Recently, it emerged that Pres. Trump’s lawyers have advanced the theory that as the nation’s chief executive officer, the President cannot obstruct justice. The theory is the President has complete authority to start or stop investigations. Rudy Giuliani said the only remedy if the president committed a murder was impeachment. Mr. Giuliani also said the President has the power to pardon himself.

Legal scholars mostly disagree. The bedrock of the U.S. Constitution is that no person is above the law, they point out. Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal flatly said the idea that someone could be immune from obstruction of justice died with George III, with a brief attempt at revival by former Pres. Nixon. The opinion of any former Solicitor General, acting or not, carries a lot of weight. Solicitors General represent the U.S. government before the U.S. Supreme Court. Any Solicitor General is considered to be a top flight lawyer. They are the lawyer’s lawyer. Mr. Katyal derided Mr. Giulinai’s suggestion as a “ludicrous legal theory.” If a careful lawyer pokes fun at Mr. Giuliani’s argument, then we can conclude the argument is weak.

The decision in the Paula Jones lawsuit against then Pres. Clinton is instructive. The courts universally found that a sitting President was still subject to the normal civil legal process. Former Pres. Clinton tried to argue that as President, a civil lawsuit should be postponed until his term has ended. He lost at every level of appeal. If civil cases still apply to sitting presidents, it is very likely that criminal legal process will also still apply. The ABA Legal Fact Check noted that in ruling on a subpoena issued to then Pres. Nixon, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote that yes, a President does enjoy special consideration. But, that special consideration does not include an “unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from all judicial process under all circumstances.” See ABA Bar Journal report.

But, for a president who famously provides his own legal counsel, these legal opinions may not matter.

In Myles v. UT Health Science Center at San Antonio, No. 17-00871-XR, 2018 US Dist. LEXIS 5080 (W.D. Tex.), we see an instance in which the state employee successfully sued the state employer for a violation of the Family Medical Leave Act. Normally, a state employer is immune to a suit based on the FMLA, if the allegation is the employee had to stay home to care for herself. The state employer can simply cite its Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the lawsuit would end. But, in this case, the employee also sued the individual managers who were responsible for her termination.

Loretta Myles worked for UTHSC for many years, eventually rising to the manager level in the Human Resources department in 2009. In 2015, she requested FMLA leave to care for her ill husband. He suffered from prostrate cancer. But, Plaintiff’s supervisor, Ann Gaeke told her not to use FMLA leave. At one point, Ms. Gaeke warned Ms. Myles she should start looking for another job. The Plaintiff then took several weeks leave, saying she needed a break from harassment by her supervisor. On her first day back at work, Ms. Gaeke presented the employee with written discipline. Three days later, she was fired.

At the outset, the employer submitted a motion to dismisses citing Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Agency also argued that the two named defendants, Ann Gaeke and Heather Kobbe, are not “employers” as defined in the FMLA. But, the district court pointed to caselaw which did find that “employer” could include a public employee. Looking at Ms. Myles’ leave request as “self-care,” the court rightly noted that the Supreme Court has held that state employees cannot sue the state under the FMLA for taking care of oneself. But, the district court noted that Ms. Gaeke took sufficient actions against the plaintiff that her actions were in controversy. This was more than a supervisor simply carrying out state mandated requirements.

In its reply brief, the state raised the issue of qualified immunity regarding Ms. Gaeke. But, accepting the Plaintiff’s allegations as true, as the court must, the plaintiff has shown sufficient facts to indicate Ms. Gaeke violated clear statutory rights. Therefore, qualified immunity does not apply.

The Eleventh Circuit recently overturned summary judgment in a discrimination case. In Vinson v. Koch Foods, No. 17-10075 (11th Cir. 5/23/2018), the plaintiff sued for discrimination based on her national origin, Puerto Rican and based on race. She had worked for the employer a couple of years in Human Resources as a clerk and as a translator.  Ms. Vinson and two white co-workers took time off to visit a sick co-worker in the hospital. All three workers were placed on suspension when they returned to work. Of the three women, only Ms. Vinson’s duties were changed dramatically afterward. The plaintiff was required to work on the production line, processing chickens and operating machinery. Another Puerto Rican woman filled her job in HR. Later, Ms. Vinson was fired. The explanation varied. Some said her position was eliminated. Some said she was not producing enough.

