SC Region Medtronic (Dallas)

### Fred Perpall

“Rogge is well known for his expertise in helping C-level executives negotiate contracts and non-compete issues. He is a good counselor, trusted negotiator, and an excellent trial attorney.” 
“I had the opportunity to observe him in action in a mock trial and it’s comforting to know that if litigation is necessary, the same person who drafted an executive contract has the communication skills necessary to persuade a jury that the contract is both valid and fair.”






---Fred PerpallCEO, Beck (Dallas)

### Joe Kadow

“Rogge is Outback’s go-to lawyer for significant commercial litigation. For more than 20 years we have used Rogge to obtain injunctive relief for Outback in significant cases all across the country.”
“I’ve seen a lot of trial lawyers in action. Rogge is one of the best.”






---Joe KadowFormer General Counsel, Bloomin' Brands (Tampa)

### Tim Taft

“I got to know Rogge the hard way, when I was CEO of Pizza Inn and he was suing our company over a change in control lawsuit I inherited. Rogge’s tenacious, bulldog approach impressed me then.  Later, I twice hired him to help me with various C-level legal issues. Rogge's extensive experience handling major issues for franchisors and entrepreneurs is invaluable; his restaurant experience is a plus. Every CEO, entrepreneur and business owner needs someone like Rogge in their corner.  I have never hesitated to recommend Rogge to other C-level execs.”






-Tim TaftFormer CEO of Whataburger and CEO of Pizza Inn (Dallas)

### Kyle Workman

“Patrick represents our organization in the fight against the high-speed rail. I’ve seen him work in just about every setting imaginable. I’ve watched him in court. I’ve been to meetings with him at The White House and U.S. Dept. of Transportation. I’ve seen him testify before the Texas Legislature. I’ve read the briefs he drafted in our court cases and federal agency proceedings. Regardless of the task, Patrick is always prepared and always delivers. He is a highly intelligent, hardworking, passionate lawyer who truly cares about his clients. We are extremely fortunate to have him on our team.”






- Kyle WorkmanChairman, Texans Against High Speed Rail, a non-profit organization  (Jewett)

### William Kelly, Esq.

“I have been opposite Rogge in protracted litigation and trial. Rogge is a hard fighter, a tireless advocate, and a consummate professional.  During the trial in which we were against each other, he related well to New Orleans jurors.  Since that case, I have referred clients to Rogge and continually receive positive reports on The Rogge Dunn Group.  Rogge is a trial lawyer who will not blink, will always be prepared, and takes pride in getting solid results."






-William Kelly, Esq.Managing Partner of Kelly & Walker, LLC (New Orleans)

### George Speckart

I’ve watched trial lawyers handle high profile cases from the Agent Orange litigation to the Exxon Valdez oil spill trial. Rogge’s the best. Jurors love him.






-George SpeckartPh.D., Jury Consultant, Courtroom Sciences, Inc. (Langley)

### Phil Steuer

"Rogge, to this day I'm still impressed by our first interaction.  I emailed you on Sunday morning and you responded within minutes.  Not much later you were already attacking the case.  It's no wonder you were recommended by other attorneys as the best person to retain.  Since I was employed in Puerto Rico, it was comforting to know you were successfully resolving my non-compete issues in Texas."






- Phil SteuerExecutive (Puerto Rico)

### Ronnie Parker

“When a PE firm with an activist investor reputation bought a controlling stake in the company,  I knew I was in for a fight.  They fired me without good cause, triggering my Change in Control  benefits.  They refused to pay my CIC benefits,  falsely accused me of poison pill tactics  and sued me personally for $9.4 million.
Then they waged a PR campaign against me.  Rogge and I fought back and on the morning we started trial,  they settled and paid me $2.8 million—a $12.2 million swing in my favor.  And, my actions and reputation were vindicated in a New York Times article.”






-Ronnie ParkerFormer CEO, Pizza Inn (Dallas)

### Gerry Fowler

“I tried a case against Rogge in 2016 all the way to a jury verdict. I've been trying cases for 20 years; Rogge gave the best and most powerful opening statement I've ever seen.”






- Gerry FowlerEsq., Partner, McGowen & Fowler  (Houston)

### Lori Lynn

“Rogge successfully enforced a non-compete for our company. When the former employee counter-claimed against us, Rogge’s cross-examination at trial destroyed his case and enabled LODESTAR to win a great result.”
“I have worked with some of the top lawyers in New York and Boston.Rogge’s trial skills are among the best I’ve seen.”






---Lori LynnFormer VP & Corporate Counsel, LODESTAR Corporation (Boston)

### Nick Novello

“Due to a historical anachronism, dozens of licensed Peace Officers working for the City were classified as Park Rangers, instead of Dallas Police Officers.  This prevented us from obtaining promotions and other benefits Dallas Police Officer’s enjoyed.
We hired an attorney who filed a class action lawsuit and lost.  We were at wits end when we heard about Rogge.  He took on our case against all odds, tried a new strategy and obtained a tremendous settlement; not only in terms of money, but winning us the opportunity for promotions and other benefits.   On top of that, when the case settled, Rogge reduced his fee.
Rogge represents police, active military and first responders.  He understands what we go through daily and is totally committed to helping first responders in their time of need.
Rogge, I can’t thank you enough for your loyalty and dedication to our group and for the great result you obtained.”






-Nick NovelloDallas Police Officer (Dallas)

### Jim Ewbank

“I got to know Rogge early in his career when I was opposing counsel in an Austin lawsuit.  Rogge impressed me then as someone who creative, hardworking and dedicated to his clients.   Years later we were on opposite sides of a significant case involving invasion of privacy where Rogge obtained a good result for his clients.  If my firm needed a lawyer to defend it, I would hire Rogge.”






-Jim EwbankPartner, Cokinis, Bowien & Young (Austin)

### Guy Bailey

"Rogge did an excellent job of representing me and assisting Tech in winning the Coach Mike Leach lawsuit."






---Guy BaileyFormer President, Texas Tech University (Lubbock)

### Jeb McNew

“Montague County was sued in federal court on an important and novel overtime claim. The County hired Rogge.  Rogge and his team engineered a favorable settlement promptly and with a minimum of attorneys’ fees.”






-Jeb McNewFormer County Attorney, Montague County (Bowie)

### David Barnes

“For top producing financial advisors, Rogge is the go-to guy in our industry. His experience and work ethic are unmatched. He is excellent at resolving or avoiding non-compete and non-solicitation disputes.”






-David BarnesBarron's top 100 financial advisor (Dallas)

### Marc Reinganum, PhD

“Rogge is a trusted Wall Street advisor.  Rogge helps relationship managers, investment bankers, branch managers, and executives.  When I decided to change firms, I put my trust in Rogge.”
“He is extremely knowledgeable, well-informed and thorough.  Rogge facilitated a smooth and amicable transition.”






---Marc Reinganum, PhDFormer Head of Active Developed Market Equities, State Street Global Advisors (Boston)

### Hal Biagas

“Rogge knows sports law and has helped my clients negotiate win/win results.“






- Hal BiagasFormer Asst. Gen. Counsel NBA Players Assoc. & sports agent (New York City)

### Ray DiNunzio

“As a former branch manager at UBS, who has worked on capital raises, and now as a Partner in an RIA, I have worked with dozens of attorneys in the financial industry/private equity space.  Rogge is widely recognized as one of the best attorneys in this field and an exceptional trial lawyer--if a FINRA arbitration or a lawsuit is necessary.
Over the years I have hired Rogge on numerous occasions, including representing a team Goldman Sachs was suing in court that was moving to my firm. And I’ve hired him to defend a registered representative under  investigation by FINRA.   
When I was wrongfully sued in Louisiana,  Rogge found me a Louisiana attorney who got the lawsuit transferred to Houston.  Then Rogge went to work.  He won an Anti-Slapp ruling awarding me all my attorney’s fees against the other side.  The case then quickly settled in my favor.”






-Ray DiNunzioTOS Advisors (Houston)

### Larry Brown

“Thank you for your legal work on my behalf. I appreciate your prompt assistance and efficiency.”






---Larry BrownBasketball Hall of Fame Coach (New York)

### Buster Corley

"Restaurateurs trust Rogge. When it came time for me to sell my interests in the restaurant chain I created and loved, it was important to leave the right way. Not only did Rogge protect my financial interests, he made the transition smooth and professional for all concerned."






---Buster CorleyFounder and former Co-owner, Dave & Busters (Dallas)

### Hariprased Trivedi, M.D.

“When I had a dispute over compensation and management issues in our medical practice group, I hired Rogge. I had an uphill battle because the group was owned a multi-billion dollar health care conglomerate. I couldn’t see any light at the end of the tunnel and only stress for an extended period. During a time of great personal strife, Rogge helped me negotiate a favorable exit that provided personal and financial relief, while discounting his fees. Rogge, thank you for being more than a lawyer---a friend and a confidante. I still remember your words during a tough moment “I don’t abandon my clients.”






-Hariprased Trivedi, M.D.(Midland)

### Rosana Narvaez

“Patrick represented my family in a legal malpractice lawsuit in El Paso. I’m an attorney; but there was no way for me to litigate this case myself. I had to find an attorney tough enough to do what was necessary, but compassionate enough to do some hand holding.  
Real trial lawyers are few and far between. Patrick has established himself as a top-notch litigator, and his reputation as a man of integrity precedes him. His civility and gentility is something we don’t see too often.  I would not want to face him as an adversary. He commands respect in the courtroom from both judges and colleagues. He knows the law and is scarily smart. His ability to think on his feet causes opposing counsel to struggle to keep up. 
Everything Patrick has said and done for me and my family shows he is a man of integrity and that he cares about my parents, not just as clients, but as people. When the stakes are high and you really need an ace, I recommend Patrick without reservation.”






- Rosana NarvaezAttorney (Miami)

### Mark Adams

“Rogge thanks for your help with my contract negotiations with Texas Tech.”






- Mark AdamsAP Big 12 Head Coach of the Year (2022) (Lubbock)

### Buck Showalter

“When I needed a top notch attorney for advice on my employment contract, I chose Rogge. He was knowledgeable and very responsive. He protected my economic interests and professional reputation. Rogge knows how to play hardball.”
“Big league managers to Fortune 500 CEOs choose Rogge for help in employment and business disputes. Given his knowledge, experience, and reputation, Rogge is someone I have on my team.”






---Buck ShowalterFormer Manager, Baltimore Orioles (Baltimore)

### Bill Cawley

“Rogge, Thanks for giving us sound legal advice for the past 20+ years."






---Bill CawleyFounder, Cawley Partners, Former Chair, TREC

### Gary Borders

“Rogge, your negotiating strategy and tactics worked to perfection. Remind me to never play poker against you.”






---Gary BordersMedia Executive (Longview)

### Robin Singh

“Patrick represented my company from start to finish in a trademark infringement lawsuit, including the other side’s appeal. The stakes could not have been higher; my opponent was trying to stop me from using the nationally-known trade name I had developed over 20 years.
Patrick was fully invested and fought hard, often working nights and weekends without complaint and he traveled around the country for depositions. Thanks to Patrick’s diligent efforts, we’re able to continue using our trade name.     
Patrick has represented my company for many years. He is intelligent, skilled, and reliable. Patrick’s fees arefair and reasonable, especially in comparison to the big law firms that have represented my company in other matters. When faced with litigation you can’t afford to lose, I recommend Patrick wholeheartedly and without reservation.” 






- Robin SinghFounder & CEO, TestMasters, one of US’s largest test preparation companies (Santa Monica)

### Jim Wilkinson

"Taking an executive position in a foreign company and working overseas requires the advice of a lawyer who understands the novel and complicated issues involved. Rogge, thanks for making my transition from PepsiCo to Alibaba successful."






---Jim WilkinsonFormer Chief of Staff for Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Former SVP and Head of Int'l Corporate Affairs, Alibaba (China)

### Al Mack aka "Big Al"

“Rogge handles high-profile matters and understands the unique legal issues media personalities face.  I trust Rogge. Rogge is not only my lawyer, but my friend.”






-Al Mack aka "Big Al"Co-host, The Kidd Kraddick Morning Show (Dallas)

### Cristina Mendoza

“Rogge, I cannot begin to thank you enough.  You are a star!  You are an excellent lawyer: thorough, extremely well prepared; fun and well-connected!”
“Thanks again for your prompt and successful resolution of a significant and challenging legal matter for Benihana.”






---Cristina MendozaGeneral Counsel and Secretary, Benihana (Miami)

### George Jones

“I trust Rogge.  When I decided to retire and prepare a secession plan,  I sought Rogge’s advice. Rogge has extensive experience helping  C-level executives at major companies. He has an excellent reputation among top executives.”
“Rogge helped me negotiate key exit provisions to protect my equity interests and at the same time ensure a smooth transition to safeguard the bank and its shareholders. I’ve also sought Rogge’s help on the front end to negotiate an executive contract with equity awards.”






---George JonesFormer CEO and Co-founder, Texas Capital Bancshares (Dallas)

### Cindy and Dutch Schorr

"When I received a page in a London airport and learned that my husband had been seriously injured in Qatar, it was the most frightening day in my life. We had to get Dutch out of the Middle East to a hospital in Europe on a care flight. I turned to Rogge for help."
"Rogge was there every step of the way to help us with Dutch's claims against the oil and gas company that did not provide him safe transportation to the oil field equipment he managed."
"Rogge, thanks for all of your hard work, understanding the intricacies of an overseas dispute and getting us a fair settlement."






---Cindy and Dutch Schorr(Qatar)

### Paul Avery

“I’ve worked closely with Rogge on numerous significant litigation matters for 15+ years.  He defended me in deposition and I've seen him in action. His attention to detail, energy and enthusiasm is second to none.  He is knowledgeable about the law, but most important, he is “street smart,” which enables him to relate to our employees and connect with a jury."






-Paul AveryFormer COO, Bloomin’ Brands; CEO, World of Beer (Tampa)

### Jean Cohn

"Our Company was sued for $38 million regarding pressure vessels on offshore gas rigs. Rogge and his team won a summary judgment exonerating us of all liability and won a $92,000 judgment for our attorneys’ fees against the plaintiff."






--Jean CohnVice President and General Counsel, HSB Group (Hartford)

### Patricia Hahn

“When I complained to HR about my boss bullying me,  soon thereafter I was fired from my $40,000 a year job, allegedly for poor performance.  I was devastated. I lost my house, my insurance, and I had to cash in my 401(k) to live. The stress was so bad I developed a stuttering problem for the only time my life, which made it hard to find a job.  No attorney would help me, and I had nowhere to turn.  I read about Rogge and asked him to take a chance on me. 
Rogge took my case on a pure contingent fee paying for everything,  even though it was going to be a long, tough fight against wealthy doctors. 
Rogge stuck by me when I turned down a six-figure settlement offer.  We went to trial and won a $1,060,000 jury verdict.  While I appreciated the money,  holding my boss accountable and having a jury finding that I was wrongfully discharged was worth much more.  Both Rogge and I were in tears when the verdict was announced. 
I went back to school, obtained my LVN and I now have a wonderful job.  Rogge thank you and  your tremendous team for sticking with me through thick and thin and never once wavering in your total support of me and my case.”






--Patricia HahnLicensed Vocational Nurse (Dallas)

### Cheryl Higley

"Bryan Collins and his legal team are terrific. Top notch!"






-Cheryl Higley (Austin)

### John Brusniak

“Lawyers are the most demanding type of clients. When lawyers face partnership disputes, they call Rogge. When partners left my law firm, Rogge’s creative solutions resolved the dispute quickly and amicably, with minimal attorneys’ fees.”






---John BrusniakAttorney (Dallas)

### Woody Norris

“Over the last 15 years I’ve worked with Rogge on several significant legal matters. I trust Rogge. Rogge provides me with proactive and innovative strategies to help the companies and organizations I lead avoid legal troubles.”
"Rogge has been involved in major legal battles in the sports industry from the Coach Mike Leach lawsuit, to NCAA investigations to the Baylor University Title IX issues.”






---Woody NorrisFormer Senior Associate Athletic Director, SMU (Dallas)

### Blaise Hadley

“Every restauranteur’s worst nightmare is the murder of their employees. When two former employees robbed and killed three Outback Steakhouse employees in East Texas, we needed an accomplished trial lawyer who understood our culture and could connect with our employees. We chose Rogge. Outback has always used every security technique to provide a safe workplace. Rogge vindicated Outback’s approach to security and got the plaintiffs' cases dismissed in their entirety on a summary judgment motion."






-Blaise HadleyFormer Regional VP, Outback Steakhouse (Dallas)

### Nicole Small

“Rogge is a problem-solver whose proactive advice enables our organization to avoid legal problems. His integrity and ability to get to the bottom line helps us make the right decisions.”
“However, when litigation is necessary, Rogge is the T-Rex of trial lawyers.”






-Nicole SmallFormer Executive Director, Perot Museum of Nature and Science (Dallas)

### Brent Wright

"When I left my former employer, I walked away from a large amount of deferred stock and unpaid bonus money. I called the Rogge Dunn Group, and Bryan Collins took the time to understand my situation, was very upfront and honest about the risks, the costs and potential outcomes. Bryan created a plan to send a demand to my former employer that quickly led to mediation. During Mediation Bryan was poised and adamant in our case, and his knowledge of the laws, mediation process and experience from representing clients on both sides of the aisle led to a very favorable settlement. I highly recommend Byran Collins and the Rogge Dunn group, especially in our financial services industry. Special thanks to Rogge for his input and guidance along the way as well. I know now who my attorneys are for life."






-Brent Wright (Dallas)

### Steve Erickson

“When I was Sr. VP of Operations for Outback, I went to trial with Rogge in two lengthy and difficult lawsuits. His ability to connect with the jurors enabled Outback to win favorable jury verdicts both times.”
“Once Rogge finished his devastating cross exam of the plaintiffs suing Outback, their cases were completely dismantled.”






---Steve EricksonPresident, PDQ (Tampa)

### Dick Anderson

“When I need an aggressive litigator who’s dynamic in the courtroom, I hire Rogge. He's hard-working, responsive, and street savvy.”






- Dick AndersonFounder, HPI Real Estate (Austin)

### David W. Copeland

I have known and worked with Rogge on a number of important matters over the last 10 years, including having engaged him as part of a team of attorneys to handle . . . lawsuits in Texas and New Mexico. His creativity and insight has helped us achieve favorable outcomes.






-David W. CopelandFormer General Counsel, SM Energy Company (Denver)

### Brad Keiller

“Patrick handled an important lawsuit for my company. He’s very diligent, organized, and meticulous with discovery. When our two-week trial started, Patrick made sure I was well prepared to take the witness stand. We won a multi-million-dollar judgment. The other lawyers were simply no match for Patrick in court. 
When our win was appealed, Patrick’s work was equally impressive. He wrote our winning briefs and argued our case before a three-judge panel. I attended the oral argument, and he was the best lawyer in the courtroom. 
Before I was a full-time entrepreneur, I was a commercial litigation attorney. I’ve worked with many lawyers over the years. Patrick is one of the most competent and skilled attorneys I have hired. And, he is a genuinely good guy.”






- Brad KeillerOwner, Earth CBD (Houston)

### Steve Powell

“As one of the largest forensic firms in the United States with 18 offices nationwide, our company needs a lawyer with national trial experience. Rogge has served our company as a counselor for 20+ years.”
“When necessary, Rogge vigorously files lawsuits, quickly obtains TROs and wins permanent injunctions. Rogge is fantastic in court and is a winner.”






