The honest answer is that most people don’t know definitively whether they have a viable legal claim until an attorney has reviewed the specific facts. If you’ve been fired, demoted, harassed, or treated badly at work after reporting misconduct, refusing to break the law, filing a workers’ compensation claim, or for reasons connected to your race or sex, you may have a case.

Many of the legal frameworks the firm works under have short deadlines — sometimes as brief as 90 to 180 days from the date of the adverse action — so waiting to find out can be costly. The case evaluation form is the firm’s most thorough way to assess whether your matter fits the firm’s practice.

A case evaluation begins when you submit the firm’s online intake form, which takes about five minutes. A senior attorney reviews every submission — typically within one business day. If your matter fits the firm’s practice, an attorney reaches out to schedule a more in-depth confidential conversation, usually by phone. If your matter doesn’t fit, the firm will tell you that directly and frequently can point you to other counsel who can help.

Yes. Communications with the firm during the case evaluation process are confidential under Texas attorney-client confidentiality rules, even before any formal engagement agreement is signed. The firm handles sensitive whistleblower and retaliation matters across Texas and understands the confidentiality concerns of workers who may be under employer surveillance.

The short answer is that the case evaluation form is the firm’s way of making sure that when you do talk to a lawyer, the conversation is genuinely useful — not an information-gathering call where you have to repeat the basics before getting to anything substantive.

The firm represents a limited number of clients in matters it can take to trial if necessary. The case evaluation form lets a senior attorney review the facts of your matter, check for conflicts of interest, and identify the operative legal frameworks before contacting you. By the time you and an attorney are on the phone, the attorney has already done the analytical work — so the conversation can focus on strategy, legal options, and what makes sense as a next step rather than on basic intake.

The form also protects your time. If your matter doesn’t fit the firm’s practice, the firm will tell you that without making you sit through a call to hear it — and frequently can point you to other counsel who may be able to help.

The firm represents clients in qualifying matters on a contingency fee basis — meaning the firm is paid only if it recovers compensation for you, typically as a percentage of the recovery. The percentage and other specific terms are set out in a written engagement agreement and depend on the type of case and the stage at which the matter resolves.

You do not pay anything out of pocket to start a case evaluation, and you do not pay attorney’s fees if the firm does not recover compensation for you.

A contingency fee is a fee arrangement where the lawyer is paid only if the case is successful — typically as a percentage of the recovery. If the case does not result in a recovery, the client owes the firm no attorney’s fees. Contingency fee arrangements make legal representation accessible to workers who could not otherwise afford to bring substantial cases against employers with significant legal resources.

Submitted forms are typically reviewed by a senior attorney within one business day. If your matter appears to fit the firm’s practice, an attorney will contact you using the contact information you provided to schedule a confidential conversation. If your matter doesn’t fit, the firm will tell you that directly, and frequently can recommend other counsel who may be able to help.

Most submissions receive a substantive response within one business day. For matters with short deadlines — particularly federal whistleblower retaliation claims where filing windows can be as brief as 90 to 180 days from the date of the adverse action — the firm prioritizes review and contact. If you believe your matter has a short deadline running, indicate that in the case evaluation form.

No. The firm protects client communications under Texas attorney-client privilege rules. Submitting the case evaluation form, speaking with an attorney during evaluation, and engaging the firm for representation are all confidential. Even if the firm files a lawsuit on your behalf later, the firm makes strategic decisions about when and how to communicate with your employer based on your specific circumstances.

Texas is an at-will employment state, which means that in the absence of a specific contract, employment relationships can generally be terminated by either party at any time, for any reason, or for no reason. However, at-will employment has significant exceptions.

An employer cannot fire an employee for a reason that violates a federal or Texas statute, common law protection, or contract. The most common exceptions in the firm’s practice include retaliation for whistleblowing, refusal to commit illegal acts (Sabine Pilot), filing a workers’ compensation claim, race discrimination, and sexual harassment.

“Wrongful termination” refers to terminations that violate a specific legal protection — federal or Texas statute, common law, or contract. Not every unfair termination is legally wrongful, but many forms of unfair termination violate a specific legal protection. The most common bases in the firm’s practice are retaliation for protected activities and discrimination based on race or sex.

Legal retaliation means an employer takes an adverse action against an employee because the employee engaged in a protected activity — reporting misconduct, filing a workers’ compensation claim, opposing discrimination, or refusing to violate the law. The protection only applies to activities the law specifically protects.