The lower court granted summary judgment remarkably in part because Ms. Vinson did not mind being on the production line. She received a raise. But, as the Eleventh Circuit noted, her subjective view of the job change is not controlling. That she received a pay raise one month before being fired does not remove the adverse personnel action.

Her new duties included pulling guts from chicken carcasses, sawing chicken carcasses, hanging dead chickens on shackles, cutting and removing damaged meat from chicken carcasses, using sealing machines for packaging, and weighing boxes of meat. This was a major change in her duties. Too, the new job did not exist on any organizational chart for the employer. She had no job description. The job did not exist at other plants. Her supervisor did not know what she was supposed to be doing on the production floor. A jury could conclude, said the court, that the job was created just for Ms. Vinson.

Regarding the termination, the plaintiff presented a mixed motive case for the termination. Among the reasons for the summary judgment was that Ms. Vinson did not discredit the employer’s reasons for firing the woman. This amounted to a requirement that the plaintiff show pretext, said the court. But, this is a mixed motive case, in which the standard is a motivating factor. That is, the standard is whether the improper motive played a motivating role in the decision. So, the plaintiff did not need to show pretext. She only needed to show that there was genuine issue of fact regarding whether race or national origin was one motivating factor in the decision. Even so, the plaintiff did present evidence of pretext. The supervisors’ accounts of the termination did not match.

The lower court also found that the plaintiff presented no evidence that race or national origin played a role in the decision to terminate. But, a union supervisor expressly said he had observed Ms. Vinson’s supervisor disciplining Hispanics more harshly than white workers. The court noted that Ms. Vinson was replaced by another Puerto Rican female. But, that in itself does not show a lack of racial or national origin motive. The court reversed summary judgment regarding this claim. See the decision here.

Pres. Trump has dis-invited the Philadelphia Eagles to the White House. The reigning Super Bowl champs are typically invited to the White House. The President indicated it was because of a disagreement over whether to stand for the national anthem at football games. See CBS news report. The President issued a statement that said:

“They disagree with their president because he insists that they proudly stand for the National Anthem, hand on heart, in honor of the great men and women of our military and the people of our country,”

As a retired member of that great military, all I can say is that is what I believed when I was in first grade, too. In fact, I attended a military school in first grade and absolutely believed that standing straight and tall during the national anthem meant I was a good patriot. Now, I know better. I grew up during the 60’s and 70’s. I was perfectly okay with protests for the right reason. Now, a lifelong student of history, I can point to dozens of examples of great patriots who protested in favor of sincere beliefs. Many of those protests would later go on to be vindicated. But, I guess it is better politics to think like a first grader……

P.S. You have not lived until you have sung the national anthem in a war zone. It was a surreal experience. Singing it at football games now almost seems to trivialize the song.

In a recent decision, the Fifth Circuit addressed the turbulent area of non-solicitation agreements. Michelle Moffitt-Johnston used to work for GE Betz, Inc. GE Betz applied chemicals to fuel prior to export. Ms. Moffitt-Johnston signed a non-solicitation agreement with GE Betz during her employment, in which she agreed to not solicit Betz’ customers for up to 18 months after any resignation or termination. After some ten years with GE Betz, Ms. Moffitt-Johnston resigned in 2012. Soon after, she started working for AmSpec Services, a competitor of GE Betz.

GE Betz had installed monitoring software on its worker’s computers. Monitoring logs on Ms. Moffitt-Johnston’s computer showed suspicious activity in the weeks leading up to her resignation. Days after she had announced her departure, someone using her computer downloaded some 27,000 files to an external hard drive. The evidence regarding this download was disputed. Plaintiff Moffitt-Johnston said this was the GE Betz IT department doing back-up, while the employer claimed Ms. Moffitt-Johnston had use of the computer at the time.

GE Betz admitted it had no smoking gun evidence that Ms. Moffitt-Johnston had solicited customers. Instead, it relied on a “mosaic” of evidence. The “mosaic” essentially consisted of AmSpec’s success with the customers who were included in an email from Moffitt-Jounston to AmSpec on her last day at work. But, as the court noted, it is just as likely that those customers worked with AmSpec because their cost was lower. “Many” but not all of Moffitt-Johnston’s former clients went with AmSpec. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the mis-appropriation of trade secrets claim. For similar reasons, the court also affirmed summary judgment regarding GE Betz’ claim for tortious interference with prospective business relationships.