-Steve PowellPresident, Unified Investigations & Sciences, Inc. (Atlanta)

### Lori McColl

"Bryan Collins and his team at Rogge Dunn walked with me through an almost 3 year process after being wrongfully terminated from my employer. They were highly recommended to me and I soon found out why. They listened with compassion and with a depth of understanding of the law that guided me and ultimately resulted in a settlement that I believe would not have happened if I had used any other firm. I am forever grateful to Bryan and his team for not only the financial settlement agreed to in mediation, but just as importantly, the immense feeling of vindication after going through such a horrible termination that affected me very deeply both emotionally and financially. I would recommend Bryan to anyone dealing with any kind of employment issues."






- Lori McColl(Irving)

### Angela Calvert

“When it came time to sell our company, I needed an attorney experienced in liquidity events who also had a reputation as a tough litigator, in case the sale had to be resolved in the courtroom.”
“I did my due diligence and Rogge came highly recommended. Entrepreneurs trust Rogge.”






---Angela CalvertFormer Owner and Member, ALM First Financial Advisors, LLC (Dallas)

### Marty Garvey

“Rogge has an excellent reputation for helping entrepreneurs and business owners navigate legal issues. He is also well-respected in the restaurant industry. When it came time for me to sell my interests in our restaurant chain,  he was my top choice.” 
“Rogge’s advice enabled me to cost-effectively negotiate the sale of my equity interests promptly and without any hiccups.”






-Marty GarveyFormer Co-Owner and Partner, Jake’s Hamburgers (Dallas)

### Hal Rose

"Too many attorneys create roadblocks. It’s refreshing to work with Rogge, who is a problem-solving trial attorney who helps us reach win/win resolutions."






-Hal Rose, Esq.Former General Counsel, First Broadcasting, LLC (Dallas)

### Tony Dona

“For 20+  years, I’ve turned to Rogge to handle significant legal matters. Rogge’s nationwide experience with real estate, partnership, REIT and investment matters helps our company avoid legal problems. Rogge understands the big picture and also addresses the details.”
“Rogge is our trusted counselor and litigator.”






---Tony DonaPrincipal, Greystar

### Glen Camp

"Ex-pats face a lot of challenges, not the least of which is understanding their legal rights in their home country and the foreign country where they work. When I was in a tough fight for substantial change in control benefits, I hired Rogge. He was willing to work on a contingent fee."
"We worked together as a team, which enabled me to obtain a fair resolution of my dispute.  Since then I've hired Rogge on two other occasions to provide me with advice and negotiation assistance on my executive employment contracts."






---Glen CampFormer Managing Director, Mono Pumps (England)

### Brent Harman

"Rogge grew up in the restaurant business and understands food and beverage issues. We turn to Rogge for legal advice because he knows the hospitality industry, knows Texas, and helps us avoid lawsuits. Rogge gets to the bottom line quickly and efficiently."






-Brent HarmanPresident, Sonny Bryan’s Smokehouse (Dallas)

### Bryan Whang

"Thank you for your advice and assistance on a number of matters over the years.  Your experience in California, your knowledge of FINRA and your connections in the financial industry helped me successfully resolve my ADA dispute, which was seriously compromising my health.   While I understand not all of your clients rely on you to fight for them when their health is on the line, your genuine concern for me as a person, literally saved my life.  You were always responsive, regardless of your schedule and your work ethic is amazing.  Your tenacity and skills during mediation and arbitration makes you particularly effective.  I am eternally grateful!"






-Bryan WhangManaging Partner of Jupiter View Capital, Financial Advisor formerly with Goldman Sachs and UBS (Park City)

### Wally Rosvall

"When a high-level executive was accused of harassment and discrimination, we trusted Rogge to investigate. His thorough and fair investigation enabled our company to make the right decision."






-Wally RosvallGeneral Counsel, Western Division, CB Richard Ellis (Los Angeles)

### Mark Running

“When our trade secrets were misappropriated and a rogue website infringed on our trademark, we needed quick action. Rogge and his team promptly filed a federal trademark lawsuit and obtained a TRO and permanent injunction in state court.”
“Rogge’s understanding of the IT and IP issues enabled us to win a great result.”






-Mark RunningFormer President, Roy’s Hawaiian Fusion Restaurant (Tampa)

### Eric Gershman

“Rogge has a well-deserved reputation for successful representation of top brokers across the country. His track record of helping teams negotiate favorable contracts, fight off non-compete lawsuits, stop defamation and win back millions in forfeited deferred compensation is second to none. He has won some of the biggest, hardest fought arbitrations for Barron’s top 100 brokers.”
“Rogge knows the brokerage business, which is why so many top broker teams from coast to coast have hired him when they are formulating an exit strategy.”






-Eric GershmanCEO, Consultants Period (Stowe)

### Brian Clark

"When it came time for me to depart my CEO position, I needed a seasoned attorney who could swiftly navigate a myriad of facts and circumstances and negotiate a win-win exit. Rogge's reputation as a fearsome litigator was paramount to achieving my goals quickly and professionally. When the chips are down, there's nobody I'd trust in my corner more than Rogge."






-Brian ClarkC-Level Executive (Great Falls)  

### Laura Tornaquindici

"We trust Rogge to advise us on our most challenging employment issues. He provides a trial lawyer's perspective, which helps us reach the right decision. His hard work and his dedication to clients is second to none."






-Laura TornaquindiciSVP and Chief Human Resources Officer, Beal Service Corporation (Dallas)  

### Edmundo Valente

“As a Brazilian citizen working in the U.S. and Brazil, dealing with American legal issues is a scary proposition. When I had a dispute with a broker-dealer, my Brazilian attorneys recommended Rogge.” 
“Rogge successfully resolved the issues with my old firm and helped make the transition to my new firm easy.” 
“He took the time to explain all of my rights and the pros and cons of my legal options and he partnered well with my Brazilian counsel. Rogge gave me the advice I needed to make the right decisions."
"And, it was convenient and efficient to have one attorney handle both my departure and my transition.”






---Edmundo ValenteFinancial Advisor, GSM Financial Services (Sao Paulo)

### Randy Cimorelli

“When our need for outside counsel arises, it usually demands prompt resolution. Rogge allows us to focus on our business, while he focuses on resolution. Bottom line: Rogge is the go-to guy.”
“When our company had a business dispute with a Fortune 150 company, we needed a trial lawyer who understood large commercial transactions.  Rogge filed suit and his aggressive strategy and tactics enabled us to promptly obtain a favorable settlement.”






-Randy CimorelliFormer President and COO, Massey-Fair Industrial, Inc. (Dallas)

### David Osborne

"Our employees are ingrained with the attitude that we will be there when the client needs us--24/7/365. When you need a trial lawyer, you need them NOW. Rogge shares our 24/7/365 client service attitude. For 20+ years United Mechanical has trusted Rogge to help us with our legal issues."






-David OsborneCEO & President, United Mechanical (Dallas)

### Leslie Moore

Rogge handles MADD’s litigation nationwide. His trial experience has produced great results for our organization.






-Leslie MooreFormer General Counsel, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (Dallas)

### James Price

"In house counsel and partners at large law firms trust Rogge to provide advice on their own employment issues or thorny corporate governance matters.   When everything was on the line, Rogge guided me to a commonsense solution.  Rogge thank you for resolving my legal issue quickly and cost-effectively."



- James Price, Esq.

### Ran Holman

“In our fast-moving industry we need a business-savvy attorney who can take action on a moment’s notice. Rogge is usually in the office by 5:30 a.m. and is available 24/7. We work on projects throughout the country and need outside counsel with a broad range of employment, business, and litigation experience. When we require help on significant legal matters, we turn to Rogge.”






-Ran HolmanFormer President, Cawley Partners (Dallas)

### Mark Heinold

“When it came time for me to move on to my next job, I hired Rogge. His reputation for successfully assisting C-Level execs with contract negotiations, severance packages and handling liquidity events is well known among executives and board members.”
“Rogge helped me achieve my goals promptly and cost-effectively.”






-Mark HeinoldFormer CEO, PDR Network, LLC (Boston)

### Todd Latouf

“I trust Rogge. Rogge not only has knowledge of executive contracts, he has the reputation of being a fearsome trial lawyer. I hired Rogge to negotiate my severance package. Rogge enabled me to reach a win/win resolution.”






-Todd LatoufC-Level Executive (Dallas)

### Phillip Douglas

“When it came time to retire, I hired Rogge to protect my deferred compensation and ensure a professional departure. Rogge helped me obtain a successful departure promptly with a minimum of attorneys’ fees.”






-Phillip DouglasFormer Chairman and CEO, New LifeCare Management Services (Dallas)

### Kyle Ward

“I have worked with Rogge for 20+ years. First as Deputy Executive Director of MADD and then as Executive Director of the Texas PTA. I trust Rogge and regularly seek his advice on legal issues.”
“Rogge is well-known for helping nonprofits navigate the unique legal issues they face. Rogge helps us stay out of trouble and avoid legal disputes and lawsuits. His experience handling legal matters across the country is a plus for organizations who have operations throughout the United States.”






-Kyle WardCAE, Executive Director, Texas PTA (Austin)

### James Harris

“When my company forced me to take early retirement, I needed expert legal advice from an attorney experienced in helping clients protect their legal rights regarding departure and deferred compensation. Rogge helped me negotiate a win/win resolution.”






-James HarrisAttorney and Former Senior International Negotiator, Hunt Oil Company (Dallas)

### Olivia Wells

"As a long-time HR executive, I have worked with a lot of attorneys around the country. Rogge's reputation for helping executives and companies with employment law issues is second to none. Myself and other HR professionals turn to Rogge for advice, negotiation and litigation of employment law matters."






-Olivia WellsFormer Corporate Human Resources Manager, Tuesday Morning (Dallas)

### Monica Perez

“When I needed legal advice, I did my due diligence. Rogge was recommended by numerous FAs and lawyers. Rogge’s track record of taking FINRA arbitrations to trial was a hammer the investment bank respected. Rogge listened and, working together, we developed and implemented a successful strategy that achieved my goals in a cost-effective manner.”






-Monica PerezFormer Financial Advisor, DLJ and Credit Suisse (Pasadena)

### LeBrasha Mickles

“I'd like to, once again, thank you and your incredible staff for your representation, assistance and kindness.  I truly appreciate your energy and vehemently strong passion.  It wasn’t about the money; I needed to make a stand against racism for myself and others, which I did with your help.   Wishing you the very best Rogge!!!”






-LeBrasha MicklesClerk (Keller)

### Ryan Moats

“Rogge, thank you for your advice and counsel on an important legal issue.”






-Ryan MoatsFormer NFL running back, 77th pick in the draft (Frisco)

### Chris Holt

"Rogge thank you for being available 24-7.  Your spot on legal advice enabled me to strike out the other side. You came highly recommended from several industry sources and you lived up to your reputation.  Your track record with sports industry issues makes you an MVP.  When I face legal issues I want you on my team."






-Chris HoltFormer MLB pitcher for Central Div. Champion Houston Astros (Coppell)

### Rich Dwyer

“Fighting off enforcement of a large promissory note by a big firm is tough.  The odds are skewed in favor of the firms.  When I had to do battle with my old firm, I hired Rogge.  He was committed to going all the way.
Rogge shines in trial; he carved up my former Branch Manager on the witness stand during the trial.  Rogge’s cross-examination was not only fun to watch, but enabled me to win a 1/3 reduction of the amount my old firm was seeking.
After the arbitration, Rogge stuck with me and wrote off a substantial portion of his fees.  He then assisted me for free with additional legal strategies that wiped out the rest that I owed without me having to pay anything on the promissory note.
Rogge, many thanks for a job well done.  I’d go into battle with you anytime.”






-Rich DwyerFinancial Advisor, Merrill Lynch (Orlando)

### Ken Kirk

“Companies and PE firms need to make a stand to protect their trade secrets and enforce their non-competes.  With businesses worth $500 million in our portfolio, we take buying and selling insurance agencies very seriously.
When a large company hired away key employees and utilized the trade secrets belonging to one of our portfolio companies, we needed quick action.  I hired a local attorney who did not produce results.  I imported Rogge from Dallas and before long he was able to obtain a very favorable settlement.”






-Ken KirkPrincipal, Meridian Financial Holdings LLC (Phoenix)

### Lisa Nelson

"I got to know Rogge when he was my Executive MBA Professor at SMU.  He is popular with students and one of the top-rated professors in the program.  His class involves an interactive exchange of ideas and he puts so much effort into making sure that his students understand complex legal topics.  I've worked with many lawyers across the U.S and Europe. Rogge gets the business perspective on legal issues and really partners with you to understand what you're trying to achieve, and how to get there in an agile, but rationale, way.
"Rogge helps our company find common sense, business solutions to difficult and challenging legal issues. He and his firm have become our trusted partner."






-Lisa NelsonCHRO, Match Group (Los Angeles)

### Brian Chester

“We’ve been in business for 69, the last 40+ on Plano Road.  A city Councilman and residents in his district petitioned the City of Dallas to re-name Plano Road to North Lake Highlands Drive.  The name change would have caused tremendous confusion among our customers and required us to provide notice of a new billing address on hundreds of construction contracts around Texas.
We needed fast action.  Rogge coordinated our legal and grass roots lobbying efforts. Our company along with an assisted living facility and other local businesses became an organized force that the City had to reckon with.
Thanks to Rogge’s leadership, strategic planning and grassroots tactics, the Dallas City Planning Commission unanimously defeated the name change.  We protected our brand and saved tens of thousands of dollars in business expenses.
Rogge has represented United Mechanical for more than 20 years.  We turn to him for advice on a variety of matters.  Like our company, he is available to help at all hours of the day and night.”






-Brian ChesterExecutive VP, United Mechanical (Dallas)

### Glenn Taylor

“Rogge Dunn has always been extremely helpful and 100% honorable in all my interactions with him, and with the advice he has given me through the years.”






-Glenn TaylorOwner, Taylor Steele & Associates, Broker Recruiter (Los Angeles)

### Chris Miller

“Helping relationship managers move firms requires careful consideration of promissory notes, deferred comp, non-competes, TROs and the Protocol for Broker Recruiting. As a former branch manager for UBS and now as a placement specialist, I've seen a number of attorneys assisting relationship managers. Rogge’s experience and knowledge in this space makes him the best choice for teams who are transitioning.  Not only does he give good advice, but when necessary, he is fearsome litigator who has successfully taken on the big wire houses and investment banks.”






-Chris MillerFormer Branch Manager, UBS (Houston)

### Dustin Lamb

"A former employer tried to obtain a Temporary Restraining Order against me with 6 hours’ notice, I needed help fast.  Multiple bankers recommended Rogge. Oldco tried to prevent me from doing business with my long-time clients. Rogge stopped them dead in their tracks.  Once they lost the TRO, they lost any momentum and Rogge negotiated a great settlement. Rogge, thanks for your help, courtroom win and your reasonable bills.”
“Rogge is a seasoned trial lawyer with strong negotiation tactics, who goes above and beyond to ensure that his clients are represented with the utmost care and security that will yield the best possible outcome for his clients.  Rogge is a “pit bull” and Rogge Dunn Group is a force to be reckoned with.   I could go on and on, but I don’t want to take up the entire page.”






-Dustin LambSenior Vice President, Bank of Texas (Dallas)

### Stephen Rizzieri, Esq.

“For many years I’ve hired Rogge for advice and counsel on legal issues.  His Firm’s creativity and “outside the box” ideas are a valuable tool that helps us avoid litigation.  The Rogge Dunn Group has a stable of thoroughbred lawyers I can rely on.”






-Stephen Rizzieri, Esq.Former CLO and General Counsel, Panda Energy International (Dallas)

### Carl Esrey

"We value Rogge's financial industry experience and his practical approach. We trust him for advice and, when necessary, to handle our litigation."






-Carl EsreyFounder of BMC Capital and CEO of BMC Bancshares (Dallas) 

### Joe Luongo

“Whether it’s helping with an exit strategy, negotiating an executive employment agreement with a new firm, or fighting off a non-compete, Rogge and his Firm is a C-Level Executive’s most valuable asset.”






-Joe LuongoExecutive Chairman, WellBiz Brands; former COO, Massage Envy (Phoenix)

### Blaise Hadley

“For 20 years I've had the pleasure of working with Rogge and seeing him in action at trials, mock trials and depositions. Rogge is a creative thinker with street smarts. Rogge and the Rogge Dunn Group are our trusted legal resource.”






-Blaise HadleyFormer Regional VP, Outback Steakhouse (Dallas)

### Kris Lowe

“Rogge’s reputation in the sports industry space is well-known.  He is a people person.  He knows how to deftly work behind the scenes without publicity to help his clients; but, if necessary, how to take a high-profile case to trial.”






-Kris LoweFormer Assoc.  Athletic Director for Business & Finance, SMU (Dallas)

### Rafael Dobrzynski

“When myself and my fellow C-level executive's had to fight for our change in control payments, we banded together and hired Rogge. His knowledge of California law and experience enforcing CIC agreements helped us quickly achieve our goals.”






-Rafael DobrzynskiCEO, Enfinity America Corp. (Atlanta)

### Sean Lewis

“When I needed an inaccurate statement on my U-5 expunged, I interviewed several attorneys, they said “on the one hand this could happen, on the other hand that could happen.”  Rogge was different; he presented me with a firm game plan.  Rogge then quickly implemented the game plan and successfully obtained the expungement in less than 90 days.”






-Sean LewisFinancial Advisor, Morgan Stanley (Dallas)

### Doug Renfro

“When I earned my Executive MBA at SMU, Rogge was one of my best professors. As a successful trial attorney, Rogge made business law come alive.”






-Doug RenfroPresident, Renfro Foods (Ft. Worth)

### Doug Mitchell

“The key to success in business is building strong relationships with qualified people you can trust.  As I was growing  our company, I needed a lawyer who could not only help our company but an attorney I could trust as my personal lawyer  for the long term.  Rogge has been a reliable, creative  and responsive partner in both areas.  He and his firm have taken great care of me personally and my company  for more than 20 years.”
“With operations in more than 45 states we needed a lawyer who had handled matters across the U.S.  and had relationships with other lawyers around the country. Rogge “gets it;”  he understands the importance of long-standing relationships better than any attorney I have dealt with. ” 
“When we were sued in California we hired big firm lawyers in California and received high bills,  but no results.  We asked Rogge to take over the case and his aggressive litigation tactics enabled us to resolve the case favorably on a cost-effective basis.”






-Doug MitchellCEO, MMC Group (Irving)

### Tim O’Connor

As a financial services company with more than $2 billion in receivables and 750 employees in multiple states, we need a lawyer versed in the intricacies and particular needs of our industry. Rogge has helped us avoid litigation and solve disputes before they become problems.
I have worked with Rogge for more than 15 years as in-house counsel for California Federal Bank and at Triad. I know when I call he will give me logical, workable solutions to the issues our company faces.


-Tim O'ConnorFormer General Counsel, Triad Financial Corporation (Dallas)

### Dan Poneman

“My clients and I turn to Rogge for advice on NIL and other contracts. His knowledge and track record litigating disputes in the sports industry makes him a great teammate for athletes and sports executives.”






- Dan PonemanSports agent (Las Vegas)

### Chris McGowan

"I was in a situation where I needed legal help regarding a separation situation. Bryan Collins was such a great help - they got me what I wanted - would recommend as a 10."






- Chris McGowan(Lewisville)

### Ellis Reiter, Jr.

“For many years Rogge has helped CBRE successfully resolve significant litigation and arbitration matters.”






---Ellis Reiter, Jr.Former General Counsel, Litigation, CBRE (Los Angeles)

### Matt McIntyre

"Every entrepreneur who builds, runs and sells companies needs Rogge in his corner. I have truly enjoyed working with Rogge for the last 10+ years. He has helped me and my companies stay out of trouble.
"And, when liquidity events occur, Rogge helps maximize founders' returns."






