Bexar County Judge Rosie Speedlin Gonzalez has been indicted by the Bexar County District Attorney for placing a defense lawyer in handcuffs and ordering her restricted to the jury box. The incident occurred over a year ago. Elizabeth Russell appeared in court and asked for time to confer with her client in preparation for a motion to revoke probation hearing. Somehow, that request led to the Judge ordering a defense attorney to be handcuffed and forced to stay in the jury box.

The Judge has been charged with Unlawful Restraint by a Peace Officer, which is a second degree felony. That offense punishable by 2 to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $10.000. See San Antonio Express News report here for more information. See also a ABA Bar Journal report here. The Bexar County District Attorney’s office has recused itself from prosecution of the case. A special prosecutor has been appointed.

Suspended

A week after Judge Gonzalez was indicted, the state Judicial Commission on Judicial Conduct placed the judge on suspension. Her suspension will last until the criminal charges are resolved. Judge Gonzalez has been in trouble with the state Judicial Commission before. She was investigated in 2023 for allegedly congratulating attorneys on Facebook who had won in court and for displaying a pride flag in her courtroom. She was cleared of those accusations. See San Antonio Express News report here.

So, what happened that the Judge felt the need to place a defense lawyer in handcuffs? According to a more recent Express-News report, Ms. Russell appeared in court with her client on a motion to revoke probation. The client had agreed earlier to deferred adjudication. That meant if he completed his probation successfully, the charges would be dismissed. But, he did something that amounted to a possible violation of that probation. So, he was now in court to discuss that new charge and how he would plea to the new charge.

Motion to Revoke

If he pleads guilty or something like guilty, his earlier probation – the deferred adjudication – would be revoked. He would then have to deal with two charges, not just the new one.

According to the Express-News, the client at first pleaded “no contest.” Russell – apparently realizing the client had messed up and invoked the wrong plea – then spoke up and said her client wished to withdraw that plea and change it. Judge Gonzalez then accused Ms. Russell of coaching her client. The lawyer objected to that accusation. The Judge replied, essentially, “too bad, it’s already on the record.” The Judge then accused Ms. Russell of being argumentative. There was more back and forth.The lawyer then asked to recuse herself. At this point, both the lawyer and the Judge likely knew that recusal would postpone everything. Judge Gonzalez then ordered the bailiff to place Ms. Russell in custody. Still, Ms. Russell objected, noting that she cannot be held in contempt without a hearing. The Judge said no, she did not. She insisted she rums everything in her courtroom.

Later, Judge Gonzalez asked Ms. Russell if she could conduct herself professionally. The lawyer answered, yes. The Judge then ordered the handcuffs removed. See another San Antonio Express-News report here for more information.

It is, of course, exceedingly rare for a Judge to handcuff a defense attorney in the courtroom. The lawyer was correct that she cannot be held in contempt without a hearing. I am not a criminal law expert, but cannot imagine by what authority the Judge could handcuff a lawyer in court and hold her there – there than contempt. My fuzzy memory about criminal court is that defendant can indeed withdraw his plea. The courtroom is no place to play “gotcha.”

In early 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission adopted Enforcement Guidance interpreting the proscription of Title VII against harassment based on several categories. The entire Guidance was the product of ten years of research and asking for public comments. It applied to harassment based on race, gender, disability, etc. It also applied to harassment based on gender identity. In early, 2026, Pres. Trump fired two of the five members of the EEOC Board. The two who were fired were Democratic appointees. That termination violated US Supreme Court precedent. But, it appears the new US Supreme Court will probably uphold those firings.

With two fewer Democrat appointees, the EEOC Commission then voted by a 2-1 vote to rescind that Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. The EEOC took this move on Jan. 22, 2026. It has no plan to replace the guidance.