Retaliation claims require both protected activity and adverse action — and a causal connection between them.

An adverse action is a workplace action that materially harms the employee. Termination is the most obvious, but adverse actions can include demotion, reduction in pay, transfer to undesirable assignments, denied promotion, formal discipline, schedule changes, harassment, exclusion from meetings or work, and threats.

The legal standard is whether the action would dissuade a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity. Some employer responses that feel adverse may not legally qualify; others that seem minor (like changes in supervisor or seating) can qualify in context.

Constructive discharge happens when working conditions become so intolerable that a reasonable employee feels forced to resign. The law treats constructive discharge as legally equivalent to being fired — meaning workers who quit under sufficiently intolerable conditions may still have viable wrongful termination claims.

The bar is high; “intolerable” means severe and pervasive harassment, drastic demotion or pay cut, dangerous working conditions, or similar circumstances. Resigning because work was unpleasant or stressful generally doesn’t qualify.

Yes. Retaliation can take many forms — demotion, pay cuts, denied promotions, transfers to undesirable positions, formal discipline, exclusion from meetings or projects, harassment, and threats can all constitute retaliation. The legal standard is whether the action would dissuade a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity. Many of the firm’s retaliation cases involve workers who are still employed but facing escalating adverse actions short of termination.

Legally, whistleblowing means reporting actual or suspected illegal activity, fraud, safety violations, or other misconduct by an employer to a person or entity authorized to receive and investigate such reports. The specific legal protections vary by statute and depend on what was reported, who it was reported to, and the relationship between the report and the employer’s later adverse action.

Not all complaints or reports qualify for whistleblower protection — but many that workers don’t realize qualify, actually do.

No. Both verbal and written reports can qualify for whistleblower protection under most federal and Texas frameworks. However, written reports — emails, formal complaints, regulatory filings, court documents — provide stronger evidence and stronger case positions.

Even if your report was verbal, the firm may still be able to develop evidence to support your case. Documentation strength affects case value, not necessarily case viability.

This depends on the specific legal framework. Different frameworks protect reports to different recipients. Internal reports to a supervisor with corrective authority, HR, or compliance often qualify. Reports to federal agencies or Inspectors General (OSHA, SEC, DOJ, HHS-OIG) almost always qualify under federal frameworks. Reports to law enforcement and court filings always qualify. Some frameworks (like SOX 806) have specific requirements about internal reporting channels.

The case evaluation form helps the firm identify which framework applies to your situation.

Reporting “up the chain” to higher management, compliance, HR, an Inspector General, or a federal agency typically qualifies for protection even when the misconduct is being done by your immediate supervisor. In fact, many whistleblower cases involve exactly this situation — workers who report their own supervisor’s misconduct and are then retaliated against. The legal protections are specifically designed to cover this circumstance.

The firm typically does not take pre-disclosure inquiries as cases, because whistleblower retaliation protection generally requires that a protected report has been made AND that retaliation followed. However, if you’re considering blowing the whistle and want guidance on how to do so in a way that maximizes legal protection, the firm may be able to provide that guidance during a case evaluation. The most protective approach typically involves both careful documentation and disclosure through proper channels.

Whistleblower protection generally applies when you made the report in good faith — meaning you reasonably believed the conduct you reported was illegal, fraudulent, or violated safety rules. You don’t have to be ultimately right about whether the conduct was actually illegal; what matters is whether your belief was reasonable.

Employers often defend retaliation claims by arguing the underlying report was wrong, but this defense usually fails if you had a reasonable basis to believe what you reported.

Sabine Pilot is a Texas common-law doctrine — first established in Sabine Pilot Service v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985) — that protects employees who refuse to commit a criminal act at their employer’s direction. Under Sabine Pilot, an employer cannot terminate an employee for refusing to perform an illegal act. The doctrine is narrow: it applies only to refusals to commit acts that would actually be crimes carrying criminal penalties.

Yes. Sabine Pilot specifically protects refusals to commit acts that would be crimes carrying criminal penalties — things like fraud, falsifying records, violating safety regulations, hiding evidence, environmental crimes, and similar. Refusing to do something distasteful, unprofessional, or merely a civil violation generally does NOT qualify under Sabine Pilot — though other legal theories (like federal whistleblower retaliation) may still apply.

