The Murphy Law Practice

The Murphy Law Practice Board Certified Labor & Employment Attorney

⚖️ I discuss workplace rights, issues, and cases.

Board certified employment lawyer who is striving to educate employees & working daily eradicate (employment) discrimination....

09/06/2026

Your EEOC charge needs more than “I was discriminated against.”

That’s the conclusion. The facts are what matter.

What happened? When did it happen? Who was involved? What did you complain about? Why do you believe the action was connected to your race, s*x, disability, age, religion—or another protected basis? And if you’re alleging retaliation, what protected activity came before it?

You don’t need to include every bad thing that ever happened at work.

You need to tell a clear factual story that connects what happened to why you believe it was unlawful.

That distinction matters.

09/03/2026

Your exit interview probably shouldn’t be the first time your employer hears about discrimination or harassment you experienced at work.

Why? Because when and how you reported the conduct can matter later.

An exit interview can create evidence—but waiting until your last day to report months of misconduct may also give your employer an argument that it never had an opportunity to investigate or correct the problem.

Document problems while they’re happening. And if you’re considering legal action, get advice before the exit interview—not after.

08/30/2026

Pannek v US Bank/2026 case.
An employer having a legitimate explanation for your termination doesn’t necessarily end the analysis.

The next question is whether the evidence supports that explanation—or suggests it may be pretext for something unlawful.

Timing. Decisionmaker comments. Internal communications. Departures from normal procedures. Those details can matter.

In Pannek v. U.S. Bank, the Sixth Circuit found enough conflicting evidence for the employees’ retaliation claims to continue.

Important: the employees have not won their case. A jury may or may not ultimately accept the employer’s explanation.

But the case is a good example of why employment lawyers don’t stop at: “What reason did the company give?”

We ask: Does the evidence support it?

08/28/2026

“You can resign… or we can fire you.”

That may sound like a simple choice. It isn’t.

Whether you resign or allow the employer to terminate you can affect how your separation is characterized, how potential employment claims and remedies are evaluated, and what evidence exists about who actually ended the employment relationship—and why.

So if HR gives you that choice, don’t assume resignation is automatically the “better” option.

If possible, ask questions. Ask for time. Find out whether severance is being offered. Ask how the separation will be documented and what reason the employer intends to give for termination.

And if there’s an agreement involved, understand what you’re signing—and what you may be releasing—before you sign it.

“Resign or be fired” isn’t a choice between good and bad. It’s a choice between different legal and practical consequences.

⚖️ Educational information only. Not legal advice.

WorkplaceRights EmploymentAttorney

The fact you almost didn’t mention may be the fact your employment lawyer cares about most.People often come into a cons...
08/25/2026

The fact you almost didn’t mention may be the fact your employment lawyer cares about most.

People often come into a consultation prepared to tell me why what happened was unfair.

I’m listening to that.

But I’m also listening for the sentence you almost skipped.

“Actually, I complained to HR three weeks before that abt the discrimination I’ve faced because of my gender.”

“My reviews were good until this new supervisor came in.”

“Wait—I think I still have that email.”

“She did the same thing, but she wasn’t disciplined.”

“They originally gave me a completely different reason.”

Wait. Go back.

Because employment cases often turn on details employees don’t realize have legal significance: timing, comparators, changing explanations, prior reviews, witnesses, documents, and what happened immediately before the employer acted.

None of those facts automatically means you have a legal claim.

But they may change the analysis.

So when you talk to an employment lawyer, don’t just give them your conclusion.

Give them the timeline. Give them the weird detail. Give them the thing you almost left out.

We’ll figure out whether it matters.

And sometimes?

It matters a lot.

Save this one. You may not know which fact matters until somebody asks the right question.

Legal information only. Not legal advice.

Your employer probably isn’t going to write, “We’re firing you because of your race.”So employment lawyers often look at...
08/25/2026

Your employer probably isn’t going to write, “We’re firing you because of your race.”

So employment lawyers often look at circumstantial evidence—facts that, taken together, may support an inference of discrimination.

That can include:

Comparators. Were similarly situated employees outside your protected class treated differently?

Suspicious timing. Did something significant/protected happen shortly before the employment decision?

Changing explanations. Has the employer’s reason for the decision shifted over time?

Departures from normal procedure. Did the employer suddenly stop following its usual policies or practices?

Comments or statements. Were there remarks that may reflect bias, particularly from someone involved in the decision?

Patterns. Is what happened to you part of something larger?

Weaknesses in the employer’s stated reason. Does the documentation actually support what the employer now says happened?

And sometimes there is direct evidence. But you don’t necessarily need someone to admit discrimination to prove discrimination.

The important part is this:

One suspicious fact may not prove much by itself.

Employment lawyers look at how the facts fit together.

That’s why the better question often isn’t:

“Do I have proof?”

It’s:

“What evidence exists, and what does it show when we put it all together?”

⚖️ Legal information only. Not legal advice.

If you’re told only: “Denied.”Ask:“Why was my request denied, and is there another accommodation that would be effective...
08/24/2026

If you’re told only: “Denied.”

Ask:

“Why was my request denied, and is there another accommodation that would be effective?”

A denial of your requested accommodation does not necessarily end the accommodation process.

08/23/2026

He worked from home during COVID. Then he asked to keep working from home as a disability accommodation. His employer said no.

So who won?

The employer.

Welcome to Cases & Coffee ☕️⚖️ — a new series where I break down real employment law cases: what happened, who won, and most importantly, why.

First up: Hayes v. GStek, a 2026 Fifth Circuit ADA case.

This case is a good reminder that reasonable accommodation law is more complicated than:

“My doctor says I need it, so my employer has to give it to me.”

Hayes had diagnosed disabilities. His employer knew about them. He requested full-time remote work. He had even worked remotely during COVID.

Those were meaningful facts.

But they weren’t the only facts that mattered.

The court focused heavily on whether in-person attendance was an essential function of this particular job—including the Army’s requirement that contractors work on site, how others performing the job worked, and concerns related to supervision and communication. The employer had also already permitted Hayes to work remotely two to three days each week.

Hayes ultimately lost his failure-to-accommodate, disability-discrimination, and retaliation claims.

And there’s another lesson buried in the case: Hayes pursued separate claims against the Army, but his EEO complaint against the Army was untimely. Those claims were dismissed, and he did not appeal that ruling.

My takeaway?

Don’t evaluate an accommodation dispute based solely on whether you have a disability or whether your doctor supports the accommodation.

Ask the harder questions:

What are the essential functions of this specific job?
Why does the employer say your requested accommodation won’t work?
Is there another effective accommodation?
And what evidence supports each side?

That’s where the legal analysis happens.

And please—watch your deadlines. A potentially important claim can still be an untimely one.

☕️ Hayes v. GStek, Inc., No. 24-30620 (5th Cir. May 20, 2026).

⚖️ Educational information only. Not legal advice.

EmployeeRights EmploymentAttorney

Address

24 Greenway Plaza
Houston, TX
77046

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 6pm
Tuesday 9am - 6pm
Wednesday 9am - 6pm
Thursday 9am - 6pm
Friday 9am - 6pm

Telephone

+18325643804

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when The Murphy Law Practice posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share