-Matt McIntyreFounder and Former Owner, Puritan Financial (Dallas)

### Vince Sullivan

“Fifteen years ago our company was sued by a competitor for hiring one of its executives.  We needed a tough litigator.  A senior partner in a large law firm doing our transactional work recommended Rogge.  Rogge defeated the competitor’s attempt to enforce its non-compete.  Since then, Rogge has been our go-to lawyer for advice and litigation.”
“As one of the county’s largest suppliers of loading dock equipment, with offices in 10 states and Canada, we value Rogge’s nationwide litigation experience.  Rogge is well-connected with lawyers around the country and positions our company to avoid legal problems with his pro-active strategies.”
“Our company is on call for our clients 24/7.  I know I can call Rogge day or night and he will make himself available.   I often call him at 6 a.m. on my drive into work and he is at his desk.  Rogge is the most responsive lawyer I have ever dealt with.”
“Rogge, thanks for 15 years of great advice, pro-active strategies and prompt service.  We look forward to working with you and your team for another 15 years.”






-Vince SullivanFormer President, DuraServe (Dallas)

### Jim Herman

“I have worked with Rogge for 25+ years on significant and complicated cases all across the country. He has helped us enforce arbitration and non-compete agreements and protect our company’s intellectual property. His knowledge of the law, trial expertise and common sense have helped us get to the bottom line efficiently.”






-Jim HermanAsst. General Counsel, ACE NA (Philadelphia)

### Joe Liberty

“When it came time for me to retire from UBS after 53 years,  I wanted a thoughtful departure that took care of my clients and ensured that I received my deferred compensation and trailing commissions. I also needed help to be sure that despite officially retiring,  I would have the flexibility to provide consulting services to family offices and private equity firms without violating my non-compete and/or jeopardizing my deferred compensation and trailing commissions.”
“I did my due diligence and hired Rogge Dunn.  He has extensive experience helping financial advisors and executives with retirement and severance negotiations.  Rogge helped me achieve my goals in short order without exceeding the initial retainer I gave him.”
“Rogge, thank you again for the excellent guidance and support. Your sunny and positive attitude throughout the entire process was a great help.”






-Joe LibertyFormer Financial Advisor, UBS (Midland)

### Tom Buning

“From his representation of Baylor’s Title IX Coordinator, to helping professional athletes and college administrators,  Rogge has been involved in numerous legal matters impacting major issues in athletics. Rogge is my trusted legal advisor.”






-Tom BuningFormer Assoc. Athletic Director for Facilities, SMU (Dallas)

### Chris Doxey

“Rogge knows the financial industry.  He helps relationship managers, investment bankers, branch managers and banking executives.  When I decided to transition from a financial advisor to a relationship banker, I trusted Rogge.  Rogge knows the ins and outs of non-compete law and facilitated my smooth and amicable transition. I hired Rogge a second time when a former employer tried to obtain a Temporary Restraining Order   against me.  Rogge defeated their attempt to obtain the TRO, and then negotiated a favorable settlement for me. Rogge, you are my lawyer for life."






-Chris DoxeySVP Interbank  (Dallas)


## Results

### Dunn Has Won More Than $2 Billion Net for Clients in Judgments and Settlements.

Dunn Has Won More Than $2 Billion Net for Clients in Judgments and Settlements.

### Successful defense of oil and gas company exercising preferential purchase rights involving O&G properties in New Mexico and Texas worth $1.5+ billion (New Mexico)

Successful defense of oil and gas company exercising preferential purchase rights involving O&G properties in New Mexico and Texas worth $1.5+ billion (New Mexico)

### Recovered more than $250 million in severance packages and settlements for executives and employees

Recovered more than $250 million in severance packages and settlements for executives and employees

### Numerous seven figure settlements for whistle-blowers and employees with Sarbanes-Oxley claims

Numerous seven figure settlements for whistle-blowers and employees with Sarbanes-Oxley claims

### Obtained TROs, injunctions and other equitable relief throughout the US in non-compete matters

Obtained TROs, injunctions and other equitable relief throughout the US in non-compete matters

### Successful defense of oil and gas partnership sued over ownership

Successful defense of oil and gas partnership sued over ownership of 30,000 acre mineral lease involving Barnett Shale in West Texas worth an estimated $1 billion.

### Successful defense of insurance carrier

Successful defense of insurance carrier in $100 million commercial mold claim.

### Assisted founder with the $800 million sale of his business

Assisted founder with the $800 million sale of his business

### Successful defense of nationwide insurance carrier in 85 asbestos lawsuits filed by 2,500+ plaintiffs (Ohio)

Successful defense of nationwide insurance carrier in 85 asbestos lawsuits filed by 2,500+ plaintiffs (Ohio)

### Obtained expungement in 84 days for a financial advisor that Morgan Stanley who manages $1+ Billion in AUM

Obtained expungement in 84 days for a financial advisor that Morgan Stanley who manages $1+ Billion in AUM

### Successful negotiation of commission interests for Fortune 500 commercial real estate brokerage firm involving $65 million Austin land sale

Successful negotiation of commission interests for Fortune 500 commercial real estate brokerage firm involving $65 million Austin land sale

### Won $58 million verdict for New Orleans Fairgrounds Racetrack and its insurers--the largest products liability verdict in Louisiana history (clients’ net, $26 million)

Won $58 million verdict for New Orleans Fairgrounds Racetrack and its insurers--the largest products liability verdict in Louisiana history (clients’ net, $26 million)

### $50 million severance package for CEO of $4.5 billion oil and as investment partnership, including cash and trialing equity interests

$50 million severance package for CEO of $4.5 billion oil and as investment partnership, including cash and trialing equity interests

### Negotiated removal of co-manager, loan payoff and extinguished management rights of minority members of healthcare company worth $50+ million

Negotiated removal of co-manager, loan payoff and extinguished management rights of minority members of healthcare company worth $50+ million.

### Successful defense of Fortune 500 real estate company sued for $43 million over sale of Arkansas office park (Arkansas)

Successful defense of Fortune 500 real estate company sued for $43 million over sale of Arkansas office park (Arkansas)

### Won summary judgment in favor of inspection company sued for $38 million for alleged defective inspection of pressure vessels on offshore rigs and won $92,000 in attorneys’ fees against the Plaintiff

Won summary judgment in favor of inspection company sued for $38 million for alleged defective inspection of pressure vessels on offshore rigs and won $92,000 in attorneys’ fees against the Plaintiff View Testimonial

### Served as expert witness for entrepreneur who sold business with earn out contract; client won $21+ million judgement

Served as expert witness for entrepreneur who sold business with earn out contract; client won $21+ million judgement

### Successful defense of a top five executive in Fortune 10 company accused of breaking a non-compete and misappropriating trade secrets

Successful defense of a top five executive in Fortune 10 company accused of breaking a non-compete and misappropriating trade secrets

### Obtained more than $15 million in cash and trailing partnership interests as part of as severance package for real estate executive

Obtained more than $15 million in cash and trailing partnership interests as part of as severance package for real estate executive

### Hired by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to enforce a $14.3 million judgment in Texas

Hired by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to enforce a $14.3 million judgment in Texas

### Obtained $13 million severance package for President of American Airlines

Obtained $13 million severance package for President of American Airlines View Article, View Testimonial

### Successful defense of law firm partner sued by former partner regarding dispute over a $13+ million attorneys’ fee

Successful defense of law firm partner sued by former partner regarding dispute over a $13+ million attorneys’ fee

### Obtained summary dismissal in favor of Client, Texas Tech President Guy Bailey, in $12.5 million dollar lawsuit filed in Lubbock by former coach Mike Leach against Texas Tech University and Tech’s President Link Link to Judge’s Ruling

Obtained summary dismissal in favor of Client, Texas Tech President Guy Bailey, in $12.5 million dollar lawsuit filed in Lubbock by former coach Mike Leach against Texas Tech University and Tech’s President View Judge’s Ruling, View Testimonial

### Successful defense and resolution for teenage driver sued in Denton for wrongful death for car crash that killed motorcyclist

Successful defense and resolution for teenage driver sued in Denton for wrongful death for car crash that killed motorcyclist

### Won divorce trial enforcing Client’s $10.5 million marital property agreement

Won divorce trial enforcing Client’s $10.5 million marital property agreement

### Successful representation of Buster Corley, co-founder of Dave & Busters when he sold his interests in the company

Successful representation of Buster Corley, co-founder of Dave & Busters when he sold his interests in the company View Testimonial

### Ongoing representation regarding real estate issues and litigation for private equity real estate group with more than $1 billion in assets

Ongoing representation regarding real estate issues and litigation for private equity real estate group with more than $1 billion in assets

### $9.6 million settlement for insurance carrier in a commercial dispute with a flood zone determination company (Client’s net, $7.1 million) (Missouri)

$9.6 million settlement for insurance carrier in a commercial dispute with a flood zone determination company (Client’s net, $7.1 million) (Missouri)

### Obtained summary judgement for Fortune 1000 company sued for $9 million by employees’ estates over a triple homicide in one of its East Texas stores

Obtained summary judgement for Fortune 1000 company sued for $9 million by employees’ estates over a triple homicide in one of its East Texas stores View Testimonial

### Successful prosecution and settlement of class action lawsuit for 10 Park Rangers seeking upgraded status to become Dallas Police Officers

Successful prosecution and settlement of class action lawsuit for 10 Park Rangers seeking upgraded status to become Dallas Police Officers View Article

### $8.7 million settlement for recycling facility damaged by the negligence of a power company in New Mexico (Client’s net, $4.4 million) (New Mexico)

$8.7 million settlement for recycling facility damaged by the negligence of a power company in New Mexico (Client’s net, $4.4 million) (New Mexico)

### $8.3 million severance for Canadian citizen who resigned as CEO of Fortune 200 bottling group (Canada)

$8.3 million severance for Canadian citizen who resigned as CEO of Fortune 200 bottling group (Canada)

### Successful negotiation of severance package for a departing partner including $165,000 cash payment and a 1% trailing interest in an estimated $800 million worth of real estate development deals

Successful negotiation of severance package for a departing partner including $165,000 cash payment and a 1% trailing interest in an estimated $800 million worth of real estate development deals

### Obtained take nothing dismissal in favor of lending broker sued for $8 million for fraud, negligence and breach of contract involving a real estate development project

Obtained take nothing dismissal in favor of lending broker sued for $8 million for fraud, negligence and breach of contract involving a real estate development project

### Obtained $8 million arbitration award, later confirmed to a judgment, in complex proceedings against the structured credit arm of Highland Capital Management, LP.

Obtained $8 million arbitration award, later confirmed to a judgment, in complex proceedings against the structured credit arm of Highland Capital Management, LP. (client’s net $ 7 million)

### Negotiated 8 year contract, including $7.8 million up-front bonus, for one of the top 5 radio personalities in the US, syndicated on 200+ stations. Contract gives client the right to self-market products and endorsements and keep 75% of the proceeds

Negotiated 8 year contract, including $7.8 million up-front bonus, for one of the top 5 radio personalities in the US, syndicated on 200+ stations. Contract gives client the right to self-market products and endorsements and keep 75% of the proceeds

### $7,556,900 FINRA arbitration award for two financial advisors against Goldman Sachs for violating USERRA and for wrongful discharge (California) (Clients’ net $3,118,141)

$7,556,900 FINRA arbitration award for two financial advisors against Goldman Sachs for violating USERRA and for wrongful discharge (California) (Clients’ net $3,118,141) View Article

### Obtained $7.28 million in CIC payments for fired SVP of Fortune 400 Oil & Gas Company

Obtained $7.28 million in CIC payments for fired SVP of Fortune 400 Oil & Gas Company

### $6.5 million settlement for public utility damaged by negligent power interruption (Arizona)

$6.5 million settlement for public utility damaged by negligent power interruption (Arizona)

### $6.1 million severance package and negotiated succession plan for Chairman/CEO of a bank with more than $11 billion in assets

$6.1 million severance package and negotiated succession plan for Chairman/CEO of a bank with more than $11 billion in assets

### $6 million settlement for Australian citizen who was COO of oil and gas company fired after a change in control (Australia)

$6 million settlement for Australian citizen who was COO of oil and gas company fired after a change in control (Australia)

### Represented and assisted bank with more than $10 billion in assets fire its General Counsel

Represented and assisted bank with more than $10 billion in assets fire its General Counsel

### Defense verdict in favor of Fortune 1000 company sued for $6 million under partnership agreement

Defense verdict in favor of Fortune 1000 company sued for $6 million under partnership agreement

### $5.1 million settlement for corporation whose Louisiana manufacturing plant was damaged by fire (Client’s net, $3.6 million)

$5.1 million settlement for corporation whose Louisiana manufacturing plant was damaged by fire (Client’s net, $3.6 million)

### Obtained $5 million for CEO suing for gender discrimination and breach of change-in-control agreement (client’s net $3,800,000)

Obtained $5 million for CEO suing for gender discrimination and breach of change-in-control agreement (client’s net $3,800,000)

### $4.9 million settlement for fired CEO who sued for disability discrimination

$4.9 million settlement for fired CEO who sued for disability discrimination

### $4.8 million settlement for fired CFO whistleblower who pursued Sarbanes-Oxley claims

$4.8 million settlement for fired CFO whistleblower who pursued Sarbanes-Oxley claims

### $4.8 million settlement for owner of salt dome storage facility against operator for causing well blowout (Client’s net, $3.1 million)

$4.8 million settlement for owner of salt dome storage facility against operator for causing well blowout (Client’s net, $3.1 million)

### $4.5 million settlement for C-level executive of Scottish oil and gas company fired after a change in control (Scotland)

$4.5 million settlement for C-level executive of Scottish oil and gas company fired after a change in control (Scotland)

### $4.5 million retirement/consulting package for Senior Vice President of manufacturing company

$4.5 million retirement/consulting package for Senior Vice President of manufacturing company

### Obtained $4.1 million plus bonuses severance package for Texas Tech basketball coach Mark Adams

Obtained $4.1 million plus bonuses severance package for Texas Tech basketball coach Mark Adams View Article

### $4.1 million severance package for President of an oil and gas company who exercised “good reason” termination after a change in control

$4.1 million severance package for President of an oil and gas company who exercised “good reason” termination after a change in control

### $4 million settlement for President of an oil and gas company fired after a change in control

$4 million settlement for President of an oil and gas company fired after a change in control

### $3.95 million settlement for ousted part-owner for his interest in engineering firm (Client’s net $3.94 million)

$3.95 million settlement for ousted part-owner for his interest in engineering firm (Client’s net $3.94 million)

### $3.7 million settlement for change-in-control payments for fired SVP of Fortune 400 Oil & Gas Company (Oklahoma)

$3.7 million settlement for change-in-control payments for fired SVP of Fortune 400 Oil & Gas Company (Oklahoma)

### $3,663,516 settlement for change-in-control claims for Fortune 400 oil & gas C-Level executive (Oklahoma)

$3,663,516 settlement for change-in-control claims for Fortune 400 oil & gas C-Level executive (Oklahoma)

### $3.6 million settlement for Vice President of Fortune 300 game retailer (Client’s net, $3,590,000)

$3.6 million settlement for Vice President of Fortune 300 game retailer (Client’s net, $3,590,000)

### Won $3.4 million for Barrons’s Top 100 financial advisor against Credit Suisse (client’s net $2.4 million)

Won $3.4 million for Barrons’s Top 100 financial advisor against Credit Suisse (client’s net $2.4 million)

### Settlement of mass action lawsuit for 10 Dallas Park Police officers obtaining Police Dept. and pension status worth more than $3 million in pension benefits and $60,000 cash (client’s net $3,020,000)

Settlement of mass action lawsuit for 10 Dallas Park Police officers obtaining Police Dept. and pension status worth more than $3 million in pension benefits and $60,000 cash (client’s net $3,020,000)

### Obtained $3.1 million change-in-control payments to four California and Utah executives at alternative energy company (Client’s net $2,480,000)

Obtained $3.1 million change-in-control payments to four California and Utah executives at alternative energy company (Client’s net $2,480,000)

### $3.1 million settlement for President of an oil and gas company fired after a change-in-control

$3.1 million settlement for President of an oil and gas company fired after a change-in-control

### Obtained $3.1 million change in control payments to four California and Utah executives at alternative energy company (Clients’ net $2,477,000) (California and Utah)

Obtained $3.1 million change in control payments to four California and Utah executives at alternative energy company (Clients’ net $2,477,000) (California and Utah)

### $3.06 million settlement for construction defects in 40,000 square foot mansion (Client’s net $2.3 million)

$3.06 million settlement for construction defects in 40,000 square foot mansion (Client’s net $2.3 million)

### $2.8 million settlement for Pizza Inn CEO, who was fired after proxy fight and who Pizza Inn had sued for $9.4 million (Client’s net $1,953,286)

$2.8 million settlement for Pizza Inn CEO, who was fired after proxy fight and who Pizza Inn had sued for $9.4 million (Client’s net $1,953,286)

### $2,642,000 settlement for change-in-control claims for Fortune 400 oil & gas C-Level executive (Oklahoma)

$2,642,000 settlement for change-in-control claims for Fortune 400 oil & gas C-Level executive (Oklahoma)

### $2.6 million settlement for hospital in commercial arbitration regarding improper installation of electrical system (Client’s net $1.9 million)

$2.6 million settlement for hospital in commercial arbitration regarding improper installation of electrical system (Client’s net $1.9 million)

### $2.6 million settlement for fired C-level executive of Fortune 100 beverage company (Canada)

$2.6 million settlement for fired C-level executive of Fortune 100 beverage company (Canada)

### $2.6 million for a fired C-level executive of a Fortune 200 homebuilding company

$2.6 million for a fired C-level executive of a Fortune 200 homebuilding company

### $2.5 million for fired executive of Fortune 50 food and beverage company

$2.5 million for fired executive of Fortune 50 food and beverage company

### Won take nothing dismissal for insurance carrier sued for $2.5+ million on equipment breakdown insurance policy

Won take nothing dismissal for insurance carrier sued for $2.5+ million on equipment breakdown insurance policy

### $2.5 million settlement for minority shareholder alleging shareholder oppression (Client’s net $1.8 million)

$2.5 million settlement for minority shareholder alleging shareholder oppression (Client’s net $1.8 million)

### Won $2.5 million FINRA arbitration award in San Francisco for a fired Barron’s national top 100 financial advisors (Client’s net $1,400,000) (California)

Won $2.5 million FINRA arbitration award in San Francisco for a fired Barron’s national top 100 financial advisors (Client’s net $1,400,000) (California)

### $2.395 million settlement for minority shareholder in shareholder oppression lawsuit

$2.395 million settlement for minority shareholder in shareholder oppression lawsuit

### $2.2 million settlement for Client suing designer of display causing store fires in Florida and Massachusetts (Client’s net $1.6 million) (Massachusetts and Florida)

$2.2 million settlement for Client suing designer of display causing store fires in Florida and Massachusetts (Client’s net $1.6 million) (Massachusetts and Florida)

### Obtained $1.784 million CIC good reason resignation payment for VP of Fortune 300 oil & gas company (Client’s net $1.781 million)

Obtained $1.784 million CIC good reason resignation payment for VP of Fortune 300 oil & gas company (Client’s net $1.781 million)

### $1.7 million in cash and real property for minority shareholder in a shareholder oppression lawsuit. (Client’s net $1.3 million)

$1.7 million in cash and real property for minority shareholder in a shareholder oppression lawsuit. (Client’s net $1.3 million)

### $1.6 million settlement of sex discrimination claims for female VP fired by oil & gas LLC (Client’s net $1,502,000)

$1.6 million settlement of sex discrimination claims for female VP fired by oil & gas LLC (Client’s net $1,502,000)

### $1.67 million settlement for CEO fired from computer consulting company (Virginia)

$1.67 million settlement for CEO fired from computer consulting company (Virginia)

### Won trial for CBRE Capital Markets,  which was sued for $1.5 million by former CEO

Won trial for CBRE Capital Markets,  which was sued for $1.5 million by former CEO View Ruling, View Testimonial

### Defended Barron’s national top 100 financial advisors team sued in FINRA arb for $1.5+ million on promissory note. Settled the prom note claim against all three clients for payment of only $1,000

Defended Barron’s national top 100 financial advisors team sued in FINRA arb for $1.5+ million on promissory note. Settled the prom note claim against all three clients for payment of only $1,000

### Successful resolution of lawsuit for a property insurance carrier sued by medical practice group for $1.5 million and insurance bad faith

Successful resolution of lawsuit for a property insurance carrier sued by medical practice group for $1.5 million and insurance bad faith

### $1.5 million for supervisor sexually assaulted by CEO on company plane (client’s net $850,000)

$1.5 million for supervisor sexually assaulted by CEO on company plane (client’s net $850,000)

### $1.45 million severance package for executive with dairy company (Client’s net $1,428,000)

$1.45 million severance package for executive with dairy company (Client’s net $1,428,000)

### $1.4 million settlement for construction defects in Missouri lake house (Client’s net $785,000) (Missouri)

$1.4 million settlement for construction defects in Missouri lake house (Client’s net $785,000) (Missouri)

### $1.4 million settlement for fired Fortune 1000 executive (Client’s net, $1,390,000)

$1.4 million settlement for fired Fortune 1000 executive (Client’s net, $1,390,000)

### $1.383 million settlement for in-house counsel for 4th largest private company in the U.S.

$1.383 million settlement for in-house counsel for 4th largest private company in the U.S.

