Texas Employment Beat

Subscribe to Texas Employment Beat via RSS

The recent decline in COVID-19 infections has led numerous states to begin contemplating a roll‑back of mask mandates and related COVID-19 restrictions. Most recently, on Tuesday, March 2, 2021, Governor Greg Abbott and Governor Tate Reeves announced the imminent elimination of mask mandates in Texas and Mississippi, respectively. Both Governors also removed all capacity limits for the businesses within their states. However, these changes pose a serious challenge to employers. On the one hand, they shift employee and customer expectations about the types of restrictions that are appropriate. On the other hand, they do nothing to reduce employer risks associated with potential outbreaks in the workplace. As a result, employers will now need to engage in a careful campaign to maintain workplace safety in the face of increased employee and customer resistance to masking and other similar precautions.
Continue Reading Employers face challenges as states lift COVID-19 safety measures

The enforceability of employment non-competes in Texas is governed by the Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act.  If a non-compete covenant is found to be overbroad, “the court shall reform the covenant to the extent necessary to cause” the covenant to be reasonable.  Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.51(c).  The Texas Supreme Court has yet to address whether reformation of an overbroad non-compete restriction is appropriate at the temporary injunction stage or whether reformation is only a final remedy after a trial on the merits.  In a recent published opinion, the Fifth Circuit squarely examined this issue.  Calhoun v. Jack Doheny Companies, Inc., No. 20-20068, — F.3d —, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 25001 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 2020).
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit says Texas trial court should have considered reforming an overbroad non-compete at the preliminary injunction stage

With the spike in reported COVID-19 cases in Texas, counties have started to re-impose previous safety measures. As a result, many of the requirements of the “Stay Home, Stay Safe” orders from earlier this year have come back into effect for a second time – highlighting the continuing challenge of COVID-19 workplace compliance.

On the morning of June 19, 2020, Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins issued a Supplemental Order on Continuing Requirements, which went into effect that night at 11:59 p.m. The order requires all commercial businesses that provide goods or services directly to the public to require all of their employees and visitors to wear a face covering. The face covering requirement is part of a health and safety policy that each business operating in the county must now develop and implement. The order also states that each business’s health and safety policy may also include other mitigating measures such as temperature checks and health screenings. Businesses operating in Dallas must post their health and safety policies in a location sufficient to provide notice to employees and visitors of its requirements. Businesses that fail to comply with the order face a fine of up to $500 per violation.Continue Reading Face covering requirements reappear overnight for many businesses operating in Texas

On June 19, 2020, Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo issued an order (the Order) requiring businesses in Harris County, Texas, that provide goods and services directly to the public to develop, post, and implement a health and safety policy that requires employees and visitors age 10 and older to wear face coverings when in…

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