Search Results for: 球探app下载-【✔️官网AA58·CC✔️】-牌九术语-球探app下载s9arm-【✔️官网AA58·CC✔️】-牌九术语fnzj-球探app下载jz5gb-牌九术语9h7k

Common Issues:

Non-compete agreements

Many employers require employees to sign non-compete and non-solicitation agreements, and often try to enforce them after an employee leaves. However, these agreements may be challenged in court, as they could be found unenforceable depending on the geography, time period, and scope of the limitations. Mr. Sud can evaluate such agreements, advise you accordingly, and represent you in court.

Overtime and Wage Claims

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is a federal statute that allows for appropriate compensation. Most employees are required to be paid an overtime rate for working over 40 hours per week. Several exemptions exist though, allowing for a fixed salary regardless of the number of hours worked. However, employers may misclassify such employees or otherwise not comply with the salary requirements.  For example, if you are doing the work of an hourly employee, but being paid a fixed salary, you may be entitled to overtime compensation.  Or, even if you should be exempt, if your employer docks your pay for a partial day absence, you may be entitled to overtime for weeks in which you work over 40 hours. Also, tipped employees (such as waiters/waitresses) are entitled to many protections.  More information can be found here: https://sudemploymentlaw.com/overtime-pay/

Age, Disability, Race, Sex Discrimination and Retaliation

Mr. Sud frequently litigates claims of age, disability, race, and sex discrimination (as well as all other forms of illegal discrimination), including failure to accommodate disabilities, and retaliation.  Employers often tend to make adverse employment decisions based on inappropriate assumptions concerning certain demographics, and employees should fight for their rights if they are treated illegally.  Also, employers are not permitted to retaliate against employees for making good faith protected complaints.

Severance Agreements

Employers often provide severance agreements when terminating or laying-off employees. These agreements provide a monetary incentive in exchange for agreeing not to sue the employer. It is important to consult with an employment attorney who has experience evaluating severance agreements and determining whether your rights may have been violated. It is possible that you may have a good claim against your employer, thus putting you in a favorable situation to negotiate a better severance. Mr. Sud has written, evaluated, and negotiated countless severance agreements on behalf of both employees and employers. Contact Mr. Sud to help you evaluate a possible severance.

Protection of nurses in Texas

Nurses and other health care professionals have additional rights provided by state law, that protect them from several forms of retaliation.  Mr. Sud has represented several nurses throughout the state.  More information about these laws can be found here: https://sudemploymentlaw.com/nurses-wrongful-termination-retaliation-employment/

Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace

Both federal law and Texas law prevent sex discrimination against employees. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 modified these laws to confirm that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. Most employers are well aware that they should not terminate or otherwise discriminate against female employees on account of their pregnancy or birth of a child. However, employers often still violate the law, even unwittingly or with a perception that they are acting with good intentions. For example, an employer should not prevent a pregnant employee from working in a particular job just because it assumes that job may not be “safe” or "too stressful" for the woman or her unborn child. Also, an employer making stereotypical assumptions about a new mother’s alleged need to care for her child rather than work, or not understanding that she can both work and care for her child, could also support a pregnancy discrimination claim. As a specific example, a federal appellate court ruled that a statement from a manager that an employee would be “happier at home with her children” may be considered direct evidence of unlawful discrimination. And one judge recently confirmed that a manager stating women “should stay home, be mothers, and take care of their children” gives rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.