### $1.375 million settlement for invasion of privacy (Client’s net, $880,000)

$1.375 million settlement for invasion of privacy (Client’s net, $880,000)

### $1,299,000 settlement for change-in-control and sex discrimination claims for female SVP at Fortune 400 oil & gas company (Client’s net $1,232,000) (Oklahoma)

$1,299,000 settlement for change-in-control and sex discrimination claims for female SVP at Fortune 400 oil & gas company (Client’s net $1,232,000) (Oklahoma)

### $1 million settlement in arbitration for fired executive (Client’s net $950,000)

$1 million settlement in arbitration for fired executive (Client’s net $950,000)

### Won $1 million FINRA arbitration award for fired Los Angeles Barron’s national top 100 financial advisors against Goldman Sachs (Client’s net $580,000) (California)

Won $1 million FINRA arbitration award for fired Los Angeles Barron’s national top 100 financial advisors against Goldman Sachs (Client’s net $580,000) (California)

### $1.2 million settlement at trial for City of Beaumont suing for breach of contract and warranty involving industrial pumps (Client’s net $850,000)

$1.2 million settlement at trial for City of Beaumont suing for breach of contract and warranty involving industrial pumps (Client’s net $850,000)

### $1.2 million for Managing Director of a British petroleum company who exercised “good reason” termination after a change-in-control (England)

$1.2 million for Managing Director of a British petroleum company who exercised “good reason” termination after a change-in-control (England)

### $1.2 million verdict for client suing for sexual harassment, sex discrimination and retaliation (Client’s net, $240,000)

$1.2 million verdict for client suing for sexual harassment, sex discrimination and retaliation (Client’s net, $240,000)

### Obtained $924,000 jury verdict for plaintiff, who was former CEO terminated without cause.

Obtained $924,000 jury verdict for plaintiff, who was former CEO terminated without cause.

### Awarded $1.5 million judgment against borrower and guarantor on commercial real estate loan and secured foreclosure of $1 million property

Awarded $1.5 million judgment against borrower and guarantor on commercial real estate loan and secured foreclosure of $1 million property

### Obtained $1.17 million in change-in-control payments for fired Vice President of Fortune 400 Oil & Gas Company (Pennsylvania)

Obtained $1.17 million in change-in-control payments for fired Vice President of Fortune 400 Oil & Gas Company (Pennsylvania)

### $1,135,00 settlement for minority partner for breach of fiduciary duty against $250 million private equity fund

$1,135,00 settlement for minority partner for breach of fiduciary duty against $250 million private equity fund

### $1.1 million severance for fired Branch Manager of international investment bank with a market cap exceeding $30 billion

$1.1 million severance for fired Branch Manager of international investment bank with a market cap exceeding $30 billion

### $1.04 million verdict for nurse for bullying and wrongful discharge. When doctors threatened bankruptcy, obtained settlement of $440,000 (Client’s net $152,000)

$1.04 million verdict for nurse for bullying and wrongful discharge. When doctors threatened bankruptcy, obtained settlement of $440,000 (Client’s net $152,000)

### $1.03 million settlement for Wall Street broker laid off by a New York investment bank

$1.03 million settlement for Wall Street broker laid off by a New York investment bank

### $950,000 settlement for fired financial advisor whistleblower who pursued Sarbanes-Oxley claim

$950,000 settlement for fired financial advisor whistleblower who pursued Sarbanes-Oxley claim

### $800,000 settlement for client who contracted food poisoning at an Oklahoma restaurant (client’s net $510,000)

$800,000 settlement for client who contracted food poisoning at an Oklahoma restaurant (client’s net $510,000)

### Won take nothing arbitration ruling in favor of a Fortune 150 company accused of discrimination and retaliation and obtained $18,945 counter-claim judgment against the Plaintiff for repayment of unearned draws

Won take nothing arbitration ruling in favor of a Fortune 150 company accused of discrimination and retaliation and obtained $18,945 counter-claim judgment against the Plaintiff for repayment of unearned draws

### $750,000 whistleblowing settlement for a C-Level exec working for company in India (client’s net $600,000) (North Carolina)

$750,000 whistleblowing settlement for a C-Level exec working for company in India (client’s net $600,000) (North Carolina)

### $925,000 settlement in FINRA arbitration for Barron’snational top 100 financial advisor fired by Wall Street firm (Client’s net $610,000)

$925,000 settlement in FINRA arbitration for Barron’s national top 100 financial advisor fired by Wall Street firm (Client’s net $610,000)

### Successful defense of real estate agent in restrictive covenant lawsuit filed by PenFed Realty; court granted directed verdict.

Successful defense of real estate agent in restrictive covenant lawsuit filed by PenFed Realty; court granted directed verdict.

### Gregory Clift wins dismissal of claims in patient’s weight-loss drug injury action

Gregory Clift wins dismissal of claims in patient’s weight-loss drug injury action.

### Successful representation of Title IX Coordinator who blew the whistle on the football player’s gang rapes at Baylor Patty Crawford - CBS This Morning

Successful representation of Title IX Coordinator who blew the whistle on the football player’s gang rapes at Baylor View Story Patty Crawford - CBS This Morning

### Obtained settlement for Title IX investigator for wrongful discharge

Obtained settlement for Title IX investigator for wrongful discharge View Article

### Successful settlement of professor’s claims for denial of tenure

Successful settlement of professor’s claims for denial of tenure

### Obtained favorable settlement of wrongful discharge claims for D-1 football coach

Obtained favorable settlement of wrongful discharge claims for D-1 football coach

### Negotiated favorable settlement discharge claims for D-1 athletics administrator

Negotiated favorable settlement discharge claims for D-1 athletics administrator

### Successful representation of college professor accused of Title IX violations

Successful representation of college professor accused of Title IX violations

### Successful representation of sorority members accused of hazing

Successful representation of sorority members accused of hazing

### Won exoneration of fraternity accused of Title IX violations

Won exoneration of fraternity accused of Title IX violations

### Won exoneration of male student accused of Title IX violations

Won exoneration of male student accused of Title IX violations

### Won exoneration of D-1 golf coach accused of Title IX violations

Won exoneration of D-1 golf coach accused of Title IX violations

### Advised Hall of Fame basketball coach Larry Brown on setting up youth basketball camps on college campus

Advised Hall of Fame basketball coach Larry Brown on setting up youth basketball camps on college campus View Testimonial

### Obtained favorable settlement for D-1 scholarship basketball player against boosters who breached an N.I.L. contract

Obtained favorable settlement for D-1 scholarship basketball player against boosters who breached an N.I.L. contract.

### Won TRO for SMU student suspended for alleged violation of Student Code of Conduct

Won TRO for SMU student suspended for alleged violation of Student Code of Conduct View Article View Restraining Order

### Successful representation of star basketball player at Cal-Berkley investigated by NCAA

Successful representation of star basketball player at Cal-Berkley investigated by NCAA

### 10 trials in 3 years

10 trials in 3 years



Solo Chair on 4 trials.



First trial verdict was $18,614,874.00

### Obtained temporary restraining orders against former employees for breach of non-competition, non-solicitation, and employment agreements

Obtained temporary restraining orders against former employees for breach of non-competition, non-solicitation, and employment agreements

### Negotiated favorable buyout and withdrawal of minority business owner from business following dispute with majority ownership

Negotiated favorable buyout and withdrawal of minority business owner from business following dispute with majority ownership

### Represented various businesses and individuals in both prosecuting and defending against breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and other business tort claims

Represented various businesses and individuals in both prosecuting and defending against breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and other business tort claims

### Represented national importer and distributor in a complicated case involving competing claims of breach of contract, fraud, and tortious interference stemming from dispute over multi-year import agreement.

Represented national importer and distributor in a complicated case involving competing claims of breach of contract, fraud, and tortious interference stemming from dispute over multi-year import agreement.

### Obtained temporary restraining order requiring turnover of important documents and information related to a breach of contract.

Obtained temporary restraining order requiring turnover of important documents and information related to a breach of contract.

### Represented multiple lenders in both state and federal court to enforce commercial loans agreements, obtaining favorable settlements and judgments

Represented multiple lenders in both state and federal court to enforce commercial loans agreements, obtaining favorable settlements and judgments

### Represented national commercial landlord client in real estate and lease enforcement disputes with tenants

Represented national commercial landlord client in real estate and lease enforcement disputes with tenants

### Advised landowners, sellers, and purchasers regarding property ownership and use disputes

Advised landowners, sellers, and purchasers regarding property ownership and use disputes

### Defended national department-store chain against various types of claims, from personal injury to employment- related disputes.

Defended national department-store chain against various types of claims, from personal injury to employment- related disputes.

### Represented multinational manufacturer in breach of contract and business tort dispute

Represented multinational manufacturer in breach of contract and business tort dispute

### Obtained jury verdict for plaintiff (former CEO) re breach of contract claim against former employer

Obtained jury verdict for plaintiff (former CEO) re breach of contract claim against former employer

### Obtained seven-figure resolution on behalf of in-house attorney of hedge fund in sexual harassment claim.

Obtained seven-figure resolution on behalf of in-house attorney of hedge fund in sexual harassment claim.

### Reached a seven-figure settlement for employees in a multi-plaintiff race discrimination case against wholesale tire company.

Reached a seven-figure settlement for employees in a multi-plaintiff race discrimination case against wholesale tire company.

### Obtained a seven-figure resolution in a gender-based failure to promote claim on behalf of an executive seeking to advance to a director position.

Obtained a seven-figure resolution in a gender-based failure to promote claim on behalf of an executive seeking to advance to a director position.

### Negotiated favorable severance packages for employees of major banks and financial institutions, including doubling and tripling the dollar amounts offered in the originally proposed severance agreements.

Negotiated favorable severance packages for employees of major banks and financial institutions, including doubling and tripling the dollar amounts offered in the originally proposed severance agreements.

### Reached seven-figure resolution on behalf of a group of food service workers alleging race discrimination.

Reached seven-figure resolution on behalf of a group of food service workers alleging race discrimination.

### Won favorable settlement for an employee in a race discrimination case against a large financial printing company.

Won favorable settlement for an employee in a race discrimination case against a large financial printing company.

### Negotiated favorable settlements for employees in gender and pregnancy discrimination cases against companies ranging in size, including publicly traded telecom and pharmaceutical companies.

Negotiated favorable settlements for employees in gender and pregnancy discrimination cases against companies ranging in size, including publicly traded telecom and pharmaceutical companies.

### Negotiated favorable settlement for employee in gender discrimination case against a high-end luxury hotel chain.

Negotiated favorable settlement for employee in gender discrimination case against a high-end luxury hotel chain.

### Achieved a six-figure settlement in a sexual orientation discrimination case against a religious nonprofit organization.

Achieved a six-figure settlement in a sexual orientation discrimination case against a religious nonprofit organization.

### Negotiated a separation/severance agreement between a large media company for a disabled individual with HIV.

Negotiated a separation/severance agreement between a large media company for a disabled individual with HIV.

### Represented students and employees in sexual harassment cases against major universities.

Represented students and employees in sexual harassment cases against major universities.

### Represented numerous professors, administrators, and deans in claims of race and age discrimination against academic institutions.

Represented numerous professors, administrators, and deans in claims of race and age discrimination against academic institutions.

### Successfully settled claims of sexual harassment brought by professional golfer.

Successfully settled claims of sexual harassment brought by professional golfer.

### Successfully argued and secured summary judgment on healthcare liability claims based on the statute of limitations.

Successfully argued and secured summary judgment on healthcare liability claims based on the statute of limitations.

### Obtained dismissal of defamation action under the TCPA.

Obtained dismissal of defamation action under the TCPA.

### Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a mineral interest owner in defense of allegations involving wrongful appropriation of royalties.

Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a mineral interest owner in defense of allegations involving wrongful appropriation of royalties.

### Obtained 12(b)(6) dismissal of trade secret misappropriation claims asserted against clients with businesses in the captive insurance industry.

Obtained 12(b)(6) dismissal of trade secret misappropriation claims asserted against clients with businesses in the captive insurance industry.

### Obtained complete dismissal of breach of contract and conversion claims in connection with crude oil purchase agreements. Obtained an award of attorney’s fees in favor of client in addition to dismissal of claims.

Obtained complete dismissal of breach of contract and conversion claims in connection with crude oil purchase agreements. Obtained an award of attorney’s fees in favor of client in addition to dismissal of claims.

### Obtained temporary restraining order and permanent injunction prohibiting the unauthorized operation of a business in violation of a restrictive covenant.

Obtained temporary restraining order and permanent injunction prohibiting the unauthorized operation of a business in violation of a restrictive covenant.

### Obtained permanent injunction against a board member in connection with breach of fiduciary duty and related claims. Served as second chair at trial.

Obtained permanent injunction against a board member in connection with breach of fiduciary duty and related claims. Served as second chair at trial.

### Obtained directed verdict in favor of national automotive collision repair company in lawsuit alleging deceptive trade practices. Served as second chair.

Obtained directed verdict in favor of national automotive collision repair company in lawsuit alleging deceptive trade practices. Served as second chair.

### Secured verdict on behalf of client in excess of $3 million in economic damages, attorney’s fees, and expenses. Verdict included take-nothing judgment against certain defendants on their various counterclaims seeking over $30 million in alleged damages. Trial lasted approximately 30 days and was conducted via Zoom during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Secured verdict on behalf of client in excess of $3 million in economic damages, attorney’s fees, and expenses. Verdict included take-nothing judgment against certain defendants on their various counterclaims seeking over $30 million in alleged damages. Trial lasted approximately 30 days and was conducted via Zoom during the COVID-19 pandemic.

### Unanimous defense jury verdicts in class/collective action lawsuits regarding overtime under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

Unanimous defense jury verdicts in class/collective action lawsuits regarding overtime under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

### Obtaining and defending against TROs and injunctions in lawsuits regarding noncompetition, nonsolicitation, lift-outs, and trade secrets

Obtaining and defending against TROs and injunctions in lawsuits regarding noncompetition, nonsolicitation, lift-outs, and trade secrets

### Favorable summary judgment orders, including as plaintiff (breach of contract) and defendant (dismissals of FLSA lawsuit and disability discrimination/retaliation lawsuit)

Favorable summary judgment orders, including as plaintiff (breach of contract) and defendant (dismissals of FLSA lawsuit and disability discrimination/retaliation lawsuit)

### Favorable arbitration orders as claimant and respondent in various industries (such as energy, construction, FINRA, waste management, and telecommunications)

Favorable arbitration orders as claimant and respondent in various industries (such as energy, construction, FINRA, waste management, and telecommunications)

### Orders granting pre-suit depositions under Texas's Rule 202

Orders granting pre-suit depositions under Texas's Rule 202

### Dismissal (and attorneys' fees) under Anti-SLAPP law as defendant; as plaintiff, defeated motion to dismiss filed under Anti-SLAPP (i.e., Texas Citizen Participation Act)

Dismissal (and attorneys' fees) under Anti-SLAPP law as defendant; as plaintiff, defeated motion to dismiss filed under Anti-SLAPP (i.e., Texas Citizen Participation Act)

### Dismissal for Florida client sued Texas lawsuit (argument based on contract's forum selection clause)

Dismissal for Florida client sued Texas lawsuit (argument based on contract's forum selection clause)

### Negotiating and drafting settlement agreements regarding claims for breach of contract, noncompetes, trade secrets, FLSA (collective actions and single plaintiff), discrimination; and other torts

Negotiating and drafting settlement agreements regarding claims for breach of contract, noncompetes, trade secrets, FLSA (collective actions and single plaintiff), discrimination; and other torts

### Litigating state and federal matters involving discrimination, trade secrets, noncompetition, FLSA, special appearances and executive compensation

Litigating state and federal matters involving discrimination, trade secrets, noncompetition, FLSA, special appearances and executive compensation

### Investigating claims regarding whistleblowers, kick-backs, discrimination, overtime, and joint employer claim

Investigating claims regarding whistleblowers, kick-backs, discrimination, overtime, and joint employer claim

### Responding to charges by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC)

Responding to charges by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC)

### Successfully argued motion for summary judgment in an action involving the international shipping of cargo

Successfully argued motion for summary judgment in an action involving the international shipping of cargo.

### Obtained dismissal of defamation action under the TCPA

Obtained dismissal of defamation action under the TCPA. 

### Obtained a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of credit union

Obtained a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of credit union in case alleging claims for breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.

### Obtained temporary restraining order and permanent injunction

Obtained temporary restraining order and permanent injunction prohibiting the unauthorized operation of a business in violation of a restrictive covenant.

### Obtained temporary restraining order against client’s former consultant

Obtained temporary restraining order against client’s former consultant in case alleging misappropriation of trade secrets.

### Obtained temporary restraining order and temporary injunction

Obtained temporary restraining order and temporary injunction against client’s former employee in case alleging misappropriation of trade secrets. 

### Obtained complete dismissal of breach of contract and conversion claims

Obtained complete dismissal of breach of contract and conversion claims in connection with crude oil purchase agreements in an action pending in Midland County under Rule 91a. Obtained an award of attorney’s fees in favor of client in addition to dismissal of claims.

### Lead defense counsel in lawsuit alleging deceptive trade practices

Lead defense counsel in lawsuit alleging deceptive trade practices against national automotive collision repair company. Obtained directed verdict at trial.

### Prepared class certification and summary judgment briefing in defense of federal class actio

Prepared class certification and summary judgment briefing in defense of federal class action against a fuel retailer, which involved allegations of deceptive practices in the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel. Class certification was denied and summary judgment was granted in large part. 

### Obtained summary judgment in favor of client in federal securities fraud

Obtained summary judgment in favor of client in federal securities fraud action in which the claimants sought a multimillion-dollar damages award. 

### Lead defense counsel in a lawsuit alleging fraud

Lead defense counsel in a lawsuit alleging fraud in the conveyance of oil and gas interests. Obtained a take-nothing summary judgment on behalf of client, which included a declaration that client was entitled to recover attorney’s fees.

### Lead counsel in representation of a school district against a current board member

Lead counsel in representation of a school district against a current board member in lawsuit alleging conflicts of interest and breach of fiduciary duty. Obtained requested injunctive relief at TRO and temporary injunction hearings and obtained a permanent injunction following trial. 

