Texas Bar Journal • December 2024

Labor and Employment Law

Written by Trang Q. Tran

Cole v. Quality Carriers, Inc.¹
John Cole, a former employee of Quality Carriers, alleged racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He alleged that his removal from a preferred work schedule was racially motivated and claimed the company retaliated after filing a complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, concluding that Cole failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the company’s non-discriminatory justification.

While the district court found some merit to Cole’s claims of retaliation, the 5th Circuit assumed that standard applied for the sake of argument. The burden then shifted to Quality Carriers to present a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for its actions, as outlined in Royal v. CCC & R Tres Arboles, LLC.² It stressed that an employer’s burden is not to prove the truthfulness of the reason but only to provide evidence of a plausible non-discriminatory motive. Citing St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks,³ the court explained that employers are not required to prove the truthfulness of their justifications unless no supporting evidence exists.

The court also introduced a heightened standard, suggesting that Cole must demonstrate that the employer’s reason was both false and a cover for intentional discrimination (“pretext plus”). Lacking concrete evidence, the court found Cole’s claims speculative and affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

Butler v. Collins⁴
Cheryl Butler, a former law professor at SMU, sued the university and its administrators on various grounds, including breach of contract, fraud, and defamation. The key issue was whether the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) preempted her ability to bring state-law claims against individuals based on the same facts underlying her employment discrimination claims against SMU.

The 5th Circuit noted conflicting guidance in earlier rulings, like Waffle House v. Williams⁵ and B.C. v. Steak N Shake Operations, Inc.,⁶ distinguishing tort claims against individual employees from those against employers. It certified the question to the Supreme Court of Texas for clarification, seeking guidance on whether the TCHRA precludes such claims against individual employees.

State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Labor ⁷
The state of Texas challenged the DOL’s 2024 FLSA rule, arguing that the new salary threshold exceeded the agency’s authority. The court agreed, granting a preliminary injunction to prevent the rule from taking effect for Texas state employees. While this ruling applied only to Texas, it could signal potential challenges to the broader 2024 rule.

Restaurant Law Center v. Department of Labor⁸
This case scrutinized the Department of Labor’s tip credit rules, specifically concerning tip pooling and mandatory service charges. The court ruled in favor of restrictions that allow service charges to be retained by employers instead of pooled as tips, thus reinforcing the distinct treatment of tips versus service charges under federal law. This ruling carries significant implications for the hospitality sector, as it clarifies the limits of tip-sharing obligations under federal law. It impacts how restaurants in Texas and the 5th Circuit structure compensation through tip pooling.

Anderson v. Harris County⁹
The 5th Circuit expanded retaliation protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), ruling that employers may not retaliate against employees for their association with individuals with disabilities. This broader interpretation clarifies that ADA protections extend not only to employees seeking accommodations but also to those connected to individuals with disabilities. This decision reflects the court’s commitment to ensuring inclusive protections under the ADA, emphasizing that retaliation provisions should cover both direct and indirect actions against employees.

TRANG Q. TRAN is a labor and employment lawyer based in Houston, with over 25 years of experience focused on employment litigation. He currently serves on the board of the State Bar of Texas Labor and Employment Law Section.