The Dallas Hospitality Employment Lawyer Blog

On November 18, 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its new, 49-page Enforcement Guidance related to national origin discrimination.   Not surprisingly, its views are broad, and employers should familiarize themselves with its positions, highlighted below, on this topic: Definition :   national origin discrimination means discrimination because an individual (or his or her ancestors) is from a certain place or has the physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics of a particular national origin group, and includes “perceived as” claims.   An employee’s place of origin, national origin group or ethnicity, as well as his association with someone of a particular national origin, or his citizenship status, may form the basis of a national origin discrimination claim.   While most employers think of national origin in terms of origin outside the U.S., “American” is a national origin subject to protection. Scope of Coverage :   coverage extends to all e

Approximately one hour ago, a federal judge in Texas granted a nationwide, preliminary injunction preventing the majority of the new FLSA regulations from taking effect on December 1, 2016.  The Court found that the state plaintiffs established a prima facie case that the United States Department of Labor's salary level and the automatic updating mechanism are without statutory authority, and that the public interest is best served by the injunction preserving the status quo.

In Dillard v. City of Austin, Texas , No. 15-50779 (5th Cir. Sept. 26, 2016), the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the City of Austin on a former employee's claims that the City violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended (ADA), by terminating him for a disability and failing to reasonably accommodate him.  The Court's decision provides employers with useful reminders about the mechanics of the accommodation process.   Following a car wreck, the plaintiff was unable to perform his tasks as a manual laborer and field supervisor for the City's Public Works department.  Even though the plaintiff exhausted all available leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act and the allotted time under the City's Return to Work Program, the City allowed him to remain on leave.  Once he was released to limited duty, the City searched for other positions within the Public Works department to accommodate the restrictions, and offered him a temporary position