### Obtained a take-nothing summary judgment in the defense

Obtained a take-nothing summary judgment in the defense of a prominent law firm in a legal malpractice action in which the plaintiff sought a multimillion-dollar damages award.

### Successfully argued multiple summary judgment motions

Successfully argued multiple summary judgment motions and motions to dismiss under the TCPA on behalf of numerous clients named in a multi-jurisdictional dispute involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and other business torts. Plaintiffs sought a multimillion-dollar damages award.

### Million Dollar settlement against insurance company for violating GLB and privacy laws and causing identity theft

Million Dollar settlement against insurance company for violating GLB and privacy laws and causing identity theft

### Successful defense and settlement of overtime, travel time and job classification claims filed against an oil and gas company in San Antonio

Successful defense and settlement of overtime, travel time and job classification claims filed against an oil and gas company in San Antonio

### Successful defense and settlement of overtime claim claims by pumpers against an oil and gas company in Midland

Successful defense and settlement of overtime claim claims by pumpers against an oil and gas company in Midland

### Obtained injunctive relief for restaurant clients enforcing non-competes on numerous occasions

Obtained injunctive relief for restaurant clients enforcing non-competes on numerous occasions

### Conducted discrimination and harassment training for Midwest restaurant group management team

Conducted discrimination and harassment training for Midwest restaurant group management team

### DOL sought $1,060,000 in back wages and fines from our restaurant client. We got the total payment reduced to only $1,900.

DOL sought $1,060,000 in back wages and fines from our restaurant client. We got the total payment reduced to only $1,900

### Successful defense of owners of a 50-unit restaurant chain sued for securities fraud

Successful defense of owners of a 50-unit restaurant chain sued for securities fraud

### Successful defense of two nationwide restaurant chains in class action suit in Beaumont seeking refunds for alleged sales tax overcharges

Successful defense of two nationwide restaurant chains in class action suit in Beaumont seeking refunds for alleged sales tax overcharges

### Obtained defense verdict finding no breach of partnership agreement or fiduciary duty for Fortune 1000 restaurant concern

Obtained defense verdict finding no breach of partnership agreement or fiduciary duty for Fortune 1000 restaurant concern

### Obtained injunctive relief for new owner of white tablecloth steakhouse restaurant against former owner arising out of restaurant sale

Obtained injunctive relief for new owner of white tablecloth steakhouse restaurant against former owner arising out of restaurant sale

### Successfully defended Fortune 2000 restaurant chain in a wrongful death dramshop case where a bartender over served an under-aged patron and made multiple “free pours.”

Successfully defended Fortune 2000 restaurant chain in a wrongful death dramshop case where a bartender over served an under-aged patron and made multiple “free pours”

### Defended two FAs sued by Morgan Stanley on a $2.4 million promissory note. Obtained an $800,000 reduction of the promissory note in a FINRA arbitration (Florida)

Defended two FAs sued by Morgan Stanley on a $2.4 million promissory note. Obtained an $800,000 reduction of the promissory note in a FINRA arbitration (Florida)

### Successfully moved relationship banker to new bank and defeated BBVA’s attempt to obtain a TRO against him and enforce a non-solicitation covenant

Successfully moved relationship banker to new bank and defeated BBVA’s attempt to obtain a TRO against him and enforce a non-solicitation covenant

### Ongoing advice and representation of two senior executives at Wells Fargo regarding issues at Wells Fargo

Ongoing advice and representation of two senior executives at Wells Fargo regarding issues at Wells Fargo

### Ongoing representation of 21 financial advisors suing Credit Suisse for deferred compensation and defending those who Credit Suisse is suing for repayment of promissory notes.

Ongoing representation of 21 financial advisors suing Credit Suisse for deferred compensation and defending those who Credit Suisse is suing for repayment of promissory notes

### Currently pursuing dram shop claims for family of deceased passenger killed by a DUI driver

Currently pursuing dram shop claims for family of deceased passenger killed by a DUI driver

### Confidential settlement for driver and passenger who died when crashing into an illegally parked tractor-trailer

Confidential settlement for driver and passenger who died when crashing into an illegally parked tractor-trailer

### Defense and favorable settlement for corporate entity sued by two plaintiffs for wrongful death and serious injury arising out of activities on executive’s private hunting camp in South Texas

Defense and favorable settlement for corporate entity sued by two plaintiffs for wrongful death and serious injury arising out of activities on executive’s private hunting camp in South Texas

### Confidential settlement for family against drunk driver for significant injuries sustained by family by speeding DUI driver

Confidential settlement for family against drunk driver for significant injuries sustained by family by speeding DUI driver

### Confidential settlement for person injured by drunk driver

Confidential settlement for person injured by drunk driver

### Confidential settlement for worker injured by another contractor’s forklift

Confidential settlement for worker injured by another contractor’s forklift

### Confidential settlement on 3rd day of trial in South Texas for family of elderly man with heart condition who died from heart attack because tour guide in Mexico failed to obtain medical aid promptly

Confidential settlement on 3rd day of trial in South Texas for family of elderly man with heart condition who died from heart attack because tour guide in Mexico failed to obtain medical aid promptly

### $1,375,000 settlement against insurance company for violating GLB and privacy laws and causing identity theft (Client’s net $880,000)

$1,375,000 settlement against insurance company for violating GLB and privacy laws and causing identity theft (Client’s net $880,000)

### Defeated claim brought by major hospital against regional third-party administrator for late-paid medical bills, including recovery of client’s attorneys’ fees

Defeated claim brought by major hospital against regional third-party administrator for late-paid medical bills, including recovery of client’s attorneys’ fees

### Obtained dismissal of professional liability claims against forensic accounting firm and its partners

Obtained dismissal of professional liability claims against forensic accounting firm and its partners

### Successful defense of one of the world’s largest insurance adjusting companies with 600 offices worldwide regarding non-compete and injunctive relief concerning C-level executive (Georgia)

Successful defense of one of the world’s largest insurance adjusting companies with 600 offices worldwide regarding non-compete and injunctive relief concerning C-level executive (Georgia)

### Successful defense of home care nursing company sued for wrongful death

Successful defense of home care nursing company sued for wrongful death

### Successful defense of company with 300 stores in Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma in wage and hour enforcement action brought by Department of Labor (New Mexico) (Oklahoma)

Successful defense of company with 300 stores in Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma in wage and hour enforcement action brought by Department of Labor (New Mexico) (Oklahoma)

### Obtained no cause dismissal of Sarbanes-Oxley complaint exonerating Fortune 150 company that executive had filed with Department of Labor

Obtained no cause dismissal of Sarbanes-Oxley complaint exonerating Fortune 150 company that executive had filed with Department of Labor

### Obtained reversal of trial court judgment in construction case; All Metals Fabricating, Inc. v. Foster General Contracting, Inc., 338 S.W.3d 615 (Tex.App.–Dallas 2011, no pet.)

Obtained reversal of trial court judgment in construction case; All Metals Fabricating, Inc. v. Foster General Contracting, Inc., 338 S.W.3d 615 (Tex.App.–Dallas 2011, no pet.)

### Successful defense of numerous discrimination and other employment claims filed in North Texas against Fortune global 6 company filed with Dept. of Labor

Successful defense of numerous discrimination and other employment claims filed in North Texas against Fortune global 6 company filed with Dept. of Labor

### Successful defense of multi-million dollar breach of partnership agreement lawsuit against Fortune 1000 company (Oklahoma)

Successful defense of multi-million dollar breach of partnership agreement lawsuit against Fortune 1000 company (Oklahoma)

### Successful defense of majority shareholder sued for shareholder oppression and breach of fiduciary duty by minority shareholder

Successful defense of majority shareholder sued for shareholder oppression and breach of fiduciary duty by minority shareholder

### Successful defense of wrongful death lawsuit for drug manufacturer

Successful defense of wrongful death lawsuit for drug manufacturer

### Successful defense of Outback Steakhouse and Cinemark restaurant chains sued in class action filed in Beaumont

Successful defense of Outback Steakhouse and Cinemark restaurant chains sued in class action filed in Beaumont

### Successful defense and dissolution of TROs obtained in Houston and Dallas against Fortune global 300 company for tortious interference with contract and employee raiding involving its hiring of numerous executives from competitor

Successful defense and dissolution of TROs obtained in Houston and Dallas against Fortune global 300 company for tortious interference with contract and employee raiding involving its hiring of numerous executives from competitor

### Obtained take nothing dismissal in favor of Fortune 500 executive sued in a glass ceiling class action lawsuit

Obtained take nothing dismissal in favor of Fortune 500 executive sued in a glass ceiling class action lawsuit

### Currently defending lawsuit brought by fired COO in Houston

Currently defending lawsuit brought by fired COO in Houston

### Managed large reduction in force, including the termination of the COO, CLO and a Board member of a loan services company that manages more than $120 billion of commercial real estate loans worldwide

Managed large reduction in force, including the termination of the COO, CLO and a Board member of a loan services company that manages more than $120 billion of commercial real estate loans worldwide

### Ongoing lawsuit by beneficiary against private trustees and various corporate officers for breach of fiduciary duties and misuse of trust fund

Ongoing lawsuit by beneficiary against private trustees and various corporate officers for breach of fiduciary duties and misuse of trust fund

### Successfully resolved partnership dispute for national forensic accounting firm in AAA arbitration (New York)

Successfully resolved partnership dispute for national forensic accounting firm in AAA arbitration (New York)

### $1,722,750 settlement for Branch Manager of Wall Street financial firm with $60+ billion market cap (Client’s net $1,682,750)

$1,722,750 settlement for Branch Manager of Wall Street financial firm with $60+ billion market cap (Client’s net $1,682,750)

### Successful representation of CEO fired because of his sexual orientation (Hawaii)

Successful representation of CEO fired because of his sexual orientation (Hawaii) View Article

### $7.9 million arbitration award against affiliate of Highland Capital Management, L.P. after 9-day arbitration hearing, (award was later confirmed and judgment entered). Highland lost its $1.9 million counterclaim. Highland and its affiliate have appealed (so Client has not netted any money).

$7.9 million arbitration award against affiliate of Highland Capital Management, L.P. after 9-day arbitration hearing, (award was later confirmed and judgment entered). Highland lost its $1.9 million counterclaim. Highland and its affiliate have appealed (so Client has not netted any money)  View WSJ article

### Successful representation of former Title IX Investigator regarding discrimination and Title IX claims against Baylor University Link

Successful representation of former Title IX Investigator regarding discrimination and Title IX claims against Baylor University View Article

### Lead trial and appellate counsel for plaintiffs in high-profile case involving novel 4th Amendment issues; obtained affirmance of trial court ruling and denial of rehearing en banc; Trent v. Wade, 776 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2015)

Lead trial and appellate counsel for plaintiffs in high-profile case involving novel 4th Amendment issues; obtained affirmance of trial court ruling and denial of rehearing en banc; Trent v. Wade, 776 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2015)

### Representation of business owners who defeated Dallas City Councilman’s proposal to re-name Plano Road to North Lake Highlands Road

Representation of business owners who defeated Dallas City Councilman’s proposal to re-name Plano Road to North Lake Highlands Road

### Assisted with settlement of disability discrimination case in FINRA arbitration on behalf of former UBS Financial Advisor

Assisted with settlement of disability discrimination case in FINRA arbitration on behalf of former UBS Financial Advisor

### Second chair in Florida Federal Court non-compete and trade secrets matter

Second chair in Florida Federal Court non-compete and trade secrets matter

### Settlement of wrongful death lawsuit filed against boiler inspection company in Houston

Settlement of wrongful death lawsuit filed against boiler inspection company in Houston

### Second chair in federal court trial and defense verdict for CBRE in Houston totally defeating $1,027,000 claims of former CEO of GEMSA (joint venture with GE Capital that managed $120 billion commercial loan portfolio) who was asserting claims under ERISA

Second chair in federal court trial and defense verdict for CBRE in Houston totally defeating $1,027,000 claims of former CEO of GEMSA (joint venture with GE Capital that managed $120 billion commercial loan portfolio) who was asserting claims under ERISA

### When a turbine failed in Oklahoma, Rogge Dunn was hired to represent the B&M carrier and a regional utility. Among the thousands of documents produced, he was able to prove that the manufacturer altered a metallurgical report. He obtained a confidential settlement–despite the standard disclaimer clause used by the turbine manufacturing industry.

When a turbine failed in Oklahoma, Dunn was hired to represent the B&M carrier and a regional utility. Among thousands of documents produced, he was able to prove that the manufacturer altered a metallurgical report. He obtained a confidential settlement–despite the standard disclaimer clause used by the turbine manufacturing industry

### Eight property carriers hired the Firm to pursue subrogation arising out of multiple turbine failures in Brazil. The loss exceeded $60 million.

Eight property carriers hired the Firm to pursue subrogation arising out of multiple turbine failures in Brazil. The loss exceeded $60 million

### HAZMAT experts worked for months to discover the cause of a chemical fire in the HDI warehouse in Houston, TX. The fire and chemical release caused more than $100 million in damages and resulted in a subrogation lawsuit and two class actions with over 3,500 plaintiffs. Our firm's attorneys represented 19 carriers and insureds and obtained confidential settlements.

HAZMAT experts worked for months to discover the cause of a chemical fire in the HDI warehouse in Houston, TX. The fire caused more than $100 million in damages and resulted in a subrogation lawsuit and two class actions with over 3,500 plaintiffs. Our firm represented 19 carriers and insured and obtained confidential settlements

### Rogge Dunn at the National Guard Air Field in Metairie, Louisiana, investigating a multi-million dollar water and wind damage loss caused by Hurricane Georges.

Rogge Dunn at the National Guard Air Field in Metairie, Louisiana, investigating a multi-million dollar water and wind damage loss caused by Hurricane Georges

### Fire destroyed the 1.2 million square foot MacFrugal’s warehouse in New Orleans. The loss was over $100 million. It is the largest arson fire in Louisiana history. Rogge Dunn was hired to pursue subrogation. After 5 years of litigation and more than 100 depositions, he obtained confidential settlements.

A fire destroyed the 1.2 million square foot MacFrugal’s warehouse in New Orleans. It resulted in a loss of over $100 million. It is the largest arson fire in Louisiana history. Rogge Dunn was hired to pursue subrogation. After five years of litigation and more than 100 depositions, he obtained confidential settlements

### Conducted voir dire of panel that included former President George W. Bush

Conducted voir dire of panel that included former President George W. Bush

### Successful AAA arbitration against national brewery

Successful AAA arbitration against national brewery

### Bankruptcy adversary trial defending against allegations of fraud and fraudulent transfers; obtained complete defense verdict

Bankruptcy adversary trial defending against allegations of fraud and fraudulent transfers; obtained complete defense verdict

### Successful bankruptcy adversary trial; obtained judgment in excess of $1 million, including exemplary damages

Successful bankruptcy adversary trial; obtained judgment in excess of $1 million, including exemplary damages

### JAMS arbitration against national auction house

JAMS arbitration against national auction house

### Oil and gas bench trial in Denton County; obtained relief requested and ultimately succeeded on appeal

Oil and gas bench trial in Denton County; obtained relief requested and ultimately succeeded on appeal

### Successful multi-day divorce decree enforcement action

Successful multi-day divorce decree enforcement action

### Bench trial in Harris County; obtained complete defense verdict for national lender

Bench trial in Harris County; obtained complete defense verdict for national lender

### Jury trial regarding landlord-tenant dispute in Dallas County; obtained complete defense verdict; also obtained dismissal of eight other nearly- identical cases filed by the same plaintiff’s attorney against the same clients

Jury trial regarding landlord-tenant dispute in Dallas County; obtained complete defense verdict; also obtained dismissal of eight other nearly- identical cases filed by the same plaintiff’s attorney against the same clients

### Licensed to practice in all United States District Courts and Bankruptcy Courts in Texas, with experience practicing in all of them. Additional experience practicing pro hac vice in Arkansas bankruptcy court.

Licensed to practice in all United States District Courts and Bankruptcy Courts in Texas, with experience practicing in all of them. Additional experience practicing pro hac vice in Arkansas bankruptcy court

### Obtained favorable result on behalf of large institutional client in appeal to US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims involving an issue of first impression.

Obtained favorable result on behalf of large institutional client in appeal to US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims involving an issue of first impression

### Lead associate responsible for developing defenses to anti-SLAPP motion in defamation case on behalf of individuals and construction company after former customer engaged in campaign of public harassment of company’s officers.

Lead associate responsible for developing defenses to anti-SLAPP motion in defamation case on behalf of individuals and construction company after former customer engaged in campaign of public harassment of company’s officers

### Responsible for creating legal strategy resulting in recovery of additional $485K for commercial lender in Chapter 12 bankruptcy proceeding related to Deepwater Horizon claim funds.

Responsible for creating legal strategy resulting in recovery of additional $485K for commercial lender in Chapter 12 bankruptcy proceeding related to Deepwater Horizon claim funds

### Lead counsel managing litigation and developing strategy in defending consumer bankruptcy creditor related to claims with portfolio-wide exposure.

Lead counsel managing litigation and developing strategy in defending consumer bankruptcy creditor related to claims with portfolio-wide exposure

### 2nd chair in Beaumont state court trial, representing publicly-traded company $500K insurance dispute. Responsible for developing litigation strategy, conducting depositions, drafting and arguing motion for summary judgment and pretrial memoranda on law, settlement strategy, and leading settlement discussions.

2nd chair in Beaumont state court trial, representing publicly-traded company $500K insurance dispute. Responsible for developing litigation strategy, conducting depositions, drafting & arguing motion for summary judgment & pretrial memoranda on law, settlement strategy, & leading settlement discussions

### First chair in Federal Court trial representing Plaintiff in dispute regarding $365K secured debt.

First chair in Federal Court trial representing Plaintiff in dispute regarding $365K secured debt.

### Resolved partnership dispute for national forensic accounting firm through New York-venued arbitration proceeding.

Resolved partnership dispute for national forensic accounting firm through New York-venued arbitration proceeding

### Obtained temporary and permanent injunction against ex-employee in Dallas applying the inevitable disclosure doctrine.

Obtained temporary and permanent injunction against ex-employee in Dallas applying the inevitable disclosure doctrine

### Prosecuted trade-secret-theft case in New York federal district court for national restaurant chain.

Prosecuted trade-secret-theft case in New York federal district court for national restaurant chain

### Favorably resolved lawsuit for plaintiff client against vendor that provided inaccurate, computer-generated flood hazard data relied on by client’s risk control group.

Favorably resolved lawsuit for plaintiff client against vendor that provided inaccurate, computer-generated flood hazard data relied on by client’s risk control group

### Resolved complex tire recycling facility fire litigation in environmentally-conscious Southwest in favor of client including, in part, requiring electric utility defendant to fund clean-up of resulting waste.

Resolved complex tire recycling facility fire litigation in environmentally-conscious Southwest in favor of client including, in part, requiring electric utility defendant to fund $35 million clean-up of resulting waste

### Negotiated buy-out of Mexican-based company to resolve claim for breach of various duties brought against former high-level executive in publicly-traded company.

Negotiated buy-out of Mexican-based company to resolve claim for breach of various duties brought against former high-level executive in publicly-traded company

### Part of team that obtained federal court injunction against trial consultant to enforce noncompetition and nonsolicitation covenants.

Part of team that obtained federal court injunction against trial consultant to enforce noncompetition and nonsolicitation covenants

### Obtained dismissal of professional liability claims against forensic accounting firm and its partners prior to plaintiff’s summary judgment response deadline.

Obtained dismissal of professional liability claims against forensic accounting firm and its partners prior to plaintiff’s summary judgment response deadline

### Obtained disputed excess insurance policy monies for family who lost wife and mother to individual who was driving under the influence and killed two people.