EEOC Guidance

The EEOC has published a series of Guidance papers since the 1970s. They apply to all the discrimination statutes and address specific issues. Today, there are maybe 20 such different papers, all providing guidance on the various types of discrimination. They provide guidance to employees, but especially to employers regarding the meaning of the various discrimination statutes. That guidance is essential to Human Resources offices across the country who wish to avoid problems with discrimination. As one well-known defense lawyer said:

“I conduct a lot of harassment training, and it goes down a lot more easily if you say, ‘This isn’t me saying this, this is what the EEOC says,’ or ‘This is what the courts say,’” she notes. “It’s nice to have some authority to point to when you’re telling people things they may not want to hear.”

Robin Shea with the Constangy law firm. The guidance papers always include several hypothetical situations that help explain the meaning of these complicated statutes.

The EEOC rescinded the guidance on harassment apparently because it included gender identification as one of its protected classes. Okay, but that does not explain why the entire Guidance paper had to be rescinded.

Vacated

In May, 2025, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas vacated the gender identity portion of the Harassment Guidance – but not the entire 189 pages of examples and explanation. See State of Texas v. EEOC, No. 24-CV-173(N.D. Tex. May 15, 2025). But, that is an odd decision. Judge Kacsmaryk vacated guidance. He did not vacate an actual regulation or statute. EEOC Guidance is not typically found to be binding. See, e.g. EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, 852 F.3d 1018, 1031 (11th Cir. 2016) (“T]he rulings, interpretations, and opinions” of an agency charged with enforcing a particular statute, “while not controlling upon the courts by reason of their authority, do constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance”). I myself have read many decisions in which courts simply ignored the EEOC guidance that was offered in a case. Most judges would agree that EEOC guidance is just that, guidance, not statutory law or regulation. Judge Kacsmaryk stretched the facts quite a bit in his May, 2025 decision to find this guidance had some binding effect. Heck, even this harassment guidance itself said it was not legally binding.

Odd Decision

Judge Kacsmaryk’s odd decision in Texas v. EEOC was not appealed. They did not appeal, probably because by that time, the Trump DOJ was in place and the Department of Justice withdrew from the case. Small Business Majority, Main Street Alliance and American Sustainable Business Council, representing tens of thousands of small businesses, opposed the attempt by Texas to vacate this harassment guidance. Those three groups submitted an amicus opposing the lawsuit against the harassment guidance. Their brief emphasized the need for clear guidance for businesses.

This rescission by the EEOC represents a remarkable waste of time and careful explanation. Over the years, I have come to develop a great appreciation for the quality of the EEOC’s various guidance papers. See ABA Bar Journal report here for more information.

Judge Fred Biery has developed a reputation for humor and an insistence on courtroom courtesy. He once ordered a set of contrary lawyers to kiss on the lips in front of the Alamo with cameras present. He has ordered other mis-behaving lawyers to sit in timeout in the rotunda of the old Federal courthouse. I previously wrote about Judge Biery here. He quotes songs and movies in his opinions. He prefers humor when he can. So, when Judge Biery expresses anger in an opinion, we should all take notice.

In the case of Arias v. Noem, No. SA-26-CV-425, the Judge is angry. This case concerns a writ of habeas corpus filed for one Liam Conejo Arias. The little boy who was arrested in Minneapolis wearing a bunny ears hat and sporting a Spiderman backpack. Just five years old, he was used as bait by ICE to lure his father and mother out of their house. Little Liam was sent to the immigration facility in Dilley, Texas.

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Judge Berry ordered that the writ be granted and that Liam be released. The Judge could have simply issued a one sentence order granting the writ. But, he issued a three page order that chastises and even lectures the Federal government. He starts by acknowledging that he has deported many immigrants in his thirty years as a Federal Judge:

“The case has its genesis in the ill-conceived and incompetently-implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas, apparently even if it requires traumatizing children. This Court and others regularly send undocumented people to prison and orders them deported but do so by proper legal procedurs.”

He then discusses provisions of the Declaration of Independence which objected to authoritarian government practices in 1776. Referring to the detention of Liam, he notes correctly that this “perfidious lust for unbridled power and the imposition of cruelty” knows no bounds. He points out that the government has “damned” the rule of law . He mentions Ben Franklin’s famous quote that we have a republic “if we can keep it.” He then closes with a a reference to how he sees his role: “With a judicial finger in the constitutional dike.” The Judge then included a picture of little Liam wearing his bunny hat standing alone in the cold Minnesota day.

