<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.9.1 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:53:22 GMT--><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><title>Firm News &amp; Articles</title><subtitle>Firm News &amp; Articles</subtitle><id>http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/</id><link rel="alternate" type="application/xhtml+xml" href="http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/"/><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/atom.xml"/><updated>2009-09-30T13:44:15Z</updated><generator uri="http://www.squarespace.com/" version="Squarespace Site Server v5.9.1 (http://www.squarespace.com/)">Squarespace</generator><entry><title>Government Sues AT&amp;T for Disability Discrimination</title><id>http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/9/30/government-sues-att-for-disability-discrimination.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/9/30/government-sues-att-for-disability-discrimination.html"/><author><name>Chris McKinney</name></author><published>2009-09-30T13:43:34Z</published><updated>2009-09-30T13:43:34Z</updated><summary type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>AT&amp;T Services, Inc., doing business as Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, L.P. (AT&amp;T), a major telephone company, violated federal law by refusing to hire an applicant simply because he is an insulin-dependent diabetic, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed last week.]]></summary></entry><entry><title>COBRA Health Insurance Subsidies for Recently Terminated Employees</title><id>http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/9/30/cobra-health-insurance-subsidies-for-recently-terminated-emp.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/9/30/cobra-health-insurance-subsidies-for-recently-terminated-emp.html"/><author><name>Chris McKinney</name></author><published>2009-09-30T13:39:19Z</published><updated>2009-09-30T13:39:19Z</updated><summary type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Many employers and employees appear to still be unaware of the temporary COBRA premium reduction passed by Congress. Here is some background:</p>]]></summary></entry><entry><title>Unemployment Compensation in Texas - Frequently Asked Questions</title><category term="Texas"/><category term="Unemployment Compensation"/><id>http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/8/31/unemployment-compensation-in-texas-frequently-asked-question.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/8/31/unemployment-compensation-in-texas-frequently-asked-question.html"/><author><name>Chris McKinney</name></author><published>2009-08-31T04:48:18Z</published><updated>2009-08-31T04:48:18Z</updated><summary type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[More often than not, individuals do not hire attorneys to represent them with regard to unemployment compensation because the economics involved make such representation difficult.  Navigating the unemployment system can be difficult however.   So we have constructed this page to provide some basic information regarding the Texas unemployment insurance system.

At the bottom of the page is a link to a free report with more information regarding unemployment claims in Texas.]]></summary></entry><entry><title>Sexual Harassment These Days is More Subtle and Often Involves New Technology</title><id>http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/8/20/sexual-harassment-these-days-is-more-subtle-and-often-involv.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/8/20/sexual-harassment-these-days-is-more-subtle-and-often-involv.html"/><author><name>Chris McKinney</name></author><published>2009-08-20T05:00:00Z</published><updated>2009-08-20T05:00:00Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>MSNBC has an interesting article out this past week called &quot;<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32365068/ns/business-forbescom/">Where &lsquo;omg, u look gr8&rsquo; can land you in court</a>&quot; in which they look at the evolution of sexual harassment in the modern workplace.&nbsp;</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Welcome to the new sexual harassment. It's (usually) not about the stuff you see on Mad Men, and it's not chasing the secretary around the desk. . . . [It is more subtle now.] Those subtle areas can include everything from flirtation at a company party to a complimentary text message or an unwelcome invitation to discuss the latest project over dinner or drinks.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The article also has some discussion about the implications of the use of social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc) and the fact that it is somewhat easier to misconstrue an instant message or cell phone text message than it is a verbal statement.&nbsp;</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Supreme Court Raises the Burden of Proof for Employees in Age Discrimination Cases</title><category term="Age"/><category term="Discrimination"/><id>http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/7/23/supreme-court-raises-the-burden-of-proof-for-employees-in-ag.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/7/23/supreme-court-raises-the-burden-of-proof-for-employees-in-ag.html"/><author><name>Chris McKinney</name></author><published>2009-07-23T04:50:00Z</published><updated>2009-07-23T04:50:00Z</updated><summary type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-size: small;">All the focus these past few weeks as been on the Supreme Court's Decision in <em>Ricci v. <img align="right" alt="" style="width: 170px; height: 127px;" src="http://www.hrlawyersblog.com/uploads/image/Supreme Court(3).jpg" />DeStefano</em> because of its connection to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.&nbsp; However the <em>Ricci</em> decision will, in my opinion, only have a limited effect on the legal landscape.&nbsp; The fact pattern in <em>Ricci</em> is one that just isn't likely to come up all that often.&nbsp; (<em>My opinion on this could change, of course, if political forces start pushing public employers towards more affirmative action efforts.</em>)</span></p>]]></summary></entry><entry><title>University of Phoenix Settles Retaliation Lawsuit</title><category term="Discrimination"/><category term="EEOC"/><category term="Pregnancy"/><category term="Retaliation"/><id>http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/7/14/university-of-phoenix-settles-retaliation-lawsuit.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/7/14/university-of-phoenix-settles-retaliation-lawsuit.html"/><author><name>Chris McKinney</name></author><published>2009-07-14T04:45:00Z</published><updated>2009-07-14T04:45:00Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-size: small;">The </span><a href="http://www.phoenix.edu"><span style="font-size: small;">University of Phoenix</span></a><span style="font-size: small;"> has agreed to pay a former employee $32,500 as part of a settlement of a discrimination claim that has been made public by the EEOC. The University settled the discrimination claim brought by Latrish Elaine Tarhini, who worked as enrollment counselor at the school&rsquo;s Houston campus.<br />
