The Dallas Hospitality Employment Lawyer Blog

 At a time when gun violence is increasing across the country, and based on publicly available data, Texas currently ranks second in the nation (behind Illinois) in mass shootings for 2021, the Texas Legislature enacted the Firearm Carry Act of 2021.  Here's what Texas employers need to know: 1.     The effective date of the new law is September 1, 2021. 2.     The law applies to persons 21 years of age or older and not otherwise prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a firearm, and to those 18 years or older in the military. 3.    Persons who meet the criteria in #2 above will be able to carry a firearm without a government issued license or permit, which means they will not be required to take gun safety and handling courses as a prerequisite to carrying. 4.     The law does not prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee who lawfully carries without a permit from possessing the firearm on the employer's premises. 5.       An employer must follow the postin

Can private employers enforce mandatory COVID-19 vaccines as a condition of employment? In December 2020, the EEOC said "yes," subject to reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities or sincerely held religious beliefs.   Yesterday, Southern District of Texas Judge Lynn Hughes agreed, dismissing plaintiffs' lawsuit against Houston Methodist Hospital based on the hospital's policy requiring mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for its employees by June 7, 2021.   What is interesting about the Court's opinion is the approach to the issue.   First, the Court refused to consider vaccine safety and efficacy in adjudicating the issue, stating they were "irrelevant." Second, and reaffirming Texas's strong public policy related to employment at-will, the Court found that the plaintiffs did not meet the Sabine Pilot exception to at-will employment, which protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an illegal act carrying criminal

Three recent developments demonstrate that both the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and courts around the country are continuing to scrutinize employer agreements that in any way restrict employee mobility. First, in January 2021, the Antitrust Division of the DOJ filed its first criminal indictment against two outpatient medical care facilities alleging that as competitors, the two companies engaged in a conspiracy to suppress competition between them by agreeing not to solicit each other’s senior-level employees.  See U.S. v. Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC and SCAI Holdings, LLC , No. 3-21-cr-0011-L, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.   Currently pending before the Court is the employer-defendants’ motion to dismiss. Second, in April 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that a no-poaching agreement between trucking companies was unenforceable and against public policy because it created a “probability of harm to the public

Last Friday, the Texas Supreme Court, in Aerotek, Inc. v. Boyd et al ., No. 20-0290 (Tex. May 28, 2021), reversed the Dallas Court of Appeals and found that an employer conclusively established that four employees signed and therefore consented to arbitration agreements using the employer’s computerized hiring application that required the employees’ digital signatures. Like many employers, Aerotek uses a computerized hiring application for onboarding.   The system automatically sends a welcome email to the successful candidate with a hyperlink to navigate to the hiring application’s online account registration page.   Once there, the candidate creates a unique user ID and password and selects security questions.   To later log in to the hiring application, the candidate must enter this user ID, password, and security-question combination correctly.   Aerotek’s witness testified that the steps could not be skipped to reach the end of the process, and that Aerotek could not alter form