The Judge then cites two verses from the Bible below Liam’s picture: Matthew 19:14 and John 11:35. In the verse from Matthew, Jesus tells his followers to let the children come to him. John 11:35: “Jesus begins to weep.” Yes, Judge, we are sure Jesus shed a few tears over the arrest of a five year old boy wearing a bunny ears hat.

See Judge Biery’s opinion here.

In Brown v. Child Advocates, Inc., No. 14-24-00012-CV, 2023 WL 2261414 (Tex.App. Hou. April 15, 2025), the court addresses a frequent issue in today’s courthouses: when are electronic signatures valid? In this matter, it appears the case did actually proceed to arbitration. Since, the employee submitted a motion to vacate the arbitration award. The employer also moved to compel arbitration.

In any event, the court addressed the validity of the purported signature. The court pointed to the requirements of the Texas Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, codified at Tex. Bus. & Com.C. §322, et seq. The requirements of the TUETA were also addressed in Aerotek v. Boyd, 624 S.W.3d 199 (Tex. 2021). As the Brown court pointed out, to show a valid electronic signature, the entity proposing the signature must show the efficacy of the procedures used to ensure only the named person was capable of making the signature.

Aerotek Requirements

The court found that Child Advocates did not show: 1) that the signature was created by an account that could only have belonged to Ms. Brown, 2) security procedures that would have prevented unauthorized access by users other than Brown, and 3) that all users were required to complete all steps before proceeding on with the signature. But, the employer did produce an arbitration agreement with Brown’s apparent signature. This constituted a scintilla evidence, such that the court could proceed to the next step.

At this stage, however, Brown averred that she:

  • never intended to enter into an arbitration agreement
  • could not confirm the signature as hers
  • did not recall signing such an agreement
  • did not receive such an agreement after it was allegedly signed
  • if she had known about the opt-out step, she would have chosen not agree to the arbitration, at all

In short, Ms. Brown presented essentially the same evidence offered by Salvador Meraz in Solcius, LLC v. Meraz, No. 08-22-00146-CV, 2023 WL 2261414 (Tex.App. El Paso 2022). Neither plaintiff offered any more evidence than essentially, “I do not recall signing the agreement and that is not my signature.” Yet, one case resulted in arbitration, while the other one did not.

One important difference is that in the Brown matter, the employer apparently offered simply no evidence regarding its procedures for electronic signatures. While, in the Meraz case, the proponent of the electronic signature testified that only a person with Mr. Meraz’ email address and IP could have signed the document. And, Mr. Meraz acknowledged receiving electronic copies of the agreement after the work had already been performed. The Meraz court vowed that action as indicating that merit had agreed to conduct his transactions electronically.

See Brown v. Child Advocates here. See the decision in Solcius v. Meraz here.

Kate Rogers, the Alamo Trust CEO, was forced to resign last Fall by Lt-Gov. Dan Patrick. Lt-Gov. Patrick publicly criticized Ms. Rogers’ discussion in a dissertation regarding Critical Race Theory, “reproductive rights of women” and the like. Her dissertation also stated she did not believe politicians should decide what professional educators should teach in the classroom. The dissertation was part of her doctoral program at the University of Southern California.

Ms. Rogers’ immediate supervisor, Dawn Buckingham, the state Land Commissioner, also criticized an online post by the Alamo regarding Indigenous People’s Day in October. The Land Commissioner’s office owns the Alamo. The Alamo Trust is the entity that runs the Alamo. Ms. Rogers has filed suit based on the First Amendment. See San Antonio Express-News report here.

First Amendment

Of course, the actions of Mr. Patrick and Ms. Buckingham violate the First Amendment. It is not even a close call. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to state and local governments. Citizens have a right to speak about public events. It is odd that the Lt-Governor would object to comments made in a private dissertation paper that was completed two years ago. The paper would be filed in a library somewhere, but typically only researchers ever see dissertations. If the Lt-Governor had not made those comments public, who would know about them? Indeed, if what Rogers said in her dissertation was important enough to fire her, why did no one ask about it two years ago? In any event, I expect Lt-Gov Patrick’s concerns were more political than legal.