To recover her attorney fees, Ms. Moffitt-Johnston relied on the Texas Covenants not to Compete Act (Tex.Bus.&Com.C. Sec. 15.50). The act requires several factors before a court could award attorney’s fees to the employee. One of those factors involved whether the employer knew the non-solicitation agreement included no geographic limitation. The GE Betz non-solicitation agreement was silent regarding any geographic limits. And, Texas jurisprudence provides, said the Fifth Circuit, that a limit regarding one’s customer base is reasonable – even if no geographic limit is specified. So, found the appellate court, it was not clear that the employer knew its non-solicitation agreement had no geographic limit. The Fifth Circuit then agreed the employee was not entitled to recover her attorney fees. See the decision in GE Betz, Inc. v. Moffitt-Johnston; AmSpec Services, LLC, No. 15-20008 (5th Cir. 3/13/2-18)  here.

To mark Memorial Day, I would also like to recall two area San Antonio heroes. They were both fiends of mine. They both died in war zones back in 2005 and 2006 when I was deployed myself.

SSGT Clinton Newman was a fine soldier. He was a bright young man in the 321st Civil Affairs Brigade during my brief time with the 321st here in San Antonio. One of the nice things about being in your hometown unit is that I actually ran into a member of my unit at a movie. I ran into SSGT Newman when he was at a movie with his girl and I was with mine. He was one of the few 321st soldiers still here back in late 2003 and early 2004, while most of the unit was deployed. See a biographical sketch to learn more about someone who would have been a fine citizen of San Antonio and was already an excellent soldier.

I served with Albert E. Smart way back in the 2/141 Infantry Battalion in Corpus Christi. We were young company commanders together. Albert was gung-ho and always smiling. Years later, I was quite surprised to see him in the 321st CA Brigade here in San Antonio. He deployed in 2005 and passed away in Kuwait on the way to Afghanistan. It was such a shock that someone so young, in such good physical shape would pass away from an illness. I think Heaven is in much better physical shape now that Albert is there. And, I expect there are a great many more smiles among its citizens. See a memorial here to learn more about my buddy, Albert.

Memorial Day is a time to remember those veterans who gave all they had to give for us. I always think of  1SGT Saenz at times like this. Some 100 of us IRR members met at Ft. Jackson on March 13, 2005. We reported to Ft. Jackson, South Carolina for in-processing and reintroduction to the US Army.  We knew we would be deploying to Iraq.  Then MSGT Saenz had a huge laugh and a booming voice. He laughed a lot.

Those first few days, some Reservists were angry about being called up. Some were happy to be there. MSGT Saenz was reasonably happy to be where he was, preparing for duty in a war zone. Later, as I learned, he performed very well. He inspired his soldiers. He did everything a competent, dedicated leader would be expected to do.

He died in the dusty streets of Baghdad near the end of our tour. We were leaving Iraq in just a couple of weeks when his HMMWV was struck by an IED. He was out on a convoy training members of the incoming unit. Some of his regular team members were not with him on that run. He died doing what he did best, serving others.

We should all serve our country half as well as 1SGT Saenz. There is a nice tribute to 1SGT Saenz here. As John Bear Ross mentions on his website, do not mourn that a man like 1SGT Saenz died. Rejoice that a man like 1SGT Saenz lived.

After Ft. Jackson, we, the IRR folks, were assigned to various Civil Affairs units. I was assigned to the 445 CA Battalion. We called ourselves the Pirates. Whenever we snapped to attention, we would all let out a gutteral “arrgh” in true Pirate fashion. Paul A. Clevenger was a Pirate. He was one of the younger soldiers. SGT Clevenger was promoted from SPC4 during our time In Iraq. He did well, from what I heard.  I just remember that he smiled, often. His obituary is here.  Like many of us, he returned to the States with some demons deep inside. He took his life some two years after we returned. SGT Clevenger is another casualty of the war  – he too gave his country all he had to give.

On this Memorial Day, we remember the fallen – but not the Confederate fallen. They were removed from the list a few years ago.

It is probably the first legal advice I ever received. In law school, the teachers told us if the police say do this or do that, do it. Do not argue your rights with the police on the street, they emphasized. On the street, you do what the police officers say. Period. If the police violate your rights, you can file a complaint later. But, on the street, you do what they say.

