So, Judge Brann’s decision has been appealed and within days, the Third Circuit rejected the Trump campaign’s appeal. I wrote about the lower court decision here. In the Third Circuit opinion, Judge Bibas, a Trump appointee, wrote that voters choose the President, not lawyers. “Ballots, not briefs, decide elections.” The entire three-judge panel rejected
So, it appears after all that the police force of a private entity is not an arm of the state. I mis-read the Texas Supreme Court’s 2017 decision. I wrote about that 2017 decision here. The Texas Supreme Court has now resolved the issue in University of the Incarnate Word v. Redus, No. 18-0351
A frequent issue in discrimination cases concerns when does the time for filing a complaint start? The answer can be complicated when a teacher, for example, is notified her contract will not be renewed the next school year. Do her six months to file start when she is told she will not be re-hired, or
Coach Bev Kearney’s lawsuit has returned back to the trial court. She will soon start deposing various officials, including former Coach Mack Brown. She also plans to depose former school president, Bill Powers and former Athletic Director, DeLoss Dodds.
I previously wrote about her lawsuit here. Coach Kearney alleges she received harsher discipline in 2013
Many workers believe they have been subjected to discriminatory comments by co-workers. Harassment by co-workers is sometimes referred to as a hostile work environment. It does not become actionable until management becomes aware of the harassment and fails to take action. But, what if the perceived discrimination is not necessarily discrimination? In Barnes v. Prairie
The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Clark v. Alamo Heights Independent School District case. The San Antonio Court of Appeals recognized same sex harassment in that case. The school district has now appealed the matter to the Texas Supreme Court. The lawyer for the district appears to be trying to un-do that
The Ninth Circuit has joined the Fourth Circuit in upholding the injunction against Pres. Trump’s travel ban. The unanimous three-judge decision found that of the six countries identified in the ban, none had ever posed a risk to the United States. I wrote about the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision here. The Ninth Circuit pointed
Pres. Trump seriously undercuts his own case when he states publicly that the travel ban currently on appeal is a “watered down” version of the first travel ban. See CNN news report. That is a problem because the first travel ban made specific references to establishing a religion. The second ban removed that language.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s issuance of an injunction which stopped the travel ban. The travel ban has received enormous attention since it was issued Jan. 27. In its opinion, State of Washington, v. Trump, No.17-35105 (9th Cir. 2/9/2017), the court first explained that yes, Presidential directives regarding immigration are reviewable by
The Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2010), decision was issued a few years ago. In that decision, the Texas Supreme Court decided that a lawsuit based on a tort claim of sexual assault was actually subsumed by the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. I wrote about that decision here