Texas Non-Compete Agreements Just Got Easier to Enforce

Just recently, the Texas Supreme Court handed down a decision that will make non-compete agreements a whole lot easier for employers to enforce.

Anytime there is a change in employment law and you happen to be running a business, make it a point to contact your Dallas business lawyer and ask what the latest changes mean for you. The most recent change, as a result of a Texas Supreme Court ruling, will now make any non-compete agreements you sign with employees a lot easier to enforce.

The ruling in a nutshell means that an employer will now be able to enforce their non-compete restrictions, even if the agreement in question did not offer anything of value to the worker at the time the agreement was signed. Typically, agreements of this nature are signed when the employee is first hired.

When it handed down its ruling, the Supreme Court offered the opinion that it wasn’t too pleased with lower courts and attorneys for going overboard and reading way too much into its 1994 decision; a decision which has, until now, governed non-compete agreements. In essence, the court felt that the requirements that these kinds of agreements arise out of are enforceable agreements between an employer and worker, and were never meant to create the “overly technical disputes” that have dotted the legal landscape relating to non-compete agreements in Texas since 1994.

What does this new ruling mean? Very simply, it means that just about every non-compete agreement will now be considered enforceable, whereas prior to this recent decision, most of these agreements weren’t enforceable. This of course is quite the turn of the tables and to understand what it means legally, it’s best to talk to a seasoned Dallas business lawyer. In particular, employers need to be asking questions about how this decision will affect at-will workers, since they have no guarantees of having a permanent job.

As it stands now, with this decision being handed down, at-will employees will be the largest group of workers affected. At one time, employers had to offer their workers something of value to keep them working; this decision now makes that practice less than clear. Overall, it will mean an employee will have a harder time trying to invalidate a non-compete agreement. This Supreme Court decision will mean the focus in non-compete cases will be on whether or not the restrictions contained in the agreement are indeed reasonable.
In you’re facing a hiring situation where you are being asked to sign a non-compete agreement, take the document to a skilled Dallas business lawyer and discuss its ramifications. KnowingE what you are getting into “before” something happens later is a smart move, because if you sign something without legal advice and the right information, you will be stuck.

If you’re an employer who needs to know how this new ruling will affect your ability to have non-compete agreements signed, contact a seasoned Dallas business lawyer for information.

Seth Wilburn writes for the Gomez Law Group, a Dallas employment lawyer and Dallas business lawyer. To learn more, visit Gomezlawyers.com.

Tags: Dallas business attorney, Dallas business lawyer, Dallas employment attorney, Dallas employment lawyer

False Deeds Equal Real Estate Fraud

With the U.S. in a deep recession, there is another very popular scam making the rounds – stealing property using a false deed.

It’s disturbingly safe for a thief to steal someone’s property using a false deed. In fact, this kind of scheme or real estate scam has become so popular it almost rivals other kinds of fraud scams. It makes one wonder what the world has come to with people taking advantage of others so blatantly. In a nation that once prided itself on neighbor helping neighbor when the hard times hit, it’s become neighbor stealing from neighbor to stay afloat.

There are a number of very popular real estate scams and if people are aware of them, it is easier to be on the alert for fraud. It’s the kind of knowledge that will come in handy should something strange look like it’s going down. In other words, knowledge is power and protection from fraud. This is particularly the case when it comes to elderly people who are often pressured into signing away their homes.

Typically speaking, most often real estate fraud centers around forged deeds. The most often used scam invokes a false deed to get a loan secured on a certain property. Once the loan has been dispersed, the thief vanishes like smoke in the night leaving the “real” property owner in the lurch and possibly facing bank foreclosure. The “real” owner has no idea anything happened until they get a warning note from the bank. If they don’t take action on it, perhaps thinking it’s a mistake, the foreclosure becomes a real possibility.

Here is another favorite real estate scam; selling a piece of property without the owner’s consent or knowledge. Generally speaking, this kind of fraud is perpetrated on an uninhabited, possibly inherited house or other property (land). Some very creative fraudsters are even able to sell the same property several times over. On the other hand, if the property was only sold once, this kind of fraud can go unnoticed for up to a year or longer.

Up to this point, most of the scams covered have been done with false deeds. The other more successful real estate fraud comes at the hands of a person who used a “real” deed to accomplish their illegal ends. While false deeds can often be reversed, real ones usually cannot be reversed. Unfortunately, the thieves in this type of case are often members of the family circle; the last people anyone would suspect of committing real estate fraud.

Isn’t a signature on the deed an even better move? Having a signature from the owner of the land in question is often a bonus in the real estate scam and the criminal can do pretty much as they please without worrying about getting caught. It’s easy to get signatures from elderly people, and this kind of fraud is very prevalent.

