Notable
Published
Haas v. Advo Systems, Inc., 168 F.2d.
393 (5th Cir. 1999). Reversal of a summary judgment issued
in favor of the employer. The Court held that if a "stray
remark" concerning an applicant's age was relied upon
by the ultimate decision-maker it is relevant to the question
as to whether the company committed age discrimination.
Olander v. Compass Bank, 172 F.Supp.2d 846 (S.D. Texas,
2001). Invalidation of a non-competition agreement) at the
trial court level.
Beaubeauf v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 147 F.Supp.2d.
604 (S.D. Texas, 2001). Overruling of a motion for summary
judgment filed against an employee in a pregnancy discrimination
case.
Waldmiller v. Continental Express, Inc., 74 S.W.3d.
116 (Tex. Civ. App. - Texarkana, 2002).
Reversal of a summary judgment issued in favor of the employer
in an age discrimination case.
Bloch v. Dowell Schlumberger, Inc., 925 S.W.2d 301
(Tex.App.-- Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ).
The Houston Court of Appeals held that there is no jurisdictional
prerequisite which requires a claimant to first bring a claim
for unemployment benefits before the Texas Workforce Commission
prior to filing a suit alleging the failure of an employer
to pay wages.
Carney v. Sabine Contracting Corp., 914 S.W.2d 651 (Tex.App.--
Amarillo, 1996, no writ).
The Amarillo Court of Appeals held in this workers compensation
retaliation case that the question as to whether an individual
is actually an employee of a company presents an issue of
fact, which precludes summary judgment.
City of Houston v. Vitek, 849 S.W.2d 882 (Tex.App.--Houston
[14th. Dist.] 1993, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
The Houston Court of Appeals held that a municipal employee
has a property interest in wages earned when he works in a
position in an "out of classification" status.
Fuller v. Temple-Inland Forest Products Corp., 942
F.Supp. 307 (E.D. Tex. 1996).
The federal district court in Beaumont remanded this workers
compensation retaliation case to state court holding that
the resolution of the discharge claim did not call for an
interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, which
governed the plaintiff's employment.
|
|