Obtained disputed excess insurance policy monies for family who lost wife and mother to individual who was driving under the influence and killed two people

### Obtained substantial buy-out for family-member owner of company in probate dispute.

Obtained substantial buy-out for family-member owner of company in probate dispute

### Resolved contentious partnership dispute where partner alleged client stole from business and was not an equity owner; payment made to client.

Resolved contentious partnership dispute where partner alleged client stole from business and was not an equity owner; payment made to client

### Legal advisor for corporate emergency “Go Team”

Legal advisor for corporate emergency “Go Team”

### Led company’s mission to protect intellectual property, proprietary information, and customer data from data-scrapers (and any other unauthorized use)

Led company’s mission to protect intellectual property, proprietary information, and customer data from data-scrapers (and any other unauthorized use)

### Interfaced with governmental entities regarding criminal issues, including warrants and subpoenas, as well as regulatory issues and corporate compliance

Interfaced with governmental entities regarding criminal issues, including warrants and subpoenas, as well as regulatory issues and corporate compliance

### Counseled and advised clients regarding privacy and libel issues for employee’s online content, including Facebook and Twitter postings/forums

Counseled and advised clients regarding privacy and libel issues for employee’s online content, including Facebook and Twitter postings/forums

### As lead counsel, settled (for 100% of demand) a complicated compensation dispute on behalf of a departing hedge fund manager

As lead counsel, settled (for 100% of demand) a complicated compensation dispute on behalf of a departing hedge fund manager

### Drafted and negotiated multiple executive compensation agreements

Drafted and negotiated multiple executive compensation agreements

### Briefed and argued a complicated jurisdictional issue before the Dallas Court of Appeals

Briefed and argued a complicated jurisdictional issue before the Dallas Court of Appeals

### Obtained multiple temporary restraining orders against clients’ former employees in Harris County District Court and Dallas County District Court

Obtained multiple temporary restraining orders against clients’ former employees in Harris County District Court and Dallas County District Court

### As first chair, successfully defeated a special appearance by a New Zealand corporation following a two-day proceeding in Dallas County Court

As first chair, successfully defeated a special appearance by a New Zealand corporation following a two-day proceeding in Dallas County Court

### As first chair, achieved a complete defense verdict in Harris County Court on a matter of first impression regarding electronic health records and durable medical equipment

As first chair, achieved a complete defense verdict in Harris County Court on a matter of first impression regarding electronic health records and durable medical equipment

### As first chair, achieved a complete defense verdict for his insurance client in Montgomery County Court

As first chair, achieved a complete defense verdict for his insurance client in Montgomery County Court

### Secured $1.04 million dollar Dallas County jury verdict on behalf of a registered nurse in novel employment bullying, retaliation, and wrongful discharge case.  When Doctors threatened bankruptcy, obtained settlement of $440,000 (Client’s net $152,000)

Secured $1.04 million dollar Dallas County jury verdict on behalf of the registered nurse in novel employment bullying, retaliation, and wrongful discharge case.  When Doctors threatened bankruptcy, obtained settlement of $440,000 (Client’s net $152,000)

### First chair in 8-day bench trial in complex commercial litigation dispute in Palo Pinto County, Texas involving the defense of a real estate developer and related entities against claims for in excess of $12,000,000 in damages and requests for other equitable relief made by more than 30 plaintiffs. Obtained a take nothing judgment on all claims made by plaintiffs.

First chair in 8-day bench trial in complex commercial litigation dispute in Palo Pinto County, Texas involving the defense of a real estate developer and related entities against claims for in excess of $12,000,000 in damages and requests for other equitable relief made by more than 30 plaintiffs. Obtained a take nothing judgment on all claims made by plaintiffs.

### First chair in 4-day jury trial in real estate litigation dispute in Dallas County, Texas involving a request for specific performance of a real estate contract against a purported seller of multimillion-dollar commercial real estate property. Obtained a denial of specific performance.

First chair in 4-day jury trial in real estate litigation dispute in Dallas County, Texas involving a request for specific performance of a real estate contract against a purported seller of multimillion-dollar commercial real estate property. Obtained a denial of specific performance.

### First chair in oil & gas absentee mineral interest owner receivership proceeding in Johnson County, Texas; obtained appointment of receiver and negotiation of lease to allow production by oil & gas company to continue unimpeded.

First chair in oil & gas absentee mineral interest owner receivership proceeding in Johnson County, Texas; obtained appointment of receiver and negotiation of lease to allow production by oil & gas company to continue unimpeded

### After more than a hundred depositions and thousands of hours of work, the attorneys in our Firm defeated the alarm industry’s standard disclaimer clause used by ADT and won a $58 million subrogation verdict for our clients.

After more than a hundred depositions and thousands of hours of work, the attorneys in our Firm defeated the alarm industry’s standard disclaimer clause used by ADT and won a $58 million subrogation verdict for our clients

### Successful defense of nationwide insurance carrier in a mass action asbestos lawsuit filed against more than 195 companies and insurance carriers

Successful defense of nationwide insurance carrier in a mass action asbestos lawsuit filed against more than 195 companies and insurance carriers

### Negotiated removal of co-manager, loan payoff and extinguished management rights of minority members of healthcare company worth $50+ million

Negotiated removal of co-manager, loan payoff and extinguished management rights of minority members of healthcare company worth $50+ million


## Clients

### CBRE



### Adecco



### Beal Bank



### Outback Steakhouse



### ProShares



### Perot Museum of Nature and Science



### Rent-a-Center



### SEI Investments Company



### The Beck Group



### Cawley Partners



### Benihana



### AIG



### Match.com



### Cintas



### FM Global



### Champion Home Builders



### Carrabba's Italian Grill



### Texas Tech University



### Thackeray Partners



### Sonny Bryan's Smokehouse



### Exeter Finance



### Bonefish Grill



### Case Commercial Real Estate Partners



### Meritage Homes Corporation



### American College of Emergency Physicians



### Auto One Acceptance



### COG Operating



### Concho Equity Holding Corp.



### Criswell College



### Credit Union of Texas (CUTX)



### CVS Caremark



### DuraServ



### Fleming's Prime Steakhouse



### HealthMarkets



### Industrial Risk Insurers



### Jerry Whittle Boats



### Loving Care Agency



### Massey-Fair Industrial, Inc.



### Meridian Financial Holdings



### MLE, Inc.



### MMC Group



### Onward Healthcare



### Onyx M.D.



### Pagnato Karp, LLC



### Panda Energy



### Peregrine Pipeline Co.



### Puritan Financial



### Roy's Hawaiian Fusion Restaurant



### Safeco Insurance



### Travelers Insurance



### TNA Wrestling



### Tractel Group



### Triad Financial



### Unified Investigations and Sciences



### United Mechanical



### Union Square Federal Credit Union



### Former Chief of Staff

Former Chief of Staff for Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jim Wilkinson

### Buck Showalter

Former Baltimore Orioles Manager Buck Showalter

### Larry Brown

Hall of Fame Basketball Coach Larry Brown

### Ryan Berube

Olympic Gold Medalist Ryan Berube

### Ryan Moats

Former NFL Running Back Ryan Moats

### Al Mack

Kidd Kraddick Morning Show Co-Host Al Mack

### Chris Holt

Former MLB Pitcher Chris Holt

### Barron's FAs

More than a dozen Barron's Top 100 Financial Advisors

### Branch Managers FAs

More than 20 Branch Managers & Executives at investment banks, wirehouses, and financial firms

### ALM First Financial Advisors

ALM First Financial Advisors, LLC

### BMC Capital

BMC Capital

### Cigna Financial Advisors

Cigna Financial Advisors

### Tom Buning

Tom BuningFormer Assoc. Athletic Director for Facilities, SMU

### Woody Norris

Woody NorrisFormer Senior Associate Athletic Director, SMU

### Kris Lowe

Kris LoweFormer Assoc. Athletic Director for Business & Finance, SMU


## Reported Cases

### Scott Crane v. Rave Restaurant Group, Inc., No. 4:20-cv-00013-ALM (E.D. Tex. 2021) (obtained $924,000 jury verdict for plaintiff, who was former CEO of defendant)

Scott Crane v. Rave Restaurant Group, Inc., No. 4:20-cv-00013-ALM (E.D. Tex. 2021) (obtained $924,000 jury verdict for plaintiff, who was former CEO of defendant) (verdict reversed on appeal)

### Thomas v BioTE Medical, LLC, 2020 WL 948087 (Tex. App--Dallas February 26, 2020)

Thomas v BioTE Medical, LLC, 2020 WL 948087 (Tex. App--Dallas February 26, 2020)

### Snowden v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co.,  2015 WL 5123436 (S.D. Tex.  2015)

Snowden v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co.,  2015 WL 5123436 (S.D. Tex.  2015)

### Odum v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2013 WL 12106146 (S.D.Tex. 2013)

Odum v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2013 WL 12106146 (S.D.Tex. 2013)

### Garcia v. Bank of America, N.A., 2013 WL 12136511 (N.D.Tex. 2013)

Garcia v. Bank of America, N.A., 2013 WL 12136511 (N.D.Tex. 2013)

### Wolf v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2013 WL 12136555 (W.D.Tex. 2013)

Wolf v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2013 WL 12136555 (W.D.Tex. 2013)

### Whittier v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2013 WL 5425294 (S.D.Tex. 2013) aff’d, 2014 WL 6791382 (5th Cir. 2014)

Whittier v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2013 WL 5425294 (S.D.Tex. 2013) aff’d, 2014 WL 6791382 (5th Cir. 2014)

### Sanchez v. Bank of America, N.A., 2013 WL 3097906 (E.D.Tex. 2013)

Sanchez v. Bank of America, N.A., 2013 WL 3097906 (E.D.Tex. 2013)

### Jackson v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2015 WL 6907507 (N.D. Tex. 2015), R. & R. adopted, 2015 WL 6866112 (N.D. Tex. 2015)

Jackson v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2015 WL 6907507 (N.D. Tex. 2015), R. & R. adopted, 2015 WL 6866112 ;(N.D. Tex. 2015)

### Reddick v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2017 WL 6343542 (N.D. Tex. 2017)

Reddick v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2017 WL 6343542 (N.D. Tex. 2017)

### Millennium Restaurant Group, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 191 F. Supp. 2d 802 (N.D. Tex. 2002) (successfully represented client against the City of Dallas and obtained a declaration that a city ordinance was unconstitutional)

Millennium Restaurant Group, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 191 F. Supp. 2d 802 (N.D. Tex. 2002) (successfully represented client against the City of Dallas and obtained a declaration that a city ordinance was unconstitutional)

### Hinds v. Orix Capital Markets, L.L.C., 2003 W.L. 22132791 (N.D. Tex. September 11, 2003) (obtained summary judgment for employer in a fraud, breach of contract and promissory estoppel suit brought by a newly hired employee)

Hinds v. Orix Capital Markets, L.L.C., 2003 W.L. 22132791 (N.D. Tex. September 11, 2003) (obtained summary judgment for employer in a fraud, breach of contract and promissory estoppel suit brought by a newly hired employee)

### Oldham v. Orix Financial Services, Inc., 2007 W.L. 530202 (N.D. Tex. February 21. 2007) (obtained summary judgment for employer in a breach of contract and fraud suit brought by a sales representative to recover commissions)

Oldham v. Orix Financial Services, Inc., 2007 W.L. 530202 (N.D. Tex. February 21. 2007) (obtained summary judgment for employer in a breach of contract and fraud suit brought by a sales representative to recover commissions)

### Szczepanik v.First Southern Trust Co., 883 S.W. 2d 648 (Tex.1994) (obtained reversal of an appellate court judgment before the Texas Supreme Court in a frequently cited case regarding the legal sufficiency of evidence necessary to prove lost profits in Texas)

Szczepanik v.First Southern Trust Co., 883 S.W. 2d 648 (Tex.1994) (obtained reversal of an appellate court judgment before the Texas Supreme Court in a frequently cited case regarding the legal sufficiency of evidence necessary to prove lost profits in Texas)

### Williams v. Cintas Corp., 169 Fed. Appx. 180 (5th Cir. 2006)

Williams v. Cintas Corp., 169 Fed. Appx. 180 (5th Cir. 2006)

### Haddock v. Texas Workforce Comm., No. 02-13-000096-CV, 2014 WL 486076 (Tex. App.—Ft. Worth February 6, 2014, pet. denied)

Haddock v. Texas Workforce Comm., No. 02-13-000096-CV, 2014 WL 486076 (Tex. App.—Ft. Worth February 6, 2014, pet. denied)

### Modis v. Net Matrix Sol’ns, Inc., No. 14-14-00238-CV, 2015 WL 971292 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] March 3, 2016, no pet.)

Modis v. Net Matrix Sol’ns, Inc., No. 14-14-00238-CV, 2015 WL 971292 (Tex. App.–Houston [14thDist.] March 3, 2016, no pet.)

### Mendicino v. Texas Workforce Comm., No. 03-05-00054, 2006 WL 1358480 (Tex. App.—Austin May 10, 2006, no pet.)

Mendicino v. Texas Workforce Comm., No. 03-05-00054, 2006 WL 1358480 (Tex. App.—Austin May 10, 2006, no pet.)

### St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Paw Paw’s Camper City, Inc., 346 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 2003)

St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Paw Paw’s Camper City, Inc., 346 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 2003)

### Beggins vs. CBRE Capital Markets of Texas, LP, 2018 WL 3741976 (N.D.Tex 2018)

Beggins vs. CBRE Capital Markets of Texas, LP, 2018 WL 3741976 (N.D.Tex 2018)

### Metro Hospitality Partners, Ltd. v. Lexington Insurance Company, 84 F.Supp.3d 553 (S.D.Tex. 2015)

Metro Hospitality Partners, Ltd. v. Lexington Insurance Company, 84 F.Supp.3d 553 (S.D.Tex. 2015)

### Ennis, Inc. v Dunbrooke Apparel Corp., 427 S.W. 3d 527 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2014)

Ennis, Inc. v Dunbrooke Apparel Corp., 427 S.W. 3d 527 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2014)

### Hest Technologies, Inc. v. PC Connection Sales Corp., 2014 WL 1327508 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 2014)

Hest Technologies, Inc. v. PC Connection Sales Corp., 2014 WL 1327508 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 2014)

### In re Michelle Detmer CAMPO and Rosanna Cantu, Realtors, 2013 WL 3929251 (Tex. App. –Dallas 2013)

In re Michelle Detmer CAMPO and Rosanna Cantu, Realtors, 2013 WL 3929251 (Tex. App. –Dallas 2013)

### In re. Patrick Doak, Jerry Zemanski and Steven Bin, 2013 WL 3929253 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2013)

In re. Patrick Doak, Jerry Zemanski and Steven Bin, 2013 WL 3929253 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2013)

### In re Regal Energy, LLC 2013 W.L 5305240 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 2013)

In re Regal Energy, LLC 2013 W.L 5305240 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 2013)

### David O. Kemp, P.C. d/b/a Kemp Lydick v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co., et al., 2012 WL 13019688 (N.D.Tex. 2012)

David O. Kemp, P.C. d/b/a Kemp Lydick v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co., et al., 2012 WL 13019688 (N.D.Tex. 2012)

### David Repinski, et al., v. Cunningham Lindsey Group, Ltd., et al., 2012 WL 13018319 (N.D.Ga 2012)

David Repinski, et al., v. Cunningham Lindsey Group, Ltd., et al., 2012 WL 13018319 (N.D.Ga 2012)

### Jairus Abraham Pegues v. PGW Auto Glass, L.L.C.; Adecco USA, Inc., 451 Fed.Appx. 417 (5th Cir. 2011)

Jairus Abraham Pegues v. PGW Auto Glass, L.L.C.; Adecco USA, Inc., 451 Fed.Appx. 417 (5th Cir. 2011)

### Courtroom Sciences, Inc. v. Cindy Andrews, 2009 WL 1313274 (N.D.Tex. 2009)

Courtroom Sciences, Inc. v. Cindy Andrews, 2009 WL 1313274 (N.D.Tex. 2009)

### In Re Allianz Global Risk US, 2008 WL 596859 (Tex.App.–Hou. [1 Dist] 2008)

In Re Allianz Global Risk US, 2008 WL 596859 (Tex.App.–Hou. [1 Dist] 2008)

### Henderson vs. OS Restaurant Service, d/b/a Cheeseburger in Paradise 2008 WL 216581 (S.D. Ind 2008)

Henderson vs. OS Restaurant Service, d/b/a Cheeseburger in Paradise 2008 WL 216581 (S.D. Ind 2008)

### Sherrie Gilbert, et. al v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, 2008 WL 4538259 (5th Cir. 2008)

Sherrie Gilbert, et. al v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, 2008 WL 4538259 (5th Cir. 2008)

### In re Producers Exchange Benefit Services, Inc., 2008 WL 73665 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2008)

In re Producers Exchange Benefit Services, Inc., 2008 WL 73665 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2008)

### Alexander vs. Lincare, Inc., 2007 WL 4178592 (N.D. Tex. 2007)

Alexander vs. Lincare, Inc., 2007 WL 4178592 (N.D. Tex. 2007)

### Great Host International v. Massey-Fair Industrial, et. al, 2007 WL 667169 (S.D.Tex 2007)

Great Host International v. Massey-Fair Industrial, et. al, 2007 WL 667169 (S.D.Tex 2007)

### Connie Adams v. DaimlerChrysler Services, 252 Fed.Appx. 681; 2007 WL 3226289 (5th Cir. 2007)

Connie Adams v. DaimlerChrysler Services, 252 Fed.Appx. 681; 2007 WL 3226289 (5th Cir. 2007)

### Donna Calloway v. Triad Financial Corp., 2007 WL 4548085 (N.D.Tex. 2007)

Donna Calloway v. Triad Financial Corp., 2007 WL 4548085 (N.D.Tex. 2007)

### Yolanda Williams v. Cintas Corp., 169 Fed.Appx. 180; 2006 WL 449029 (5th Cir. 2006)

Yolanda Williams v. Cintas Corp., 169 Fed.Appx. 180; 2006 WL 449029 (5th Cir. 2006)

### Leah Schier v. Outback Steakhouse, 2006 WL 1149152 (W.D.Tex 2006)

Leah Schier v. Outback Steakhouse, 2006 WL 1149152 (W.D.Tex 2006)

### Lena Marshall v. DaimlerChrysler Services North America, 2006 WL 1133869 (E.D.Tex 2006)

Lena Marshall v. DaimlerChrysler Services North America, 2006 WL 1133869 (E.D.Tex 2006)

### Frank Mendicino v. Texas Workforce Commission, Adecco USA and Celestica, Inc., 2006 WL 1358480 (Tex.App.–Austin 2006)

Frank Mendicino v. Texas Workforce Commission, Adecco USA and Celestica, Inc., 2006 WL 1358480 (Tex.App.–Austin 2006)

### Joseph Tarantino v. DaimlerChrysler Financial Services, 200 Fed.Appx. 313; 2006 WL 2641661 (5th Cir. 2006)

Joseph Tarantino v. DaimlerChrysler Financial Services, 200 Fed.Appx. 313; 2006 WL 2641661 (5th Cir. 2006)

### Leah Schier v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, 2005 WL 265672 (W.D. Tex. 2005)

Leah Schier v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, 2005 WL 265672 (W.D. Tex. 2005)

### Tarantino v. DaimlerChrysler Financial Services, 2005 WL 3534436 (N.D. Tex. 2005)

Tarantino v. DaimlerChrysler Financial Services, 2005 WL 3534436 (N.D. Tex. 2005)

### In re Justin Heagerty, Jeff Calendar and Outback Steakhouse, 2005 WL 16190 (Tex. Ap. — San Antonio 2005)

In re Justin Heagerty, Jeff Calendar and Outback Steakhouse, 2005 WL 16190 (Tex. Ap. — San Antonio 2005)

