Why is Texas No. 1 in discrimination charges filed with the EEOC?
To paraphrase the title of Megadeth's debut album, “Killing Is My Business . . . And Business Is Good”: Discrimination is my business, and business is good.
"Punitive Damages Gone Wild" -- Safeshred Inc. v. Martinez
On April 20, the Texas Supreme Court held 9-0 in Safeshred Inc. v. Martinez that a plaintiff in a Sabine Pilot case (where an employee is terminated for refusing to perform an act that would land him in jail) can recover punitive damages; however the plaintiff in Safeshred did not establish sufficient evidence to recover punitive damages. In doing so, the court reversed the Austin court of appeals' decision to let the plaintiff keep the punitive damages award.
Texas Supreme Court Confirms Punitive Damages in Sabine Pilot Cases
Revisiting the only public policy exception to the employment at will rule in Texas, the Supreme Court today holds that a plaintiff who prevails can recover punitive damages in a Sabine Pilot case if he or she can establish the appropriate level of malice. Safeshred v. Martinez (Tx 4.20.12).
Texas Supreme Court Enforces Jury Waiver Agreement
The Texas Supreme Court recently held that a jury waiver agreement between an employer and an at-will employee is enforceable.
Jury Waivers Treated Same As Arbitration Agreements by Texas Supreme Court
I would have been surprised if the decision went the other way, but today the Texas Supreme Court affirmed that an at will employee who signed a jury waiver agreement rather than be terminated was not entitled to have it set aside because he was coerced. In re Frank Kent Motor Company (Tx. 3.9.12).
Texas Legislative Round-Up
The 82nd session of the Texas legislature resulted in several new laws affecting employers. We summarize the more noteworthy legislation in this article. All laws are effective September 1, 2011, unless otherwise noted.
Don't Mess With Noncompetes In Texas
Taking another step toward easier enforceability of noncompete agreements and away from its own decisions interpreting the Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act, the Texas Supreme Court ruled in Marsh USA Inc. v. Cook that a noncompete covenant contained in a stock option purchase plan was enforceable.
Texas Supreme Court Upholds Non-Compete Agreement Made by Existing Employee
The Texas Supreme Court has determined that, under the Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act, a covenant not to compete signed by a current employee in consideration for stock options is not unenforceable as a matter of law. The Court found the consideration is reasonably related to the company’s interest in protecting its goodwill, a business interest the Act recognizes as worthy of protection.
New Texas Non-Compete Decision Marks Further Shift Towards Enforceable Non-Compete Agreements
In its latest foray into non-compete jurisprudence, the Texas Supreme Court this week made it easier for employers seeking to restrict key employees from competing post-employment. In Marsh USA Inc. v. Cook, the Court held that a non-compete covenant contained in a stock option purchase plan was enforceable.
Texas Supreme Court Expands Enforceability of Covenants not to Compete
Executive Summary: The Texas Supreme Court delivered its eagerly anticipated opinion in Marsh USA, Inc. v. Cook on June 24, 2011. The issue in Marsh: whether the employee's exercise of stock options could constitute an interest sufficient to support his agreement not to compete. The Court held that it did, sparking new debate among practitioners about the extent to which employers may essentially buy employees' agreement to covenant not to compete.
