Texas Employment Beat

Subscribe to Texas Employment Beat

In the first phase of an effort to restart parts of Texas’ economy, on April 27, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued an executive order allowing certain businesses – retail establishments, restaurants, movie theaters, shopping malls, museums, libraries, golf courses, and services provided by an individual working alone in an office – to reopen on May 1, 2020, with most subject to certain restrictions regarding occupancy.  Governor Abbott’s order, Executive Order GA-18, supersedes his prior executive stay-at-home order (Executive Order GA-16) and any conflicting local order, including, as discussed below, such orders that impose a civil or criminal penalty for failure to wear a face covering.

Executive Order GA-18 continues to allow business providing “essential services” to operate.  “Essential services” continues to include everything listed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in its Guidance on the Essential Critical Infrastructure, Version 3.0 or any subsequent version, plus religious services conducted in churches, congregations, and houses of worship.
Continue Reading Texas partially reopens businesses effective May 1st

Texas employers who have opted out of workers’ compensation coverage may face significantly increased workplace risks in the weeks and months ahead. All employers will face unique challenges due to the risk of workplace exposure to COVID-19. But, the potential liability from COVID-19 workplace illnesses is particularly problematic for Texas employers who have opted out of the workers’ compensation system. Specifically, Texas employers who have opted out of the workers’ compensation system will not have the benefit of workers’ compensation’s preclusive effects. They face the substantial risk that simple negligence will be enough to support employee claims arising from COVID-19 exposure. As a result, it is imperative for opt-out Texas employers to carefully review and update their workplace health and safety practices to maximize mitigation of any risk of workplace transmission of the coronavirus.
Continue Reading Texas employers who do not participate in workers’ compensation face heightened workplace liability risks as employees return from COVID-19 quarantine

Recently, additional action has been taken at both the state and county levels in Texas to prevent the spread of COVID-19. At the state level, Governor Greg Abbott has issued three executive orders mandating both roadway and air travelers originating at certain locations to self-quarantine for a period of 14 days upon their arrival in Texas. Governor Abbott has also issued an executive order instructing all individuals in Texas, except where necessary to provide or obtain essential services, to minimize social gatherings and minimize in-person contact with people who are not in the same household. At the county level, the shelter in place orders issued last week by Dallas, Harris, and Travis counties have all been amended or clarified.
Continue Reading Texas update: Governor Abbott issues statewide executive orders while counties amend stay-at-home orders

As of March 28, 2020, there are over 103,000 reported cases of COVID-19 in the United States. In Dallas County, there are 439 confirmed cases—an increase of 72 cases from the prior day—and the number of cases is expected to rise. Given the current environment, employers should be cognizant of Dallas’ Earned Paid Sick Time Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), which takes effect on April 1, 2020. While there has been significant question as whether the Ordinance violates the Texas Constitution, the City of Dallas recently has suggested it intends to enforce the statute after the effective date of April 1, 2020.

The Ordinance originally took effect on August 1, 2019 (for employers with 6 or more employees) and mirrors the paid sick leave ordinances passed by Austin on February 15, 2018 and San Antonio on October 3, 2019. The Austin ordinance is currently enjoined and is before the Texas Supreme Court. See City of Austin, Texas, et al. v. Tex. Ass’n of Bus., et al., No. 19-0025 (Tex. filed Jan. 10, 2019). The San Antonio ordinance is also enjoined, and the Dallas ordinance, while not enjoined, is the subject of a lawsuit pending in the Eastern District of Texas. See ESI/Emp. Sols., LP, et al. v. City of Dallas, No. 4:19-CV-00570-ALM (E.D. Tex. filed July 30, 2019).
Continue Reading Employers should be ready to comply with Dallas’ paid sick leave ordinance during the COVID-19 pandemic

Texas is taking a localized approach in trying to slow the spread of COVID-19. Since Monday, March 23, 2020, county and city governments from some of Texas’s largest metropolitan areas have issued “stay home-work safe” orders. This includes Dallas County, Harris County (where Houston is located), and Travis County (where Austin is located).

Each of the three orders affecting Dallas, Houston, and Austin allow “Essential Businesses” to remain open. While each order has a slightly different definition of “Essential Businesses,” all three orders include in their definitions of essential businesses the 16 critical infrastructure sectors identified by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). “Non-essential businesses” are allowed to continue operations on a limited basis in varying degrees under each of the three orders. More detail on each of the orders is below.