So, it may not be popular to say this, but I feel that Sterling Brown was in the wrong when he refused police officer direction to remove his hands from his pockets. See NBC news report. Mr. Brown’s response to being told to take his hands out of his pockets was, “Hold on. I’ve got stuff in my hands.” The situation quickly escalated after he told the police to “hold on.” When the police tell you to do something, you need to do it. Police have a target on their back. They have to control the situation.

I am sure the Milwaukee police could have handled this situation better. But, when law enforcement says take your hands out of your pockets, you have no choice.

Way back when, when I was in my twenties. I was passing through “Fleasville,” also known as Leesville, Louisiana, heading to my then home, Alexandria. I was passing through about midnight. The police stopped me for some reason. Out of habit, I slipped my hands in my pockets without thinking. Immediately, those small town police officer shouted for me to remove my hands from my pockets. The urgency in their tone was clear. As quick as I could, I removed my hands. To me, it was no big deal. My hands can rest wherever.  But, to the police, it was a potential threat to their lives. Just do what they say. To you, it is no big deal. To the police, it is about life or death.

I first wrote about Kolby Listenbee’s lawsuit here. He is suing Texas Christian University because he claims the football staff, including the head coach, bullied him into playing even though he was hurt. Mr. Listenbee was recently cut by the Indianapolis Colts. A website, frogswire.com then posted a satirical post suggesting Mr. Listenbee is fragile and made of glass. Listenbee lashed out in a tweet accusing the TCU Horned Frog fans of being fake fans. His tweet claims that TCU fans only support the team when it is winning. He later deleted that tweet.

Frowgswire appears to be an independent website devoted to Horned Frog sports. See the frogswire post here.

As I mentioned earlier, this is a difficult lawsuit for the plaintiff. Mr. Listenbee is trying to argue the coaches’ conduct toward him harmed his athletic ability. But, here he is competing for a spot on a professional football team. Too, he is basically suing football for being football. To some degree, all coaches apply pressure to players to play with some injuries. To win his lawsuit, Mr. Listenbee will have to show that the TCU coaches went beyond the normal conduct of the average football coach.

A few years ago, Coach Mike Leach was fired by Texas Tech University in part because he sent a player suffering from a concussion to go stand in a dark shed on the practice field. And, of course, many years ago, the famous coach, Woody Hayes was fired after he struck a player. In every field or industry, the norm will vary. Compared to these two cases, the TCU coaching staff was relatively benign. Mr. Listenbee will have to have something better than simple verbal pressure or a guilt trip.

Full disclosure: I graduated from TCU with the class of 1980. Yes, it is true that attendance at games is way up compared to the late 1970’s. But, his lawsuit is not about the fans. It is about football.

Plaintiffs in employment cases often contend they are paid less than other, similarly situated co-workers. The Defendant then argues no, the plaintiff does not truly know that. Many times, the court will side with the employer and find that the employee is relying on speculation when s/he claims to “know.” Since, many plaintiffs are relying on hearsay when they make that sort of a claim. They often rely on water cooler talk.

In Sims v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. H-16-3212, 2018 U.S. Distilled. LEXIS 19896 (S.D. Tex. 2018), the court sided with the employee. Rochelle Sims was an African-American branch manager. A male business banking specialist transferred into Ms. Sims’ branch. In reviewing his performance, the plaintiff realized the male subordinate was paid more than she was. She did some research and saw that other male, non-African-American  branch managers were paid more than she was.

Ms. Sims spoke with HR and her supervisor about the pay gap. Her supervisor told her she should step down from the manager position. If not, Wells Fargo would “eat her lunch.” The plaintiff did that and transferred to a different branch. Soon, the male business banking specialist who had come into her old branch was promoted to branch manager. Ms. Sims filed a complaint with he EEOC and filed suit. The employer moved for summary judgment. Wells Fargo argued that Ms. Sim’s claim that she had been paid less than male, non-African-American branch managers had been based on speculation.

The court, however, noted that the employer relied on a conclusory assertion in claiming Sims was not paid more than her counter-parts. The bank offered no evidence, said the court. It relied on inadmissible hearsay to claim her pay was comparable to her male counter-parts. So, it denied summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim regarding a pay gap. See the decision here.