The only real issue will be the extent to which the actions of two state officials actually “forced” Ms. Rogers to resign. The caselaw actually sets a pretty high bar for what amounts to constructive termination, or being forced to quit. According to Ms. Rogers’ lawsuit, she was told to resign or be fired in a phone call. See Rogers v. Alamo Trust, No. 25-CV-01500 (W.D. Tex.). If so, then that action certainly amounts to a termination. The only issue will be if Alamo Trust denies that phone call. Otherwise, Ms. Rogers has a strong lawsuit. …. All this just to score some political points. Indeed, as her lawsuit points out, Ms. Rogers had just been promoted. She received favorable job reviews. Will the state have any defense? Perhaps not.

As a native of San Antonio and a long-time Alamo fan, I have to also add that the statements of which Ms. Rogers is accused are rather benign. They are the same thing the Alamo has been saying for years. The Alamo, now and when it was still controlled by the Daughters of the Republic of Texas, has been under a great deal of political pressure to acknowledge its mission roots. The battle is central to the story. But, the battle and heroism is not at all diminished by also telling the mission story. Any mainstream historian would have said the same.

A couple of weeks ago, the EEOC Chair, Andrea Lucas posted a video asking white males if they have suffered discrimination. If so, please report it to the EEOC. See NBC news report here. This is very unusual behavior for the EEOC. For decades, the EEOC has branded itself as neutral, not favoring employee or employer. See the NBC news report in which one former Commissioner of the EEOC states flatly the role of the EEOC has never been to seek out discrimination victims. But, this video clearly does seek to help employees. Taking sides makes any investigation conducted by the EEOC very problematic.

Anti-White Discrimination Claims Are Rare

Too, it is just odd the EEOC would seek white male discrimination. There is just not a lot of white male discrimination happening out there in corporate America. In some 30 years representing victims of discrimination, I have received at the most three phone calls complaining about possible anti-white discrimination. One of those calls resulted in a lawsuit. We lost that lawsuit on a motion for summary judgment, but that is a different story. All my colleagues who represent employees in other cities all report the same experience: there is just not much anti-white discrimination. But, absolutely, it does occur.

We know Ms. Lucas from her appointment as Chair. She promised then to “root out” unlawful DEI-inspired race and sex discrimination. See my prior post about her comments here. After this latest video by Ms. Lucas, I posted a comment on Twitter/X stating my experience that there is just next to no anti-white discrimination out there. Many folks objected to my comment. But, none pointed to any studies or anecdotal evidence to refute my post.

The problem with soliciting discrimination claims is that any such investigation will be viewed with skepticism by any employer. Isn’t that conventional wisdom, that if you look for something, you will find it? Ms. Lucas has seriously undermined the investigative role of the EEOC regarding these sorts of discrimination claims.

Many potential clients, friends and some folks I barely know share their knowledge with me about employment law.  Unfortunately, many of them are flat wrong. Here are a few of the more common employment law myths I encounter.

  • At will

“At will” employment means an employee can be fired for anything.” Texas is an at-will state. An employee can indeed be fired for a lot of things, but not for sex, religion, race, national origin, disability, violation of laws, etc. So, yes, an employer can fire you for wearing a blue tie to work, but not because you are too old.  The anti-discrimination statutes provide several exceptions to the at-will doctrine.

  • Probation period

“Probation periods means an employee can be fired for anything.” Not quite. A probation period means an employe can be fired for anything except sex, religion, race, national origin, disability, violation of laws, etc.  See above paragraph.

  • Copy of file

“Employees have a right to a copy of his/her personnel file.”  That depends on whether the employee is public sector or private. There is no authority in Texas law which says employees of private businesses can obtain a copy of their personnel file. As a public sector employee, an employe’s rights are governed by the Freedom of Information Act for federal employees and the Open Records Act for state employees. I can find no authority providing that a private sector employee has a right to a copy of his/her personnel file.