This is one of the most common Sabine Pilot questions, and the answer requires careful analysis. The firm evaluates whether what you were asked to do actually maps to a criminal statute carrying penalties. If yes, Sabine Pilot may apply. If no, other theories — including federal whistleblower retaliation, hostile environment, or breach of contract — may still apply. The case evaluation form helps the firm make this assessment.

No, not under recent Texas appellate doctrine. Under Higginbotham v. Allwaste, Inc. and related cases, Sabine Pilot protects employees who refused in a way the employer reasonably understood as a refusal — even without explicit invocation of illegality. This includes “subtle directive” refusals, where an employee found ways to avoid performing the illegal act without explicitly confronting management. The strength of the refusal still matters, but explicit confrontation is not required.

The subtle directive doctrine recognizes that employees often refuse illegal directives indirectly — by delay, by raising other concerns, by suggesting alternatives, by simply not performing the task — rather than through explicit confrontation. Under this doctrine, Sabine Pilot can apply even where an employee did not say “I refuse because that’s illegal.”

What matters is whether the employer was on notice that the employee would not perform the illegal task. The firm’s pending Kraus v. Wood Group USA matter applies this framework directly.

Texas Labor Code § 451 is a Texas statute prohibiting employers from retaliating against employees who file or have filed a workers’ compensation claim, hired a lawyer for a workers’ compensation claim, instituted a proceeding under the workers’ compensation laws, or testified in any such proceeding. The statute provides for substantial damages — including back pay, front pay, mental anguish, and exemplary damages where the retaliation was malicious.

Not necessarily. Under the firm’s published authority in Salas v. Fluor Daniel Services Corp., 616 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. denied), § 451 protects employees who reported a workers’ compensation injury and received medical treatment — even where the employee has not yet filed the official claim paperwork. Reporting an injury or seeking medical treatment can be enough to trigger protection.

Texas is the only state that lets employers opt out of carrying workers’ compensation insurance. Employers that opt out are called “non-subscribers.” If your employer is a non-subscriber, your legal options expand substantially — you can sue directly for negligence under common law without being limited by the workers’ comp exclusive remedy bar. Both the underlying injury and any retaliation can be pursued together, often creating substantially larger cases than non-subscriber matters.

Damages under § 451 may include lost wages (back pay and front pay), mental anguish damages, exemplary (punitive) damages where the conduct was malicious, court costs, and attorney’s fees. The firm’s anchor § 451 verdict — the $1.73 million verdict in Alleyton Resource Co. v. Ball — included $750,000 in exemplary damages on a gross negligence finding. Specific damages depend on the facts of each case.

Exemplary damages (also called punitive damages) are damages awarded to punish particularly bad conduct and deter similar conduct in the future. Under Texas law, exemplary damages may be awarded where the defendant acted with malice or gross negligence. Texas caps exemplary damages at the greater of $200,000 or two times economic damages plus an amount equal to non-economic damages up to $750,000.

The firm handles race discrimination matters under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA, codified at Texas Labor Code Chapter 21). The firm represents Texas workers across all races and ethnicities who have experienced racial discrimination — including disparate treatment (termination, demotion, denial of promotion, unequal discipline), hostile work environment, and pay discrimination.

Three different laws can apply to race discrimination claims, with different requirements and remedies. Title VII (federal) prohibits race discrimination by employers with 15+ employees and requires filing with the EEOC within 300 days. § 1981 (federal) prohibits race discrimination in contracts (including employment) and has a 4-year limitations period. The TCHRA (Texas) prohibits race discrimination by employers with 15+ employees and requires filing with the Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division within 180 days.

The firm typically pursues claims under whichever frameworks provide the strongest theory and remedies for the specific case.

Most race discrimination cases are proven through circumstantial evidence rather than direct racial statements. Evidence may include: comparator treatment (you were treated worse than similarly-situated coworkers of a different race), pattern evidence (your employer has treated other people of your race similarly), pretext (the reason given for the adverse action doesn’t match the facts), and statistical patterns. Direct evidence is rare but powerful when it exists; circumstantial evidence is the foundation of most cases.

A hostile work environment is workplace harassment severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment. To be actionable, the conduct must be unwelcome, based on a protected characteristic (race, sex, etc.), severe or pervasive, and not adequately addressed by the employer. Single incidents can sometimes qualify if severe enough (particularly racial slurs from supervisors), but most hostile environment cases involve patterns of conduct over time.