### Ken Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, 309 F3d 893 (5th Cir 2002) and (2001 W.L. 61174) (N.D. Tx. 2001); 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 22428; 90 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 248; 83 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶41,352

Ken Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, 309 F3d 893 (5th Cir 2002) and (2001 W.L. 61174) (N.D. Tx. 2001); 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 22428; 90 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 248; 83 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶41,352

### St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. vs. Murray Guard, 37 SW3d 80 (Ark. 2001)

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. vs. Murray Guard, 37 SW3d 80 (Ark. 2001)

### Tano Automation, Inc. v. West Coast Liquidators, Inc., et.al, 764 So.2d 123 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2000)

Tano Automation, Inc. v. West Coast Liquidators, Inc., et.al, 764 So.2d 123 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2000)

### Arthur Williams v. Cigna Financial Advisors, 197 F3d 752 (5th Cir. 1999); 81 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 747; 77 Empl. Prac. Dec. ¶46,359

Arthur Williams v. Cigna Financial Advisors, 197 F3d 752 (5th Cir. 1999); 81 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 747; 77 Empl. Prac. Dec. ¶46,359

### Fair Grounds Corporation v. ADT Security Systems, et. al, 690 So.2d 250 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1997)

Fair Grounds Corporation v. ADT Security Systems, et. al, 690 So.2d 250 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1997)

### Arthur Williams v. Cigna Financial Advisors, 56 Fd 656 (5th Cir. 1995); 68 Fair Empl.Prac.Case (BNA) 65,66; Empl. Prac. Dec ¶43,601; 19 Employee Benefits Cas. 1751

Arthur Williams v. Cigna Financial Advisors, 56 Fd 656 (5th Cir. 1995); 68 Fair Empl.Prac.Case (BNA) 65,66; Empl. Prac. Dec ¶43,601; 19 Employee Benefits Cas. 1751

### Weston v. ITT-CFC, 8 I.E.R. Cases 503 (N.D. Texas 1992)

Weston v. ITT-CFC, 8 I.E.R. Cases 503 (N.D. Texas 1992)


## Speeches

### Speaker, "How to Win an Employment Case at Trial," TexasBarCLE 29th Annual Advanced Employment Law Seminar (Dallas, 2021)

Speaker, "How to Win an Employment Case at Trial," TexasBarCLE 29th Annual Advanced Employment Law Seminar (Dallas, 2021)

### Speaker, "How to Manage and Resolve Complex Commercial Disputes: A Practical Guide," Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2020)

Speaker, "How to Manage and Resolve Complex Commercial Disputes: A Practical Guide," Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2020)

### Speaker, “FINRA Compliance Guide: Key Takeaways from Common Mistakes,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2020)

Speaker, “FINRA Compliance Guide: Key Takeaways from Common Mistakes,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2020)

### Speaker, “FINRA Arbitration Hot Topics for 2020: Updates You Should Know,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2019)

Speaker, “FINRA Arbitration Hot Topics for 2020: Updates You Should Know,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2019)

### Speaker, "An Industry in Transition Summit", AdvisorHub, The University Club (New York City, 2019)

Speaker, AdvisorHub's "An Industry in Transition Summit", The University Club (New York City, 2019) View here

### Speaker, “FINRA’s Heightened Sanction Guidelines: What to Expect in 2019,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2019)

Speaker, “FINRA’s Heightened Sanction Guidelines: What to Expect in 2019,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2019)

### Speaker, “FINRA Arbitration and Enforcement in 2019 and Beyond: Hot Buttons to Consider,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2019)

Speaker, “FINRA Arbitration and Enforcement in 2019 and Beyond: Hot Buttons to Consider,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2019) View here

### Speaker, “Captivating the Jury and Winning Employment Cases at Trial,” Dallas Bar Association, Belo Mansion (Dallas, 2019)

Speaker, “Captivating the Jury and Winning Employment Cases at Trial,” Dallas Bar Association, Belo Mansion (Dallas, 2019)

### Speaker, “Supervising Employees Under Current Employment Laws” Cawley Partners (Dallas, 2018)

Speaker, “Supervising Employees Under Current Employment Laws” Cawley Partners (Dallas, 2018)

### Guest, Norm Hitzges Show, the Sexual Harassment Scandal Involving the Dallas Mavericks and Mark Cuban (Radio Guest, 2019) Link to Interview

Guest, Norm Hitzges Show, the Sexual Harassment Scandal Involving the Dallas Mavericks and Mark Cuban (Radio Guest, 2018) Listen here

### Speaker, “FINRA Arbitrations: A Comprehensive Guide for 2018 and Beyond,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2018)

Speaker, “FINRA Arbitrations: A Comprehensive Guide for 2018 and Beyond,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2018)

### Speaker, “FINRA’s Crackdown on High-Risk Brokers: Recent Trends and Developments You Can’t Ignore,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2018)

Speaker, “FINRA’s Crackdown on High-Risk Brokers: Recent Trends and Developments You Can’t Ignore,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2018)

### Speaker, “Violence in Sports — On the Field, Off the Field & In the Media,” Co-Keynote Speaker with Title IX Coordinator Patty Crawford, Houston Bar Association (Houston, 2017)

Speaker, “Violence in Sports — On the Field, Off the Field & In the Media,” Co-Keynote Speaker with Title IX Coordinator Patty Crawford, Houston Bar Association (Houston, 2017)

### Speaker, “Recent Developments in the FINRA Codes of Arbitration Procedure: What You Need to Know,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2017)

Speaker, “Recent Developments in the FINRA Codes of Arbitration Procedure: What You Need to Know,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2017)

### Speaker, “FINRA Arbitration and Enforcement: What You Need to Know,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2017)

Speaker, “FINRA Arbitration and Enforcement: What You Need to Know,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2017)

### Speaker, “The Art as Propaganda and Persuasion featuring the work of Arthur Szyk: The Pen as a Weapon for Freedom,” Dallas Holocaust Museum Center for Education and Tolerance (Dallas, 2015)

Speaker, “The Art as Propaganda and Persuasion featuring the work of Arthur Szyk: The Pen as a Weapon for Freedom,” Dallas Holocaust Museum Center for Education and Tolerance (Dallas, 2015)

### Speaker, “Planning Entity and Human Capital Structuring for Startups, Small Caps and Mid Caps,” (Dallas, 2014)

Speaker, “Planning Entity and Human Capital Structuring for Startups, Small Caps and Mid Caps,” (Dallas, 2014)

### Speaker, “Opening Statements & Direct Examination: A Trial Lawyers’ Battlefield Perspective,” Advanced Trial Tactics, National Business Institute (Dallas, 2014)

Speaker, “Opening Statements & Direct Examination: A Trial Lawyers’ Battlefield Perspective,” Advanced Trial Tactics, National Business Institute (Dallas, 2014)

### Speaker, “The Art of Persuasion: Wartime Propaganda Posters,” Frontiers of Flight Museum (Dallas, 2014)

Speaker, “The Art of Persuasion: Wartime Propaganda Posters,” Frontiers of Flight Museum (Dallas, 2014)

### Speaker, “Employment Laws Made Simple,” NBI Seminars (Dallas, 2012)

Speaker, “Employment Laws Made Simple,” NBI Seminars (Dallas, 2012)

### Speaker, “A General Counsel’s Guide to Winning Business and Employment Law Disputes,” Texas Lawyer In House Counsel Summit (Dallas, 2011)

Speaker, “A General Counsel’s Guide to Winning Business and Employment Law Disputes,” Texas Lawyer In House Counsel Summit (Dallas, 2011)

### Speaker, “Injunctive Relief: Tora, Tora, Tora; Blitzkrieg; and Special Ops,” Univ of Houston Law School(Dallas and Houston, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004)

Speaker, “Injunctive Relief: Tora, Tora, Tora; Blitzkrieg; and Special Ops,” Univ of Houston Law School(Dallas and Houston, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004)

### Speaker, “Avoiding Discrimination in the Workplace,” presented to employees of GVA Cawley (Dallas, 2008)

Speaker, “Avoiding Discrimination in the Workplace,” presented to employees of GVA Cawley (Dallas, 2008)

### Speaker, “How to Offer and Exclude Evidence,” Univ. of Houston Law School (Houston, Dallas, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000)

Speaker, “How to Offer and Exclude Evidence,” Univ. of Houston Law School (Houston, Dallas, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000)

### Speaker, “Persuading the Arbitration Panel: Keys to Make the Winning Presentation at the Hearing,” Center for International Legal Studies, Emerging Trends in Dispute Resolution Law (Steamboat Springs, 2007)

Speaker, “Persuading the Arbitration Panel: Keys to Make the Winning Presentation at the Hearing,” Center for International Legal Studies, Emerging Trends in Dispute Resolution Law (Steamboat Springs, 2007)

### Speaker, “Complex Business and Employment Trials,” Dallas Bar Association, Friday Clinic (Dallas, 2005)

Speaker, “Complex Business and Employment Trials,” Dallas Bar Association, Friday Clinic (Dallas, 2005)

### Guest, “Shareholder Oppression and Partnership Litigation,” Sky Radio Interview (Radio Guest, 2005)

Guest, “Shareholder Oppression and Partnership Litigation,” Sky Radio Interview (Radio Guest, 2005)

### Speaker, “Injunctions and Restraining Orders,” Univ of Houston Law School (Houston, Dallas, 2004)

Speaker, “Injunctions and Restraining Orders,” Univ of Houston Law School (Houston, Dallas, 2004)

### Speaker, “Effective Cross-Examination Techniques of Experts at Trial,” Collin County Bench-Bar Retreat (Frisco, 2004)

Speaker, “Effective Cross-Examination Techniques of Experts at Trial,” Collin County Bench-Bar Retreat (Frisco, 2004)

### Speaker, “Partnership and Minority Shareholder Oppression Trials,” Univ. of Houston Law School Advanced Business Litigation Seminar (Houston, Dallas, 2004)

Speaker, “Partnership and Minority Shareholder Oppression Trials,” Univ. of Houston Law School Advanced Business Litigation Seminar (Houston, Dallas, 2004)

### Speaker, “Pursuing and Defending Subrogation Claims,” Univ of Houston Law School (Houston, Dallas, 2003, 1999)

Speaker, “Pursuing and Defending Subrogation Claims,” Univ of Houston Law School (Houston, Dallas, 2003, 1999)

### Speaker, “Trial Objections,” Dallas Bar Association, North Dallas Seminar (Addison, 2003)

Speaker, “Trial Objections,” Dallas Bar Association, North Dallas Seminar (Addison, 2003)

### Speaker, “Overcoming Objections at Trial,” University of Houston Law School (Houston, Dallas 2003, 2002, 2001)

Speaker, “Overcoming Objections at Trial,” University of Houston Law School (Houston, Dallas 2003, 2002, 2001)

### Speaker, “Avoiding an Employment Lawsuit is as Easy as 1, 2, 3,” presented to executives and managers of Outback Steakhouse (Kansas City, 2003)

Speaker, “Avoiding an Employment Lawsuit is as Easy as 1, 2, 3,” presented to executives and managers of Outback Steakhouse (Kansas City, 2003)

### Speaker, “Investigating Major Personal Injury Claims,” Univ. of Houston Advanced Personal Injury Law Seminar (Houston, Dallas, 2003)

Speaker, “Investigating Major Personal Injury Claims,” Univ. of Houston Advanced Personal Injury Law Seminar (Houston, Dallas, 2003)

### Speaker, “Will Mold Be Gold?” Lorman Education seminars (New Orleans, Austin, Fort Worth, 2003, 2002, 2001) View Document

Speaker, “Will Mold Be Gold?” Lorman Education seminars (New Orleans, Austin, Fort Worth, 2003, 2002, 2001) View document

### Speaker, “Trial Objections,” Collin County Bar Association Clinic (Allen, 2003)

Speaker, “Trial Objections,” Collin County Bar Association Clinic (Allen, 2003)

### Speaker, “Negotiating Severance Packages for Executives,” Univ of Houston Law School (Houston, Dallas, 2002)

Speaker, “Negotiating Severance Packages for Executives,” Univ of Houston Law School (Houston, Dallas, 2002)

### Speaker, “Injunctions and Restraining Orders,” Univ of Houston Law School (Houston, Dallas, 2002)

Speaker, “Injunctions and Restraining Orders,” Univ of Houston Law School (Houston, Dallas, 2002)

### Guest, Mid-day News show with Ernie Brown, “Employers’ Obligations to Military Personnel and Reservists,” KRLD Radio 1080 AM (Radio Guest, 2002)

Guest, Mid-day News show with Ernie Brown, “Employers’ Obligations to Military Personnel and Reservists,” KRLD Radio 1080 AM (Radio Guest, 2002)

### Speaker, “Avoiding an Employment Lawsuit is as Easy as 1, 2, 3”, Advanced In-House Counsel Course, State Bar of Texas (San Antonio, 2002)

Speaker, “Avoiding an Employment Lawsuit is as Easy as 1, 2, 3”, Advanced In-House Counsel Course, State Bar of Texas (San Antonio, 2002)

### Speaker, “Objections: A Trial Dawg’s Dilemma – – To Bite, Bark, or Beg,” Dallas Bar Association, Trial Skills Section (Dallas, 2002)

Speaker, “Objections: A Trial Dawg’s Dilemma – – To Bite, Bark, or Beg,” Dallas Bar Association, Trial Skills Section (Dallas, 2002)

### Speaker, “How to Hire Skilled Personnel Without Also Having to Hire a Lawyer,” MADD National Conference (Irving, 2001)

Speaker, “How to Hire Skilled Personnel Without Also Having to Hire a Lawyer,” MADD National Conference (Irving, 2001)

### Speaker, “Recruiting: the Starting Point for a Diverse Work Force,” MADD National Conference (Irving, 2001)

Speaker, “Recruiting: the Starting Point for a Diverse Work Force,” MADD National Conference (Irving, 2001)

### Guest, The Marty Griffin Show, “Mold: Fact or Fiction?” KRLD Radio 1080 AM (Radio Guest, 2001)

Guest, The Marty Griffin Show, “Mold: Fact or Fiction?” KRLD Radio 1080 AM (Radio Guest, 2001)

### Speaker, “Mold and Sick Buildings: Contractual and Tort Theories and Strategies,” Advanced Personal Injury Seminar, Univ. of Houston Law School (Dallas, Houston, 2001)

Speaker, “Mold and Sick Buildings: Contractual and Tort Theories and Strategies,” Advanced Personal Injury Seminar, Univ. of Houston Law School (Dallas, Houston, 2001)

### Speaker, “Class Actions: Strategic Considerations for Plaintiffs and Defendants,” Advanced Personal Injury Seminar, Univ. of Houston Law School (Dallas, 2001)

Speaker, “Class Actions: Strategic Considerations for Plaintiffs and Defendants,” Advanced Personal Injury Seminar, Univ. of Houston Law School (Dallas, 2001)

### Speaker, “Evidentiary Objections at Trial: Successfully Making Them; How to Overcome Them,” Univ of Houston Law School (Houston, Dallas, 2000)

Speaker, “Evidentiary Objections at Trial: Successfully Making Them; How to Overcome Them,” Univ of Houston Law School (Houston, Dallas, 2000)

### Speaker, “Proper Use of the Internet and E-Mail to Avoid Getting Yourself and Your Employer Sued,” presented to employees of Barrett, Burke, Wilson, L.L.P. (Houston, 2000)

Speaker, “Proper Use of the Internet and E-Mail to Avoid Getting Yourself and Your Employer Sued,” presented to employees of Barrett, Burke, Wilson, L.L.P. (Houston, 2000)

### Speaker, “Netiquette: Policies and Procedures to Reduce Employee’s Misuse of the Internet and E-Mail,” presented to attorneys and supervisors of Barrett, Burke, Wilson, L.L.P. (Houston, 2000)

Speaker, “Netiquette: Policies and Procedures to Reduce Employee’s Misuse of the Internet and E-Mail,” presented to attorneys and supervisors of Barrett, Burke, Wilson, L.L.P. (Houston, 2000)

### Speaker, “Issues, Strategies and Solutions: Pursuing and Defending Claims,” The Republic Underwriters – Subrogation Seminar (Dallas, 2000)

Speaker, “Issues, Strategies and Solutions: Pursuing and Defending Claims,” The Republic Underwriters – Subrogation Seminar (Dallas, 2000)

### Guest, The Charlie Jones Show, “The Government’s Use of Carnivore to Monitor the Internet and Citizens’ Privacy Rights,” KRLD Radio 1080 AM (Radio Guest, 2000)

Guest, The Charlie Jones Show, “The Government’s Use of Carnivore to Monitor the Internet and Citizens’ Privacy Rights,” KRLD Radio 1080 AM (Radio Guest, 2000)

### Speaker, “Netiquette: Policies and Procedures to Reduce Employee’s Misuse of the Internet and E-Mail,” presented to MADD’s National Headquarters executives (Irving, 2000)

Speaker, “Netiquette: Policies and Procedures to Reduce Employee’s Misuse of the Internet and E-Mail,” presented to MADD’s National Headquarters executives (Irving, 2000)

### Guest, The McCuistion Show, “Privacy and the American Consumer,” nationally syndicated PBS TV show (Radio Guest, 2000)

Guest, The McCuistion Show, “Privacy and the American Consumer,” nationally syndicated PBS TV show (Radio Guest, 2000)

### Guest, The Charlie Jones Show, “Protecting Your Privacy Rights,” KRLD Radio, 1080 AM (Dallas Radio Guest, 1999)

Guest, The Charlie Jones Show, “Protecting Your Privacy Rights,” KRLD Radio, 1080 AM (Dallas Radio Guest, 1999)

### Speaker, “Protecting Insurance Carriers’ Subrogation Rights: First Dollar Out Issues and Pro Rata Agreements,” Travelers Insurance Companies Subrogation Seminar (Hartford, 1999)

Speaker, “Protecting Insurance Carriers’ Subrogation Rights: First Dollar Out Issues and Pro Rata Agreements,” Travelers Insurance Companies Subrogation Seminar (Hartford, 1999)

### Speaker, “Electronic Communications: Internet, E-Mail etc.; Understanding Employers’ Liability Exposure and Limiting it,” Univ. of Houston Law School (Houston, Dallas, 1999)

Speaker, “Electronic Communications: Internet, E-Mail etc.; Understanding Employers’ Liability Exposure and Limiting it,” Univ. of Houston Law School (Houston, Dallas, 1999)

### Guest, The Charlie Jones Show, “Employer’s Responsibility to Provide Insurance Benefits to Same Sex Couples,” KRLD Radio, 1080 AM (Dallas, 1999)

Guest, The Charlie Jones Show, “Employer’s Responsibility to Provide Insurance Benefits to Same Sex Couples,” KRLD Radio, 1080 AM (Dallas, 1999)

### Speaker, “Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace,” presented to Managers at Boeing Defense & Space (Irving, 1999)

Speaker, “Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace,” presented to Managers at Boeing Defense & Space (Irving, 1999)

### Guest, The Charlie Jones Show, “Background Checks when Hiring Employees,” KRLD Radio, 1080 AM (Dallas, 1999)

Guest, The Charlie Jones Show, “Background Checks when Hiring Employees,” KRLD Radio, 1080 AM (Dallas, 1999)

### Speaker, “Corporate Liability Exposure in the Work Place: Employee Lawsuits Against Employers, No End in Sight,” Adecco Employment Services (Richardson, 1999)

Speaker, “Corporate Liability Exposure in the Work Place: Employee Lawsuits Against Employers, No End in Sight,” Adecco Employment Services (Richardson, 1999)

### Speaker, “Co-Employment Issues for Employers and Providers of Temporary Employees,” presented to managers of Adecco Employment Services (Richardson, 1999)

Speaker, “Co-Employment Issues for Employers and Providers of Temporary Employees,” presented to managers of Adecco Employment Services (Richardson, 1999)