<br />
The EEOC and Tarhini claimed that University of Phoenix management said she would not be in line for a promotion because she made an earlier pregnancy discrimination charge against the Phoenix-based company and its parent, Apollo Group Inc. The EEOC filed suit against UOP in September 2008 in federal court, claiming the for-profit university violated retaliation statutes of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It violates federal law to discriminate against workers who previously filed discrimination claims against their employers.<br />
<br />
The University of Phoenix is a subsidiary of Phoenix-based Apollo Group Inc. (Nasdaq: APOL). It has 397,000 students enrolled in its online and campus classes. The school has 200 campuses worldwide.<br />
&nbsp;</span></p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>EEOC Holding Public Hearing Next Week on Age Discrimination</title><category term="EEOC"/><id>http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/7/11/eeoc-holding-public-hearing-next-week-on-age-discrimination.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/7/11/eeoc-holding-public-hearing-next-week-on-age-discrimination.html"/><author><name>Chris McKinney</name></author><published>2009-07-11T04:44:00Z</published><updated>2009-07-11T04:44:00Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-size: small;">The EEOC&nbsp;has scheduled a public hearing Wednesday, July 15, 2009, at 10 a.m. (Eastern Time), at agency headquarters, 131 M St, NE, Washington, DC., to discuss age discrimination in employment.<br />
<br />
In a release, the agency states that, in light of widespread layoffs, a significant spike in age discrimination charges, threats to employee benefits, and controversial recent court decisions, such a hearing is advisable.&nbsp; At the hearing, experts will discuss the results of age stereotyping on older workers&rsquo; ability to keep their jobs during layoffs or to find work afterwards and the effect of recent controversial Supreme Court decisions on enforcement of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Panelists will suggest potential enforcement and policy solutions. In addition, representatives from recent ADEA cases will discuss their experiences. Finally, the Commission will issue a technical assistance document that explains terminated employees&rsquo; rights and obligations when offered severance pay in exchange for a waiver of discrimination claims.<br />
<br />
The meeting is open for public observation of the Commission&rsquo;s deliberations. Seating is limited and it is suggested that visitors arrive 30 minutes before the meeting in order to be processed through security and escorted to the meeting room.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: small;">Unfortunately, the hearing is not be webcast so its usefulness, in my opinion, is somewhat limited.<br />
<br />
Additional information about the hearing, when available, will be posted at http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/meetings/index.html</span></p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Christopher McKinney Named One of the "Best Employment Lawyers" in San Antonio</title><id>http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/7/9/christopher-mckinney-named-one-of-the-best-employment-lawyer.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/7/9/christopher-mckinney-named-one-of-the-best-employment-lawyer.html"/><author><name>Chris McKinney</name></author><published>2009-07-09T23:00:30Z</published><updated>2009-07-09T23:00:30Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Christopher McKinney has been chosen by his peers as one of "San Antonio's Best Lawyers" in the area of employment law. &nbsp;Few of the city's employment lawyers have been chosen for this award and we are very proud of the selection. &nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="full-image-block ssNonEditable"><span><img style="width: 378px;" src="http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/storage/post-images/McKinney_final.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1247183096069" alt="" /></span><span class="thumbnail-caption" style="width: 378px;">Scene In SA Magazine - July 2009</span></span></p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Supreme Court Rules in Favor of White Firefighters in Ricci Decision</title><id>http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/6/30/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-white-firefighters-in-ricci.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/6/30/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-white-firefighters-in-ricci.html"/><author><name>Chris McKinney</name></author><published>2009-06-30T04:42:00Z</published><updated>2009-06-30T04:42:00Z</updated><summary type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-size: small;">The Supreme Court has ruled in <em>Ricci v. DeStefano</em> that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied <img align="right" alt="" style="width: 191px; height: 143px;" src="http://www.hrlawyersblog.com/uploads/image/Supreme Court(2).jpg" />promotions because of their race.&nbsp; In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court holds that throwing out the district's test results based on the racial distribution of scores is disparate treatment and that fear of a disparate impact lawsuit is not a valid defense to it under Title VII.</span></p>]]></summary></entry><entry><title>Fifth Circuit: ADA Protects Employee with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome</title><category term="ADA"/><category term="Disability"/><id>http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/6/10/fifth-circuit-ada-protects-employee-with-chronic-fatigue-syn.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/firm-news/2009/6/10/fifth-circuit-ada-protects-employee-with-chronic-fatigue-syn.html"/><author><name>Chris McKinney</name></author><published>2009-06-10T04:36:00Z</published><updated>2009-06-10T04:36:00Z</updated><summary type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>A really interesting case out of the Fifth Circuit this past week: <a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/07/07-20661-CV0.wpd.pdf">EEOC v. Chevron Phillips, No. 07-20661 (5th Cir. June 5, 2009)</a>.&nbsp; The case is of interest for a couple of reasons.</p>
<p>First, <em>any </em>Fifth Circuit case that allows an ADA plaintiff to have a jury trial is to a degree notable for that fact alone.]]></summary></entry></feed>