  • Rest breaks

“Employees get periodic breaks during the work day.”  I was told as a young warehouseman that we had a right to a 10:00 o’clock break and another at 3:00 pm.  The times could vary slightly, but that was the idea. Since then, I have looked for the authority for those breaks. There is no such authority. Most likely, that is or was part of the influence of collective bargaining agreements (union agreements). CBA’s do often provide for such breaks. But, for non-union employees, there is no authority for a mid-morning break and a mid-afternoon break. There is no state law or regulation on rest breaks or meal breaks. Federal regulations do not require a meal break. But, Federal regulations used to encourage work places to provide rest breaks, but notes a requirement. That provision was formerly found in 29 CFR Sec. 758.18 as recently as 2016. But, today, the term “rest break” is nowhere to be found in the federal regulations.

  • Non-compete agreements 

Some folks outside and inside Texas believes non-compete agreements are not enforceable in Texas. Yes, they are and have always been enforceable. They more enforceable with the decision in Marsh USA Inc. v. Cook, 354 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. 2010). But, then the Texas Supreme Court issued the decision in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Drennen, 452 S.W.3rd 319 (Tex. 2014) which stated that the Marsh decision did not involve a “covenant not to compete.”

  • Free speech

The right to free speech exists only for government workers. There is no general right to free speech in a private workplace. But, there is protection for employees who discuss “terms and conditions” of employment. Those sorts of discussions are protected by the National Labor Relations Act. But, as far as discussing politics, football or cooking, there is no right to discuss whatever a worker wishes in the private workplace. I previously discussed the NLRA protections here.

  • Whistleblowing

There is no general whistle blower protection in Texas. I think most people think of whistleblowing as reporting wrongdoing to some law enforcement type entity. Employees in the private sector do not have protection against whistleblowing. But, there is a protection against requiring employees from violating criminal statutes. This sort of lawsuit is known as a Sabine Pilot type action. I discussed Sabine Pilot actions here. So, merely reporting administrative violations which do not have a criminal punishment, there are no such protections.

  • Not Written up before termination

People still ask me or tell me that the employer did not write them up before firing them. Well, employers do not have to do that. Yes, most large employers have nice looking employee manuals which state that employees must be written up before termination. But, these manuals are not binding. They have not even been arguanbly binding since about the early 1990’s. This is one employment myth that may never go away.

  • Privacy

Some folks still think they have some degree of privacy at work. Email is a frequent issue. Generally, email produced with use of the employer’s equipment and server belongs to the employer.  The employer may review your email anytime. I wrote about workplace email here and here.  The one exception appears to be when the employee accesses his/her private email server which is password protected.

There is no prohibition on private sector employers searching desks to my knowledge. But, the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights applies to state governments. So, in the public sector, a worker has some protection from unreasonable searches if s/he has a reasonable expectation of privacy” that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. See O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987), on remand, Ortega v. O’Connor, 817 F.2d 1408 (9th Cir. 1987).  But, the “expectation of privacy” can be limited by office practices and by legitimate regulation. And, HIPAA does protect medical information in most work situations.

So, as I tell folks on occasion, if you want fairness at work, then form a union.  Or, persuade your state legislature to make a few changes in the law, so all workers will benefit.

Motions to compel arbitration almost always succeed. One that did not was addressed in Parrott v. International Bank of Commerce, 778 F.Supp.3d 888 (W.D. Tex. 2025). In Parrott, the plaintiffs filed a class action regarding the employees’ profit-sharing plan. The proposed class sought to attack the investment strategy of IBC. Mr. Parrott left his job at IBC before the employer added the arbitration provision to the profit-sharing Plan. The Defendant then argued that the arbitration provision related back to the profit-sharing plan as it existed when Mr. Parrott was employed. That is, the employer argued that even if the arbitration provision came after Mr. Parrott had departed, the provision would relate back to the time when Parrott was still employed.

