Photo of Leslie Basque

Throughout the employment cycle, Leslie partners with employers to develop practical solutions to both common and complex issues. Leslie is prepared to answer all of employers’ legal questions. She offers guidance on human resources issues such as employment agreements and restrictive covenants, personnel policies, discipline/discharge decisions, severance agreements, and leave and accommodation concerns.

Governor Abbott’s Executive Order

On October 11, 2021, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued Executive Order GA-40 (the Texas Order) banning COVID-19 vaccine mandates by any entity, including private employers, in Texas. Because the Texas Order was issued while Texas remains in a state of emergency related to the pandemic, the Texas Disaster Act grants it the force and effect of law. The Texas Order states that “no entity in Texas” can compel vaccination for anyone in the state who objects “for any reason of personal conscience, based on a religious belief, or for medical reasons, including prior recovery from COVID-19.” “Personal conscience” is undefined, and this ambiguity in the Texas Order makes it unclear whether an individual can object to the COVID-19 vaccine due to reasons other than religion or those medically related.
Continue Reading Texas Governor Mandates “No Mandates” for COVID-19 Vaccination

Millions of women (and men) across Texas could be impacted by a new law that took effect on September 1 – but not the one you likely have in mind. In an unexpected move from a typically very pro-business state, the Texas Legislature passed and Governor Abbott signed two bills (Senate Bill 45 and House Bill 21) that significantly expand sexual harassment protections for employees in Texas, making the state’s laws more robust than federal employment laws in some respects.

The changes to the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act apply prospectively to actions occurring on or after September 1, 2021, and expand liability to employers of any size in Texas as well as individuals and increase the time limit for filing a sexual harassment charge. The key changes affecting Texas employers (including those with no physical presence, but employing remote workers in the state) are discussed below.Continue Reading #Y’allToo: Texas Expands Protections for Employee Sexual Harassment

As of April 27, 2021, 29.1% of the U.S. population has been fully vaccinated for COVID-19. With COVID-19 vaccine eligibility expanding to the general public, and states and cities relaxing COVID-19 restrictions, employers face the new challenge of navigating a partially vaccinated workforce. We previously addressed questions related to return-to-work and vaccination issues for employers here. Below are some additional, and recent, questions we’ve received from clients related to this topic.
Continue Reading Funny You Should Ask: Employer Considerations for a Partially Vaccinated Workforce

Courts recognize the complication that exists when determining what constitutes actionable harassment where a healthcare employee is a caretaker for a patient with diminished capacity. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reviewed this issue in a Title VII case that highlights the risks posed to employers in the healthcare and social assistance industries by patient harassment and violence: Gardner v. CLC of Pascagoula, LLC, No. 17-60072 (February 6, 2019). In Gardner, the Fifth Circuit explained the risks to healthcare employers when it reversed summary judgment on a nurse assistant’s claim for hostile work environment and retaliation, holding that a genuine dispute of material fact existed as to whether an assisted living facility took reasonable precautions to prevent sexual harassment and physical violence by a resident.

Background

Gardner was a Certified Nursing Assistant employed at the Plaza Community Living Center, an assisted living facility, and “often worked with patients who were either physically combative or sexually aggressive.” Gardner had been assigned to work with a patient who had been diagnosed with multiple “physical and mental illnesses,” and had a reputation for groping female employees, as well as a history of violent and sexual behavior toward both patients and staff at the facility. Gardner alleged that she put up with propositioning and sexual assault by the patient on a regular basis, but that when she complained to the administrator at the facility, she was told to “put [her] big girl panties on and go back to work.”
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Rules Harassment By Patients In The Healthcare Industry Deserves Special Consideration, But Employer May Still Be Liable

The Austin City Council is scheduled to vote Thursday, February 15 on a proposed city ordinance which would require all private businesses in the city to offer employees at least 8 paid sick days (or 64 sick leave hours) annually.

Under the proposed ordinance, employees would accrue 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked, with the ability to start using the sick leave as soon as it is earned.  If passed, eligible workers would be able to use sick time if they are hurt or ill, need to care for a family member who is injured or sick, require medical attention or have a doctor’s appointment for preventative care, among other things.  If an employee does not utilize all earned sick leave during the applicable year, any accrued, unused leave may be “rolled over” to the next year.
Continue Reading Austin City Council to Consider Mandatory Paid Sick Leave

As is par for the course with the start of a new presidential administration, many changes to employment laws are anticipated, with several already underway. The most recent of which is the test used to determine whether interns must be classified as employees for purposes of the Federal Labor Standards Act. The question of when a person stops being an intern and starts being an actual employee has long been a gray area. On January 5, 2018, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced in a press release it was rescinding its previous six-part test used to determine whether interns at for-profit companies are employees and thus subject to federal minimum wage and overtime laws. Instead, the DOL will now use the so-called “primary beneficiary” test favored by several appeals courts.
Continue Reading Department of Labor Announces Stricter “Primary Beneficiary” Test for Interns

Earlier we wrote that two Fifth Circuit cases seemed to reach inconsistent determinations about the availability of punitive and pain and suffering damages under the FLSA and ADEA. The Fifth Circuit previously expressed its intent to interpret the remedies provision under the FLSA and ADEA consistently with each other. Please see our discussion at via our January 13 blog post.

One of those opinions has been withdrawn and a new opinion substituted, but the inconsistency remains, The Vaughan v. Anderson Regional Medical Center decision was first issued on December 16, 2016 (we discussed the first issued version in our prior post). But because the opinion contained some manifest inconsistencies with the Pineda v. JTCH Apartments, LLC opinion issued just three days later, the plaintiff in Vaughan requested a rehearing en banc. Although the court denied the petition for a rehearing en banc, the court withdrew the prior opinion and substituted a new opinion. The new Vaughan opinion reaches the same ultimate conclusion and holding as the prior opinion, but it contains a few revisions that make clear its holding on ADEA remedies does not extend to FLSA remedies. But still, the two panels did not interpret remedies available under the ADEA and the FLSA consistently.Continue Reading In the 5th Circuit, Pain and Suffering and Punitive Damages Recoverable under FLSA, not ADEA

The Fifth Circuit has long held that pain and suffering damages and punitive damages are not recoverable under the ADEA. The Fifth Circuit has also expressed its intent to interpret remedies under the ADEA and FLSA consistently with each other since the ADEA incorporates the FLSA’s remedies provision. Thus, you would think that pain and suffering and punitive damages would not be recoverable in a FLSA retaliation case.

Not so fast. In a decision issued on December 16, 2016, a three-judge panel reaffirmed that pain and suffering and punitive damages are not recoverable for ADEA discrimination or retaliation claims. Only three days later, however, another Fifth Circuit panel issued a decision finding that emotional distress damages are recoverable in FLSA retaliation cases. In so holding, the two panels cited the same 1977 seminal case, Dean v. American Security Insurance Co., but reached different conclusions under similarly worded provisions of the two statutes. Obviously, the two panels did not interpret remedies available under the ADEA and the FLSA consistently.
Continue Reading Are pain and suffering and punitive damages recoverable under the ADEA and FLSA? The 5th Circuit issues inconsistent decisions

Recently, Husch Blackwell partners Stephen Cockerham and Kevin Koronka presented a webinar to Texas employers concerning the impact legislation concerning gun rights may have on employers. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate court with jurisdiction over Texas federal district courts, recently released a decision concerning employee gun rights of which employers, particularly those with Mississippi employees, should take note.
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit decision finds new exception to at-will employment: employee gun rights