Jackson Lewis P.C. • February 05, 2020
Texas courts are increasingly encountering efforts to challenge restrictive covenant agreements on free speech grounds, where the restricted activity includes business-related communications. A recent Texas appellate court decision indicates that this strategy has its limits.
Ogletree Deakins • December 01, 2019
The City of San Antonio’s Sick and Safe Leave ordinance has been enjoined. The ordinance was originally scheduled to go into effect on August 1, 2019, but on July 24, 2019, a Texas state court delayed implementation until December 1, 2019, pending a ruling on a motion for temporary injunction filed by business groups and the state.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • November 25, 2019
The state of city-driven efforts to pass paid sick and safe leave laws in Texas remains in flux. Those monitoring the issue will know the cities of Austin, Dallas, and San Antonio have passed paid sick and safe leave laws, with business coalitions in each city mounting legal challenges. As a result of the uncertainty caused by these legal challenges, the fate of these laws in Texas generally and in the respective cities remains an issue to watch.
Fisher Phillips • November 24, 2019
Mere days before San Antonio’s Sick and Safe Leave ordinance was set to go into effect, the law was once again put on hold. In a ruling today, Bexar County Judge Peter Sakai temporarily delayed the start of the paid leave ordinance, which was set to take effect on December 1.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • November 24, 2019
A Texas state court judge's letter ruling temporarily enjoins San Antonio's paid sick and safe leave ordinance from taking effect on December 1, 2019. While the November 22, 2019 ruling says a trial on the merits will occur "as soon as possible," it does not set a trial date.
FordHarrison LLP • November 24, 2019
A Bexar County judge just allowed San Antonio employers to enjoy their Thanksgiving holiday a little bit more. Bexar County District Court Judge Peter Sakai advised all counsel on Friday that he is granting the requested temporary injunction in a lawsuit challenging the now-named San Antonio Safe and Sick Time ordinance. He has asked the parties to come to an agreement on the language of the order and agree to a trial date. This ruling means that employers are not yet required to comply with the ordinance, which was scheduled to go into effect December 1, 2019.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • November 03, 2019
Recently the San Antonio City Council approved major changes to the city’s paid sick and safe leave ordinance. San Antonio’s ordinance was scheduled to take effect August 1, 2019.
FordHarrison LLP • October 20, 2019
Executive Summary: As we have mentioned in our previous Legal Alert, the effective date of San Antonio’s paid sick leave ordinance was delayed until December 1, 2019, by agreement after a lawsuit was filed against the city. At the time, the city indicated that one of the reasons for this agreed delay was so that the city could revise the ordinance. Earlier this month, San Antonio’s City Council passed the now-called Sick and Safe Leave Benefits ordinance which, barring any legal action or a decision from the Texas Supreme Court, will go into effect December 1, 2019. Some key changes include:
Ogletree Deakins • October 17, 2019
In response to a lawsuit filed by a number of San Antonio business groups, the San Antonio City Council approved certain revisions to the city’s paid sick leave (PSL) ordinance, including renaming it the Sick and Safe Leave (SSL) ordinance. The SSL ordinance is scheduled to become effective on December 1, 2019.
Ogletree Deakins • September 10, 2019
A recent decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Klocke v. Watson, No. 17-11320 (August 23, 2019), appears to have answered a perennial jurisdictional question that had split federal district courts in Texas for several years: Are motions to dismiss pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) allowed in federal court? According to the opinion handed down by a three-member panel of the Fifth Circuit, the answer, apparently, is no.