The company can be liable for coworker harassment, but under a different standard than supervisor harassment. For coworker harassment, the employer is liable only if the employer knew or should have known about the harassment AND failed to take appropriate corrective action. This is why internal complaints matter so much in coworker harassment cases — they establish that the employer had notice. For supervisor harassment, the employer is strictly liable in many situations.

Sexual harassment includes unwanted touching, sexual assault, sexual comments or jokes, requests for sexual favors, sexual images or content, quid pro quo (where job benefits are tied to sexual conduct), retaliation after rejecting sexual advances, and general hostile work environments based on sex or gender. To be legally actionable, the conduct generally must be unwelcome, severe or pervasive, and based on sex.

Single severe incidents — including sexual assault — can be actionable on their own.

Quid pro quo sexual harassment is where job benefits — promotion, raise, continued employment, work assignments — are tied to sexual conduct. (“If you sleep with me, you’ll get the promotion.”) Hostile work environment is where workplace conduct is severe or pervasive enough to alter working conditions, even without explicit transactional demands. Both are actionable; the proof structure differs slightly. Many cases involve elements of both.

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 401-402), passed in 2022, lets employees with sexual harassment claims void predispute arbitration agreements at their election. This means that employees who had been required to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment can now choose to bring their sexual harassment claims in court instead of being forced into arbitration.

The firm has published Texas appellate authority on the EFAA via SJ Medical Center, L.L.C. v. Anozie, briefed by Jeff Avery.

No, not automatically. The EFAA gives the employee the right to elect not to be bound by the arbitration agreement for a sexual harassment claim — it’s the employee’s choice. If you signed an arbitration agreement and want to bring sexual harassment claims in court rather than arbitration, the firm can help you evaluate and exercise that election. The EFAA can also be invoked even years after the arbitration agreement was signed.

You can still have a viable sexual harassment claim. Telling the harasser to stop is itself a form of reporting that can satisfy legal requirements. Even if you didn’t report formally to HR, you may still have a case — particularly where the harassment was severe (touching, assault), the harasser was a supervisor, or you reasonably feared retaliation if you reported. The case evaluation form helps the firm assess your specific situation.

Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (18 U.S.C. § 1514A) protects employees of publicly traded companies, their subsidiaries, and certain contractors who report financial fraud, securities violations, or other corporate misconduct. SOX 806 has a 180-day filing window with OSHA and then a 180-day period to bring the case in federal court de novo. Under Lawson v. FMR LLC, 571 U.S. 429 (2014), SOX coverage extends to contractors and subcontractors of publicly traded companies, not just direct employees.

The False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq.) is a federal statute that allows private citizens — including employees — to sue on behalf of the United States government for fraud against federal programs. These cases are called “qui tam” cases.

The whistleblower (called a “relator”) files the case under seal and gives the government time to decide whether to intervene. If successful, the relator receives between 15% and 30% of the government’s recovery. The FCA also has its own anti-retaliation provision (§ 3730(h)) protecting employees who pursue qui tam cases or report fraud internally.

41 U.S.C. § 4712 protects employees of civilian federal contractors, subcontractors, grantees, and subgrantees from retaliation for disclosing fraud, waste, abuse, or violations of law to federal officials. It has a 3-year statute of limitations and provides for uncapped compensatory damages, reinstatement, and attorney’s fees. The disclosure must be made to one of seven authorized recipients (Inspector General, federal agency, Congress, etc.).

NDAA § 4712 is one of the strongest federal whistleblower frameworks for employees of federal contractors and grantees.

The Federal Railroad Safety Act (49 U.S.C. § 20109) protects railroad workers — including employees of Union Pacific, BNSF, and other railroads — from retaliation for reporting safety violations, refusing to work in dangerous conditions, or reporting on-duty injuries. FRSA uses the AIR21-family contributing-factor framework, where the employee only needs to show that the protected activity was a “contributing factor” in the adverse action. The firm’s $359K Garza v. Union Pacific OSHA Findings Order applied this framework.

The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (49 U.S.C. § 31105) protects commercial truck drivers from retaliation for refusing to drive in unsafe conditions, reporting safety violations, or other protected activities related to commercial motor vehicle safety. Like FRSA, STAA uses the contributing-factor framework. STAA covers long-haul, oilfield, regional, and last-mile commercial drivers.

Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Act (15 U.S.C. § 78u-6) created the SEC whistleblower program, which protects individuals who report securities violations directly to the SEC. The program offers monetary awards of 10% to 30% of any sanctions over $1 million, has a 6-year statute of limitations, and provides direct federal court access for retaliation claims (no administrative exhaustion required). Dodd-Frank is one of the most powerful whistleblower frameworks for financial services workers.