### Presenter, “Electronic Communications and Computer Records: Employer Liability and Discovery Issues,” Current Issues in Labor & Employment Law CLE On-Line seminar (Round Rock, 1998)

Presenter, “Electronic Communications and Computer Records: Employer Liability and Discovery Issues,” Current Issues in Labor & Employment Law CLE On-Line seminar (Round Rock, 1998)

### Speaker, “Workplace Privacy in the Electronic Age,” Plano Bar Association meeting (Plano, 1998)

Speaker, “Workplace Privacy in the Electronic Age,” Plano Bar Association meeting (Plano, 1998)

### Speaker, “Electronic Communications and Computer Records: Employer Liability and Discovery Issues,” Univ. of Houston, Employment Law for Lawyers and Human Resource Professionals seminar (Dallas, 1998)

Speaker, “Electronic Communications and Computer Records: Employer Liability and Discovery Issues,” Univ. of Houston, Employment Law for Lawyers and Human Resource Professionals seminar (Dallas, 1998)

### Speaker, “Cutting Edge Issues in Arbitration and Practical Tips,” Dallas Bar Association Friday Clinic seminar (Dallas, 1998) Download secure document

Speaker, “Cutting Edge Issues in Arbitration and Practical Tips,” Dallas Bar Association Friday Clinic seminar (Dallas, 1998). View document

### Speaker, “Workplace Privacy in the Electronic Age,” Univ. of Houston seminar (Houston and Dallas, 1997)

Speaker, “Workplace Privacy in the Electronic Age,” Univ. of Houston seminar (Houston and Dallas, 1997)

### Speaker, “The Americans with Disabilities Act: Disabilities, Accommodations and Access,” National Association of Women in Construction seminar (Dallas, 1997)

Speaker, “The Americans with Disabilities Act: Disabilities, Accommodations and Access,” National Association of Women in Construction seminar (Dallas, 1997)

### Panelist, “Staging Your Own Event — the Winning Adversary in Mediation,” Bench/Bar Conference, Dallas Bar Association (Del Lago, 1996)

Panelist, “Staging Your Own Event — the Winning Adversary in Mediation,” Bench/Bar Conference, Dallas Bar Association (Del Lago, 1996)

### Speaker, Marsh & McLennan seminar “Employment Practices Liability — the Solution” (Addison, 1996)

Speaker, Marsh & McLennan seminar “Employment Practices Liability — the Solution” (Addison, 1996)

### Speaker, “Employment Law for Lawyers and Human Resource Professionals,” Univ. of Houston seminar (San Antonio and Dallas, 1996)

Speaker, “Employment Law for Lawyers and Human Resource Professionals,” Univ. of Houston seminar (San Antonio and Dallas, 1996)

### Guest, Kelly Ford Show, “Family Issues in the Workplace,” KTLK radio 860 AM (Denver, 1996)

Guest, Kelly Ford Show, “Family Issues in the Workplace,” KTLK radio 860 AM (Denver, 1996)

### Guest, The McCuistion Show, “Has Affirmative Action Outlived its Usefulness?,” nationally syndicated PBS TV show (Dallas, 1995)

Guest, The McCuistion Show, “Has Affirmative Action Outlived its Usefulness?,” nationally syndicated PBS TV show (Dallas, 1995)

### Speaker, “Ethical Considerations Applicable to an Employment Law Practice Involving Plaintiffs and Defendants,” Dallas Bar Association, Employment Law Section (Dallas, 1995)

Speaker, “Ethical Considerations Applicable to an Employment Law Practice Involving Plaintiffs and Defendants,” Dallas Bar Association, Employment Law Section (Dallas, 1995)

### Speaker, “Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace,” presented to employees of CB Commercial Real Estate (Arlington, 1995)

Speaker, “Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace,” presented to employees of CB Commercial Real Estate (Arlington, 1995)

### Panelist, “Mediation Demonstration,” Dallas Association of Legal Assistants and Fort Worth Paralegal’s Association seminar (Irving, 1993)

Panelist, “Mediation Demonstration,” Dallas Association of Legal Assistants and Fort Worth Paralegal’s Association seminar (Irving, 1993)

### Speaker, “Persuasive Expert Testimony,” International Association of Arson Investigators, The Legal Process: From the Ashes to the Courtroom seminar (Las Vegas, 1992)

Speaker, “Persuasive Expert Testimony,” International Association of Arson Investigators, The Legal Process: From the Ashes to the Courtroom seminar (Las Vegas, 1992)

### "IAQ Litigation and Strategies," Texas Building Trends (Publication, September-October 2001)

"IAQ Litigation and Strategies," Texas Building Trends (Publication, September-October 2001)

### Co-Author and speaker, Electronic Communications: Employer and Attorney Issues in the Electronic Age, University of Houston Law Foundation, Advanced Employment Law Seminar (Houston, 2003)

Co-Author and speaker, Electronic Communications: Employer and Attorney Issues in the Electronic Age, University of Houston Law Foundation, Advanced Employment Law Seminar (Houston, 2003)

### Speaker, "FINRA: Promulgating Tougher Sanctions Guidance for Rule Violations – A 2016 Update,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2016)

Speaker, "FINRA: Promulgating Tougher Sanctions Guidance for Rule Violations – A 2016 Update,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2016)

### Speaker, “Employment Law Update: Changes and Trends in ADAAA, FMLA and Discrimination," Dallas CPA Society Annual Conference (Dallas, 2012)

Speaker, “Employment Law Update: Changes and Trends in ADAAA, FMLA and Discrimination," Dallas CPA Society Annual Conference (Dallas, 2012)

### Speaker, Injunctive Relief: Tora, Tora, Tora; Blitzkrieg; and Special Ops., University of Houston Law Foundation, Advanced Civil Litigation Seminar (Houston, 2005)

Speaker, Injunctive Relief: Tora, Tora, Tora; Blitzkrieg; and Special Ops., University of Houston Law Foundation, Advanced Civil Litigation Seminar (Houston, 2005)

### Co-Author and speaker, Electronic Communications: Employer and Attorney Issues in the Electronic Age, University of Houston Law Foundation, Advanced Employment Law Seminar (Houston, 2003)

Co-Author and speaker, Electronic Communications: Employer and Attorney Issues in the Electronic Age, University of Houston Law Foundation, Advanced Employment Law Seminar (Houston, 2003)

### Co-author and speaker, Privacy Issues in the Age of Broadband, University of Houston Law Foundation, Employment Law for Lawyers and HR Professionals Seminar (Houston, 2000)

Co-author and speaker, Privacy Issues in the Age of Broadband, University of Houston Law Foundation, Employment Law for Lawyers and HR Professionals Seminar (Houston, 2000)

### Author and speaker, Issues, Strategies and Solutions: Texas Residential Construction Liability Act, The Republic Underwriters Subrogation Seminar (Texas, 2000)

Author and speaker, Issues, Strategies and Solutions: Texas Residential Construction Liability Act, The Republic Underwriters Subrogation Seminar (Texas, 2000)

### Co-author and speaker, Electronic Communications: Issues and Solutions for the Small Business Owner, University of Houston Law Foundation, Advising Small Business Owners Seminar (Houston, 2000)

Co-author and speaker, Electronic Communications: Issues and Solutions for the Small Business Owner, University of Houston Law Foundation, Advising Small Business Owners Seminar (Houston, 2000)

### Co-author and speaker, Background Checks, Surveillance, E-Mail/Internet, Dating Policies, Etc., University of Houston Law Foundation, Employment Law for Lawyers and Human Resource Professionals Seminar (Houston, 1998)

Co-author and speaker, Background Checks, Surveillance, E-Mail/Internet, Dating Policies, Etc., University of Houston Law Foundation, Employment Law for Lawyers and Human Resource Professionals Seminar (Houston, 1998)

### Speaker, Subrogation: Pursuing and Defending Claims, University of Houston Law Foundation, Advanced Insurance Law Seminar (Houston, 1998)

Speaker, Subrogation: Pursuing and Defending Claims, University of Houston Law Foundation, Advanced Insurance Law Seminar (Houston, 1998)

### Co-author and speaker, Electronic Communications and Computer Records: Employer Liability and Discovery Issues, University of Houston Law Foundation, Employment Law Seminar (Houston, 1998)

Co-author and speaker, Electronic Communications and Computer Records: Employer Liability and Discovery Issues, University of Houston Law Foundation, Employment Law Seminar (Houston, 1998)

### Co-author and speaker, Surveillance of Employee Communications and Employer Utilization of Consumer Reports, National Association of Women in Construction Seminar (Houston, 1997)

Co-author and speaker, Surveillance of Employee Communications and Employer Utilization of Consumer Reports, National Association of Women in Construction Seminar (Houston, 1997)

### “Dress and Grooming Codes: Can Companies Require Their Employees to Dress for Success?” Personnel Law Update (Publication,1996)

“Dress and Grooming Codes: Can Companies Require Their Employees to Dress for Success?” Personnel Law Update (Publication,1996)

### “Persuasive Expert Testimony,” Journal of the Southwestern Association of Forensic Scientists (Publication, 1992)

“Persuasive Expert Testimony,” Journal of the Southwestern Association of Forensic Scientists (Publication, 1992)

### Speaker, “Challenges to the Right to Hire and Fire Employees in Texas,” Advanced Ed. Seminars (1992)

Speaker, “Challenges to the Right to Hire and Fire Employees in Texas,” Advanced Ed. Seminars (1992)

### Speaker, “Ethical Considerations in Employment Law Cases,” Advanced Ed. Seminars (1992)

Speaker, “Ethical Considerations in Employment Law Cases,” Advanced Ed. Seminars (1992)

### Texas Litigation Plans and Forms,” Co-author with Mike Gruber of Gruber, Hurst, Johansen & Hail, James Publishing, (Publication)

"Texas Litigation Plans and Forms,” Co-author with Mike Gruber of Gruber, Hurst, Johansen & Hail, James Publishing, (Publication) Learn more

### Author, "Triple-Threat Discovery Forms," Co-author with Trey Cox of Lynn, Tillotson, Pinker & Cox, James Publishing (Publication, 2005)

Author, "Triple-Threat Discovery Forms," Co-author with Trey Cox of Lynn, Tillotson, Pinker & Cox, James Publishing (Publication, 2005) Order your copy

### “Trial Objections,” James Publishing (Publication, 2019)

“Trial Objections,” James Publishing (Publication, 2019) Order your copy

### “Fifth Circuit Holds OWBPA Does Not Apply to Arbitration Agreements,” Personnel Law Update (Publication, 1996)

“Fifth Circuit Holds OWBPA Does Not Apply to Arbitration Agreements,” Personnel Law Update (Publication, 1996)

### “Arbitration: The Cost Effective Solution to the Explosion of Employment Lawsuit,” Personnel Law Update (Publication, 1996)

“Arbitration: The Cost Effective Solution to the Explosion of Employment Lawsuit,” Personnel Law Update (Publication, 1996)

### “Arbitration vs. Litigation: It’s no Contest,” Texas Lawyer (Publication, 1997)

“Arbitration vs. Litigation: It’s no Contest,” Texas Lawyer (Publication, 1997)

### “Pushing the Arbitration Envelope,” Texas Lawyer (Publication, 1999)

“Pushing the Arbitration Envelope,” Texas Lawyer (Publication, 1999)

### “Employees’ Rights Under the Texas Whistleblowers Act and Other Similar Texas Laws” MBA Program, SMU (Publication, 1992) Download secure document

“Employees’ Rights Under the Texas Whistleblowers Act and Other Similar Texas Laws” MBA Program, SMU (Publication, 1992) View document

### Speaker, “The Winning Game Plan for Sports Law Disputes:  Title IX, Campus Assaults, FERPA, and the New Standards for Athletes, Coaches and NCAA Investigations,” Houston Bar Association (Houston, 2017)

Speaker, “The Winning Game Plan for Sports Law Disputes:  Title IX, Campus Assaults, FERPA, and the New Standards for Athletes, Coaches and NCAA Investigations,” Houston Bar Association (Houston, 2017

### “Discovery,” Chapter in two-volume book, Texas Employment Law, James Publishing (Publication, 2000-2017)

“Discovery,” Chapter in two-volume book, Texas Employment Law, James Publishing (Publication, 2000-2017)

### “Employment Law Forms,” Texas Employment Law, James Publishing (Publication,1998 – 2017)

“Employment Law Forms,” Texas Employment Law, James Publishing (Publication,1998 – 2017)

### Speaker, “Szyk Propaganda and Art Against Tyranny and the Nazis,” Dallas Holocaust Museum/Center for Education and Tolerance (Dallas, 2015)

Speaker, “Szyk Propaganda and Art Against Tyranny and the Nazis,” Dallas Holocaust Museum/Center for Education and Tolerance (Dallas, 2015)

### Speaker, “Understanding and  Preparing for a Successful OTR (on the record interview),” FINRA Supervision Rules: What You Need to Know in 2015,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2014)

Speaker, “Understanding and  Preparing for a Successful OTR (on the record interview),” FINRA Supervision Rules: What You Need to Know in 2015,” Knowledge Group (Webcast, 2014)

### Speaker, “Overtime Primer for Law Firms and Attorneys,” Atticus Legal Group (Salt Lake City, 2008)

Speaker, “Overtime Primer for Law Firms and Attorneys,” Atticus Legal Group (Salt Lake City, 2008)

### Speaker, “TRO’s and Injunctions, How to Get one Under Blitzkrieg Conditions,” Univ. of Houston Law School (Houston, 2008)

Speaker, “TRO’s and Injunctions, How to Get one Under Blitzkrieg Conditions,” Univ. of Houston Law School (Houston, 2008)

### Speaker, “Employment Issues Specifically Impacting Restaurant Operations,” Univ of Houston Law School (Houston, 2006)

Speaker, “Employment Issues Specifically Impacting Restaurant Operations,” Univ of Houston Law School (Houston, 2006)

### “The Mother Of All Negotiations: Execs Must Have Their Severance Game Plans in Place,” Executive Legal Adviser (Publication, 2004)

“The Mother Of All Negotiations: Execs Must Have Their Severance Game Plans in Place,” Executive Legal Adviser (Publication, 2004)

### “Caution: Workforce Merger Ahead, What In-Housers Need to Know About Laying Off Executives,” Texas Lawyer (Publication, 2004)

“Caution: Workforce Merger Ahead, What In-Housers Need to Know About Laying Off Executives,” Texas Lawyer (Publication, 2004)

### Speaker, “Performance Evaluations, Progressive Discipline, Documenting the File and the Handling of H.R. Matters with Current Employees,” MADD – State Chair Seminar (Irving, 2001)

Speaker, “Performance Evaluations, Progressive Discipline, Documenting the File and the Handling of H.R. Matters with Current Employees,” MADD – State Chair Seminar (Irving, 2001)

### Speaker, “Executive Compensation: Change of Control Agreements, Severance Packages, and Non-Compete Issues; Are You Holding Onto a Golden Parachute or a Lead Balloon?,” Univ. of Houston Law School (Houston, 2001)

Speaker, “Executive Compensation: Change of Control Agreements, Severance Packages, and Non-Compete Issues; Are You Holding Onto a Golden Parachute or a Lead Balloon?,” Univ. of Houston Law School (Houston, 2001)

### “EPLI Policies Prevalent,” Texas Lawyer (Publication, 2000)

“EPLI Policies Prevalent,” Texas Lawyer (Publication, 2000)

### “Obtaining Background Information About Job Applicants Without Getting Sued,” Texas Lawyer (Publication, 1998)

“Obtaining Background Information About Job Applicants Without Getting Sued,” Texas Lawyer (Publication, 1998)

### “Should Employers Use Criminal Records to Evaluate Job Applicants and Employees,” Personnel Law Update (Publication,1997)

“Should Employers Use Criminal Records to Evaluate Job Applicants and Employees,” Personnel Law Update (Publication,1997)

### “Obtaining More than ‘Name, Rank and Serial Number’ From a Job Applicant’s Former Employer,” Personnel Law Update (Publication, 1997)

“Obtaining More than ‘Name, Rank and Serial Number’ From a Job Applicant’s Former Employer,” Personnel Law Update (Publication, 1997)

### “U.S. Supreme Court Restrictions on Providing References,” Personnel Law Update (Publication, 1997)

“U.S. Supreme Court Restrictions on Providing References,” Personnel Law Update (Publication, 1997)

### “Employers Won’t Be Smiling When Their Candid Camera Leads to an Employee Lawsuit,” Personnel Law Update (Publication, 1997)

“Employers Won’t Be Smiling When Their Candid Camera Leads to an Employee Lawsuit,” Personnel Law Update (Publication, 1997)

### Co-Author, Mold and Sick Building Litigation, University of Houston Law Foundation, Advanced Personal Injury Seminar (Houston, 2001)

Co-Author, Mold and Sick Building Litigation, University of Houston Law Foundation, Advanced Personal Injury Seminar (Houston, 2001)

### Co-Author, Mold and Sick Building Litigation Part I: Legal Theories and Strategies for Plaintiffs and Defendants, University of Houston Law Foundation, Advanced Business Litigation Seminar (Houston, 2001)

Co-Author, Mold and Sick Building Litigation Part I: Legal Theories and Strategies for Plaintiffs and Defendants, University of Houston Law Foundation, Advanced Business Litigation Seminar (Houston, 2001)

### Co-author, Electronic Communications: Internet, E-Mail, Etc.: Understanding Employers’ Liability Exposure and Limiting It, University of Houston Law Foundation, Employment Law for Lawyers and Human Resource Professionals Seminar (Houston, 1999)

Co-author, Electronic Communications: Internet, E-Mail, Etc.: Understanding Employers’ Liability Exposure and Limiting It, University of Houston Law Foundation, Employment Law for Lawyers and Human Resource Professionals Seminar (Houston, 1999)

### Co-author, Workplace Privacy in the Electronic Age, University of Houston Law Foundation, Employment Law for Lawyers and Human Resource Professionals Seminar (Houston, 1997)

Co-author, Workplace Privacy in the Electronic Age, University of Houston Law Foundation, Employment Law for Lawyers and Human Resource Professionals Seminar (Houston, 1997)


## Radio Appearances

### Rogge Dunn interview on KLIF re: Michael Irvin Sexual Harassment claim

Rogge Dunn interview on KLIF re: Michael Irvin Sexual Harassment claim. (Listen here)

### Rogge Dunn Interviewed on WBAP Morning News About What's Next for Employers Regarding COVID-19 Vaccines

Rogge Dunn interviewed on WPAB Morning News about what's next for employers and employees regarding COVID-19 vaccinations and vaccine mandates. (Listen here)

### Rogge Dunn Interviewed on KLRD About Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against American Airlines

Rogge Dunn interviewed on KLRD about the sexual harassment lawsuit filed against American Airlines (Listen here)

### This is why people hire Rogge Dunn. Commentary on KTCK regarding Rogge Dunn’s representation of former employees of Baylor University

This is why people hire Rogge Dunn.  Commentary on KTCK regarding Rogge Dunn’s representation of former employees of Baylor University (Listen here)

### Rogge Dunn interviewed on KRLD on Dez Bryant countersuit against Royce West

Rogge Dunn interviewed on KRLD on Dez Bryant countersuit against Royce West (Listen here)

### Rogge Dunn interviewed on Phil Hulett and Friends Show. Playing Pokemon Go could land you in court, or worse, jail. Attorney Rogge Dunn explains all the ways you could break the law chasing monsters

Rogge Dunn interviewed on Phil Hulett and Friends Show. Playing Pokemon Go could land you in court, or worse, jail. Attorney Rogge Dunn explains all the ways you could break the law chasing monsters (Listen here)

### Rogge Dunn’s interview regarding Shareholder Oppression and Partnership Litigation

Rogge Dunn’s interview regarding Shareholder Oppression and Partnership Litigation (Listen here)