Dallas Austin

On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its final version of Rules Concerning Unfair Methods of Competition (Rule).  The Rule becomes effective 120 days after being published in the Federal Register.  Almost immediately, two separate lawsuits were filed in Texas seeking to stay enforcement of the Rule and a finding that the FTC exceeded its authority in issuing the Rule.  Why all the fuss? The Rule, only 9 pages long, is preceded by 560 pages of commentary and justification by the FTC, perhaps foreboding the Rule’s significance and controversy. The Rule bars an employ

Michael Chiles was working at an oil and gas processing facility in West Texas when pressurized fluid unexpectedly shot out of the end of a hose he was carrying. Chiles was thrown to the ground and taken to the hospital shortly thereafter, where he was diagnosed with a torn rotator cuff that required two separate surgeries to repair. Chiles sued Priority Artificial Lift Services, LLC (“Priority”) and EP Energy E&P Company, L.P. (“EP Energy”) for damages caused by the incident. The parties proceeded to trial and the jury returned a verdict finding Priority and EP Energy liable for C

In March 2024, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in the matter of Yarbrough v. Glow Networks, Inc. overturned a $70 million employment discrimination verdict and ordered a new trial for two claims relating to only two specific Plaintiffs.  How did this happen? In December 2019, fourteen former employees of Glow Networks, Inc. (“Glow”), 13 of whom are Black, filed suit against their former employer for racial discrimination in the workplace. All Plaintiffs but one alleged racial discrimination based on tangible actions and/or a hostile work environment. Some Plaintiff

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has reduced a $366 million verdict from a Texas jury to $284,619 in a race discrimination and retaliation case against FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. (FedEx). Why and how did this happen? In August 2019, Jennifer Harris reported her manager for discrimination and retaliation because the manager had not assigned a certain customer to her.  A written warning from the manager about Harris’ performance followed the next month.  Harris said FedEx subsequently conducted a sham investigation of her claims and terminated her in January 2020.  Harris filed the su

What is the penalty for a pro se party retaining a “consultant” who used “artificial intelligence hallucinations” to prepare an appellate brief with fictitious case law? A Missouri Court of Appeals recently had the opportunity to answer that question. In Molly Kruse v. Jonathan R. Karlen, et al., Kruse sued her former employer for unpaid wages.  Kruse alleged she was chief creative officer for her employer from 2015 to 2019, but that the employer failed to pay her wages for 2018 and 2019. Karlen, appellant, was the owner and chief executive officer of her former employer. The trial co