There are other kinds of fraudulent schemes out there today that leave many people penniless, without their land and in some instances homeless. The only way to ensure that fraud is not being committed is to speak with a skilled attorney.

Gomez Law Group is a Dallas employment lawyer and Dallas business lawyer. To learn more, visit http://www.gomezlawyers.com

Tags: Dallas business attorney, Dallas business lawyer, Dallas employment attorney, Dallas employment lawyer

Bankruptcy Code Prohibits Employer Retaliation

Given the the numbers of personal bankruptcy filings in America, it is likely that a greater number of U.S. workers face the possibility of losing their jobs because of an employer’s bias against people who resort to bankruptcy protection. 11 U.S.C. §525(b) of the Federal Bankruptcy Code states that “no private employer may terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, an individual who is a debtor under the Bankruptcy Act solely because such debtor is or has been a debtor under the Bankruptcy Act.” In many instances, employer retaliation may be based on a fear or belief that anyone who files bankruptcy is not trustworthy or financially responsible. In reality, the majority of people who file bankruptcy do it for reasons that were beyond their control.

The National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA) published a survey of bankruptcy lawyers which revealed that in the vast majority of cases, consumers are forced into bankruptcy by major and unforeseen expenses (joblessness at 39.6 percent and medical expenses/other medical costs at 33 percent) or combinations of factors (mortgage/home-related debt at 64 percent and increased credit card interest rates at 41.1 percent). Fewer than one in 10 cases (8.1 percent) handled by bankruptcy attorneys were linked to “discretionary spending” habits. According to the American Bankruptcy institute, U.S. consumer bankruptcy filings totaled 675,351 nationwide during the first six months of 2009. This represents a 36.5 percent increase over the 494,610 total consumer filings during the same period a year ago.

The law is clear, employers may not fire or otherwise retaliate against an employee because they filed bankruptcy.  The effect of an unwarranted termination on an employee who is already struggling under the weight of overwhelming debt is catastrophic. Unfortunately, many employers are not even aware of the existence of this law. If you know someone going through bankruptcy, make sure they are awate that their job cannot be legally taken from them because they seek bankruptcy protection. The Gomez Law Group represents and advises individuals affected by this rule.

Do you have a school fraud claim?

You’ve seen the ads on television and the internet – get a top quality education in half the time and the doors will be opened to your dream job.

Our Dallas based attorneys investigate and pursue consumer fraud claims against trade schools and for profit proprietary schools who make false promises to lure students to pay thousands of dollars for worthless degrees and certificates. Many schools make false promises that their graduates will be placed in high paying jobs.

› Continue reading

The Americans with Disabilities Act

The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all employment practices. It is necessary to understand several important ADA definitions to know who is protected by the law and what constitutes illegal discrimination:

INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY
An individual with a disability under the ADA is a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. Major life activities are activities that an average person can perform with little or no difficulty such as walking, breathing, seeing, hearing, speaking, learning, and working.

QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY
A qualified employee or applicant with a disability is someone who satisfies skill, experience, education, and other job-related requirements of the position held or desired, and who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of that position.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
Reasonable accommodation may include, but is not limited to, making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities; job restructuring; modification of work schedules; providing additional unpaid leave; reassignment to a vacant position; acquiring or modifying equipment or devices; adjusting or modifying examinations, training materials, or policies; and providing qualified readers or interpreters. Reasonable accommodation may be necessary to apply for a job, to perform job functions, or to enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment that are enjoyed by people without disabilities. An employer is not required to lower production standards to make an accommodation. An employer generally is not obligated to provide personal use items such as eyeglasses or hearing aids.

UNDUE HARDSHIP
An employer is required to make a reasonable accommodation to a qualified individual with a disability unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business. Undue hardship means an action that requires significant difficulty or expense when considered in relation to factors such as a business’ size, financial resources, and the nature and structure of its operation.

PROHIBITED INQUIRIES AND EXAMINATIONS
Before making an offer of employment, an employer may not ask job applicants about the existence, nature, or severity of a disability. Applicants may be asked about their ability to perform job functions. A job offer may be conditioned on the results of a medical examination, but only if the examination is required for all entering employees in the same job category. Medical examinations of employees must be job-related and consistent with business necessity.

National Origin Discrimination

It is illegal to discriminate against an individual because of birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group.

A rule requiring that employees speak only English on the job may violate Title VII unless an employer shows that the requirement is necessary for conducting business. If the employer believes such a rule is necessary, employees must be informed when English is required and the consequences for violating the rule.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 requires employers to assure that employees hired are legally authorized to work in the U.S. However, an employer who requests employment verification only for individuals of a particular national origin, or individuals who appear to be or sound foreign, may violate both Title VII and IRCA; verification must be obtained from all applicants and employees. Employers who impose citizenship requirements or give preferences to U.S. citizens in hiring or employment opportunities also may violate IRCA.