Texas Attorney General Joins Law Firm's Constitutional Challenge to Dallas Sick Leave Ordinance
The State of Texas on Tuesday joined a Dallas-area law firm’s and company’s lawsuit against the City of Dallas, attacking the constitutionality…
August 07, 2019 at 03:10 PM
4 minute read
The State of Texas on Tuesday joined a Dallas-area law firm’s and company’s lawsuit against the City of Dallas, attacking the constitutionality of the city’s new sick leave ordinance, which requires private employers to give paid sick time to their workers.
Now the state and Hagan Law Group, a management-side employment firm headquartered in the Collin County town of Allen, and a Plano-based staffing agency called ESI/Employee Solutions allege in ESI/Employee Solutions v. City of Dallas that the new sick leave ordinance violates the U.S. and state Constitutions and clashes with a state minimum wage law.
Austin’s Third Court of Appeals in November 2018 struck down a similar sick leave ordinance by the City of Austin, and ordered a trial court to grant a temporary injunction to stop its enforcement. The city is appealing to the Texas Supreme Court. San Antonio is also facing a lawsuit over a similar sick leave ordinance, and last month it agreed to delay the law’s effective date until Dec. 1.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement that in light of the legal challenges in other cities, the Dallas City Council’s passing of its sick leave ordinance demonstrates “lawlessness and disregard for working Texans that is becoming all too common among local governments in our larger cities.”
“Not only would this ordinance harm the ability of Texans to find and keep jobs, it is a blatant attempt to silence the millions of other voters throughout our state who disagree with the agenda of urban elites, even after the courts have made it clear they cannot do so,” Paxton said.
Seeking injunctive relief, the plaintiffs are suing the city, its city manager and its human rights office director. Although based in Allen, Hagan law claimed that the city’s paid sick leave ordinance will impact the firm because one of its employees works in Dallas, the Aug. 6 amended complaint said.
Hagan Law argued that the sick leave ordinance would require it to get new time tracking software, train staff on the new software and issue monthly statements, for a total cost of $6,400 the first year and $4,000 per year afterward. The cost of sick leave for its Dallas lawyer could be $14,000 per year plus payroll taxes, said the complaint.
The firm claimed it might have to “delay planned wage increases or bonuses for other staff. It could have to raise rates for clients,” the complaint said. “It is also possible that plaintiff Hagan would be forced to cancel its $5,500 per year Westlaw subscription, [and] cancel plans to replace antiquated computer equipment.”
The plaintiffs argue the ordinance clashes with the Texas Minimum Wage Act, which allows the state to set minimum wages and prohibits cities from telling private businesses’ what minimum wages they must pay to workers.
“The paid sick leave ordinance requires employers to pay minimum wage to employees for hours those employees have not actually worked, thereby pushing those employees’ hourly wage above the minimum wage ceiling set by Texas law,” they alleged.
The plaintiffs also argue the ordinance is unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution, which states that cities can’t enact ordinances that are inconsistent with state law. They claim additional violations of the U.S. Constitution’s First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. They’re seeking injunctive relief to stop the city from enforcing the sick leave ordinance and costs, expenses and attorney fees.
Robert Henneke, director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Center for the American Future, who represents Hagan Law and ESI, said in a statement that the ordinance discriminates against his clients for being at-will employers and threatens them with unconstitutional searches.
“The numerous constitutional problems with Dallas’ ordinance demand a remedy,” Henneke said. “We aim to help provide it.”
Dallas spokeswoman Roxana Rubio declined to comment.
|Read the amended complaint:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEven With New Business Courts, Texas Is a Long Way from Taking Delaware's Corporate Law Mantle
5 minute read'Courts Do Get It Wrong': Legal Experts Discuss State-Law Certification Pros and Cons
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 2Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 3US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 4Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 5McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250