For specific information on your city or business, employers should review the relevant order and its impact with the assistance of counsel to determine whether their operations are “Essential Businesses.” Determining whether your operations are essential businesses is highly fact specific, and companies should exercise caution when making that determination. Those businesses deemed “non-essential” should also consult their attorneys to assess next steps allowed under the applicable order.…

Continue Reading Texas metro areas issue shelter-in-place orders to slow the spread of COVID-19

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion last week holding for the first time that a “day rate” in excess of $455 paid to a highly compensated employee meets the requirements of the “salary basis” test under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Specifically, in Faludi v. U.S. Shale Solutions, No. 17-20808, 2019 WL 3940878 (5th Cir. Aug. 21, 2019), the plaintiff, a consultant, brought suit alleging that his former client and employer[1] owed him overtime under the FLSA because the plaintiff had not been paid on a salary basis. Instead, the plaintiff received $1,000 per day for any day on which he performed any amount of work in Houston and $1,350 per day for any day in which he performed any amount of work outside of Houston. However, under the plaintiff’s arrangement with the defendant-employer, if he worked more than 40 hours in a week, he did not receive any overtime premiums. In the district court, the defendant-employer argued, and the district court found, that the plaintiff’s claims failed as a matter of law because he fell within the FLSA’s “highly compensated employee” exemption.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that he did not qualify for the “highly compensated employee” exemption because the day rate payment system used by his employer did not satisfy the “salary basis” test. In support of his claim, the plaintiff argued: (1) the day rate system did not calculate pay “on a weekly, or less frequent basis” in violation of 29 C.F.R. § 541.602(a); (2) the plaintiff voluntarily reduced some of his day rate payments on invoices he submitted to the defendant-employer for days that he performed less than a full day’s work; and (3) the day rate system did not satisfy the “reasonable relationship” test articulated in 29 C.F.R. § 541.604(b).
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit approves day rates for some highly compensated employees

Employers in three major cities in the Lone Star State should begin preparing for compliance with paid sick leave ordinances. Joining a number of other states and cities to have enacted paid sick leave laws, the cities of San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas passed ordinances requiring private employers to provide employees with paid sick leave. While the Austin ordinance has been blocked due to litigation regarding its constitutionality, which is now before the Texas Supreme Court, the San Antonio and Dallas ordinances are set to go into effect on August 1, 2019 (except as to employers with five or fewer employees in the preceding year, for which paid sick leave obligations will not go into effect until August 1, 2021).

The paid sick leave ordinances – which largely mirror each other – require all private employers to provide employees who perform at least 80 hours of work per year in the applicable city with one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. Employees working for employers with 15 or more employees may accrue a maximum of 64 hours of paid sick leave annually. Employees who work for employers with fewer than 15 employees at all times during the preceding 12 months may accrue a maximum of 48 hours. Employees may carry over accrued, unused paid sick leave up to the maximum except where the employer makes sick leave equal to the maximum amount available to employees at the beginning of the year.…

Continue Reading Paid sick leave to take effect soon for employers in three cities in the Lone Star State

The Texas Citizens Participation Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 27.001 et seq. (the TCPA), Texas’ anti-SLAPP statute, is likely to receive a much needed overhaul after the Texas Senate unanimously passed H.B. 2730 on May 17, 2019. If the Texas governor signs it into law, as expected based on the bill’s broad bipartisan support in the Texas House and Senate, the revisions will take effect on September 1, 2019, and will clarify – and significantly narrow – the types of claims to which the TCPA applies. Also, importantly for companies seeking to protect their trade secrets and enforce their restrictive covenants, the changes to the TCPA would exempt such claims from its purview.

The TCPA was originally enacted in 2011 to protect citizens who exercise their First Amendment rights from retaliatory legal actions that seek to intimidate or silence them. Specifically, the TCPA allows a party to file a motion to dismiss within 60 days of service of a lawsuit if it can establish that the legal action is based on, relates to, or is in response to the party’s exercise of the right of free speech, the right to petition, or the right of association. If the party-defendant meets this burden, the plaintiff must then establish “by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in question.” If the defendant is ultimately successful on its motion to dismiss, the defendant is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees.

Importantly, while a TCPA motion to dismiss is pending – and during any subsequent appeal of the trial court’s ruling on the motion – discovery and all other proceedings at the trial court are stayed. This stay can result in significant delay, which can be particularly harmful in cases in which an employer seeks emergency injunctive relief to prevent the irreparable harm associated with the use and disclosure of misappropriated trade secrets or the violation of restrictive covenants by former employees.…

Continue Reading Texas Legislature takes aim at Anti-SLAPP challenges