But, the U.S. District Court did not agree. The harm to the plaintiff occurred before he left his job, not after. That means the harm occurred before the arbitration provision was added. The profit-sharing Plan specifically defines a Plan participant as one who is employed by IBC. As a former employee, Parrott had already received his distribution under the Plan. That means no consideration passed to Mr. Parrott for his supposedly agreeing to the new arbitration provision. No consideration means the arbitration provision did not constitute a binding agreement.

So, the Court denied the Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. See the decision here.

Pres. Trump’s assault on the Department of Justice has real-world consequences. Some 5,500 employees, including lawyers and support staff, have left or been fired from DOJ since January. That is out of a total staff of about 10,000. That means there are widespread vacancies across the country in DOJ. But, recruiting at law schools is down. Law schools report that persons at the top ranked law schools are avoiding DOJ.

The Department of Justice has long recruited the top ranked student at the top ranked law schools. But, after all the the unjustified terminations, the best and the brightest have little incentive to work there. On Fox News, the US Attorney for Washington, D.C., Jeanine Pirro, said her office lacked 90 lawyers and encouraged any lawyer listening to apply. In Chicago, the US Attorney, Andrew Boutros emailed former DOJ lawyers inviting them back.

William Treanor, former dean at Georgetown University Law Center, said traditionally, Georgetown students had great interest in working at DOJ. It was an ultra-competitive place of employment. But, now he says virtually no one is applying. See ABA Bar Journal report here for more information.

The precipitous drop is not surprising. DOJ lawyers are routinely being asked to risk their law license in advancing false statements of law and facts. It is an exceedingly difficult place for any attorney to work.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 amended the prior law, which was passed in 1883. The current law is found at 5 U.S.C. §1101, et seq. The first Civil Service Act of 1883 changed what had been a political spoils system to a much more professional, stable work force. Prior to 1883, the Federal workforce was routinely changed whenever a new President entered office.

The new Trump administration wants to change all that. In the Project 2025 book, the authors make fantastic claims that Federal workers are not held accountable. The authors claimed that the Federal workforce included “careerists” who “lean to the Left.” The book cited no evidence for this over-the-top claim. I previously talked about Project 2025 and its effects on the Federal workforce here. It is safe to say that the Project 2025 book included many unrealistic claims about the Federal workforce.

Terminations without Cause

The Trump administration has fired hundreds of Federal employees without cause. Yet, the entire scope the Civil Service Reform Act is to require a stated cause. The foundation of the statute is that workers will only be fired for a good reason connected to job performance. A common myth today is that it is impossible or very difficult to terminate Federal employees. That is not true. But, it is true that a manager must show evidence of poor performance if he wishes to terminate a Federal employee. That generally means there must be some written warnings before an Agency can fire an employee.

Federal law requires that all Federal employees be treated fairly and equitably. 5 U.S.C. §2301(b)(2). They should be protected from arbitrary, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes. 5 U.S.C. §2301(b)(8). 5 U.S.C. §2302 prohibits certain personnel practices. These prohibited practices generally include discrimination, including discrimination based on politics and including discrimination not based on job performance.

So, these hundreds of terminations for no stated reason will surely result in innumerable lawsuits and appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The MSPB has jurisdiction over Federal terminations. Any Agency that goes to the MSPB with no written warnings in the file will lose. Maurene Coney, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York, has taken a unique approach. She has filed in both the MSPB and in U.S. District Court. In her lawsuit, she argues that because the MSPB currently lacks a quorum, there can be no final decision. Therefore, she can file her claims in district court.

Too, when Ms. Comey was fired, the only stated reason offered by the Agency was the President’s authority under Article II of the Constitution. That is, the administration was claiming the power to fire any Federal employee for any reason. It has been arguing in court this creative “unitary executive” theory since last January. According to Ms. Comey’s Complaint, the MSPB has already stated that it lacks authority to adjudicate whether the President truly has some sort of unfettered Article II power to fire Federal employees. See Comey v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, No. 25-CV-07625 (S.D. N. Y.) lawsuit here.

Until these legal theories are adjudicated, hundreds of Federal employees will have some very solid lawsuits and appeals to the MSPB.