Texas Health and Safety Code § 161.134 prohibits retaliation against hospital, mental health facility, or treatment facility employees who report violations of law, complain about patient care quality, or refuse to engage in conduct they reasonably believe violates the law. It’s a key protection for nurses, physicians, technicians, and other healthcare workers at Texas hospitals. The statute provides for substantial damages including mental anguish and punitive damages.

Texas Health and Safety Code § 260A.014 protects long-term care facility employees from retaliation for reporting abuse, neglect, or violations of law affecting residents. The protection applies to skilled nursing facilities, assisted living facilities, memory care, hospice, home health, and similar settings. The firm’s recent $375,681 Sea Breeze § 260A.014 AAA Final Award demonstrates the firm’s depth in this practice.

The firm does not handle standalone Texas Board of Nursing complaint defense or peer review defense. However, where the BON complaint or peer review proceeding is itself part of a retaliatory pattern — for example, when an employer files a retaliatory BON complaint against a nurse who reported safety violations — the firm represents the affected worker in the broader retaliation matter, which may include addressing the underlying complaint or proceeding as part of the representation. The retaliatory BON complaint becomes both evidence of retaliation and something the firm helps navigate as part of representing you on the retaliation claim.

Texas Occupations Code Chapter 301 (the Nurse Practice Act) includes specific anti-retaliation protections for nurses who report patient safety concerns through proper channels, refuse to engage in conduct that violates nursing standards, or invoke their professional duty to advocate for patient safety. Combined with § 161.134 and other protections, Texas nurses have multiple statutory frameworks that may apply to a retaliation matter.

Texas Health and Safety Code § 161.135 specifically protects employees who report violations of law to outside agencies (state agencies, federal agencies, law enforcement) regarding hospital, mental health facility, or treatment facility operations. It complements § 161.134 by extending protection to reports made externally rather than only internally.

Texas Family Code § 261.110 protects employees who report child abuse or neglect from retaliation. The protection applies broadly to teachers, healthcare workers, child care employees, social workers, clergy, and others who are mandatory reporters or who voluntarily report. Schools, hospitals, child care facilities, foster care facilities, and similar employers cannot retaliate against employees who make good-faith child abuse reports.

Statutes of limitation vary substantially by the legal framework that applies. Some federal whistleblower frameworks have very short windows — 90 days for STAA, 180 days for SOX 806 and FRSA, 300 days for Title VII filing with the EEOC. Other frameworks have longer windows — 3 years for NDAA § 4712, 4 years for § 1981, 6 years for Dodd-Frank SEC.

The firm prioritizes case evaluation for matters with short deadlines running. The case evaluation form asks for the date of the adverse action precisely so the firm can identify what deadlines apply.

Damages vary by the legal framework that applies to your case. Generally, damages may include: back pay (lost wages from termination to verdict), front pay (projected future lost wages), mental anguish damages, exemplary or punitive damages where the conduct was particularly egregious, reinstatement (return to your job), attorney’s fees and costs, and prejudgment interest. Some frameworks also include doubled or trebled damages in certain circumstances.

The firm’s anchor Ball verdict — $1.73 million including $750,000 in exemplary damages — illustrates the range of recoveries in serious cases.

Timeline varies dramatically based on the legal framework, jurisdiction, complexity of facts, and whether the case settles or goes to trial. Administrative proceedings (OSHA whistleblower cases) can resolve in months. Federal court cases typically take 1-3 years to resolve. Cases that go to trial may take 2-5 years.

The firm prepares every case as if it will be tried to a jury, which generally results in stronger positions for settlement when settlement is appropriate.

Many cases settle before trial, which means many clients do not have to testify in open court. However, almost all cases involve some form of testimony — typically through deposition, which is a sworn statement given before a court reporter (and sometimes a video camera) outside of court. The firm prepares clients carefully for any testimony required. If a case goes to trial, the client typically testifies but is prepared extensively before doing so.

Settlement offers are common in serious employment cases. Whether to accept a settlement depends on the specific terms offered, the strength of the case, the certainty of trial outcomes, and the client’s personal priorities. The firm advises clients carefully about settlement offers, but the decision is always the client’s. The firm does not settle cases without client authorization, and many cases that ultimately go to trial received earlier settlement offers that turned out to be far below the eventual trial verdict.