On June 3rd, 2021 The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a $1.7 million dollar judgement in favor of Doyle LLP’s client Joseph Ball against Alleyton Resource Company LLC. Doyle LLP’s team of attorneys in Ball v. Alleyton Resource Company LLC had successfully presented the case to a Fort Bend County District Court Jury who on July 26,2019 awarded Mr. Ball with $1,706,187 in damages, including $164,168 in past wages, $675,519 in future lost wages, $100,000 in past mental anguish, $16,500 in future mental anguish, and $750,000 in punitive damages. The judgement also will come with a substantial amount of interest owed on the $1.7 million dollar judgement over the last couple years. The jury found that Alleyton Resources retaliated and wrongfully terminated Mr. Ball for instituting procedures under the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act.
Doyle LLP’s client drove a ready-mix concrete truck and worked for Alleyton for nearly a decade. After suffering a workplace injury, Mr. Ball instituted worker’s compensation proceedings. As a result, Doyle LLP’s client was fired. Doyle LLP’s team presented evidence in the prior trial that Alleyton Resource Company LLC violated its internal policies, concealed the reason for Ball’s termination, contradicted its basis for the firing, and failed to timely and accurately document the termination.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals found no error in the previous jury trial and their final judgement in Ball v Alleyton. It further rejected Alleyton’s arguments such as that the admissible evidence is factually insufficient to support the jury’s findings that Alleyton terminated Ball because he had instituted a proceeding under the Texas workers’ compensation statute. Alleyton also asserted that a trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the claims diary into evidence over a hearsay objection, but this argument too was rejected by the Appeals Court. Furthermore, Alleyton in their appeal objected to the jury’s exemplary damages award and its inability to offer certain instructions in the jury charge. The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals further rejected these arguments in upholding the prior judgement in favor of Doyle LLP’s client.
Doyle LLP’s client will now be owed not only the initial $1.7 million dollar judgement but also significant interest earned on that amount as well. Doyle LLP’s team of experienced trial attorneys and staff are proud of their work once again in helping their clients receive adequate compensation and financial support after a life changing work accident. Doyle LLP is proud of their track record in not just this case but the hundreds of cases over previous decades successfully pursued by our team. If you suffer a workplace injury then are retaliated against as a result, please contact the experienced trial attorneys at Doyle LLP to help you pursue the justice you deserve. Our team is eager to continue fighting for clients we believe in their quest for justice. Call today and schedule a free consultation with our team of experienced trial attorneys!
In January 2021, Doyle LLP and co-counsel filed a suit on behalf of our clients who are nationals of the Republic of Kosovo. The suit was filed against CIGNA Defendants, including Life Insurance Company of North America et al, and AECOM Defendants, including AECOM and AC FIRST LLC. The lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of The State of California County of Los Angeles pertains to our clients’ work in Afghanistan for AECOM as part of AECOM’s contracts to provide support services to the United States military personnel. We are proud to assist our clients seeking the compensation and benefits owed to them for their support of American military in Afghanistan.
In 2016, AECOM was awarded the EAGLE-AFG contract by the Army Contracting Command – Rock Island. The EAGLE-AFG is a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract valued at $429 million with 1 base year and 4 option years. Under this contract, AECOM was to provide maintenance, supply, and transportation services to the U.S. and Coalition partners at several locations in Afghanistan, including Kandahar and Bagram Airfields. AECOM used its entities GSS and AC First to supply this labor and fulfill the contract.
Doyle LLP’s clients were employed in Afghanistan from 2012 through 2017 by AECOM. The clients were nominally employed at the time by GSS, but were actually the employees of AC First and AECOM. As part of these contracts for employment, the AECOM defendants represented that they would offer and procure long-term disability insurance for employees working in Afghanistan. Indeed, each of our client’s contract with GSS included, upon agreement of employment, the offer of a benefits plan including Long Term Disability Coverage. The AECOM Defendants told our clients that they had contracted with CIGNA to provide long-term disability insurance. Doyle LLP’s clients accepted the coverage with the AECOM defendants and paid monthly for the CIGNA disability insurance coverage through payroll deductions. AECOM after procurement of the policy through CIGNA was provided coverage to employees, like Doyle LLP’s clients, who worked for either AC First or, nominally, for GSS. This policy went into effect on January 1, 2017.
Despite this promise of coverage, after our clients sustained disabling injuries, they submitted claims to CIGNA for disability coverage. In response, CIGNA closed the claims and alleged that foreign nationals, like Doyle LLP’s clients, were not covered by the CIGNA Policy. Doyle LLP therefore has filed this lawsuit against both the AECOM Defendants and the CIGNA defendants. Doyle LLP’s clients left the safety of their homes in Kosovo to travel into an active war zone in Afghanistan. Our clients provided necessary support for U.S. Military’s operations in the area. During their employment, Doyle LLP’s clients were exposed to repeated life-threatening and graphic events, including mortar, rocket, suicide, and ground attacks. These incidents and other work-related accidents left our clients with very severe and permanent pain, disfigurement, injuries and damage. Due to Defendants’ conduct and failure to procure or pay disability benefits, Doyle LLP’s clients suffered significant economic damage, humiliation, worry, distress, and continuing economic and physical damage. In denying these claims, misrepresenting our clients’ insurance coverage, and /or failing to produce coverage, Defendants additionally acted with oppression, fraud, and malice.
Doyle LLP is proud to support our foreign clients as they supported our US Military. Countless Americans and thousands of civilians, like our clients from Kosovo, support American Military operations across the world. If you are one of these individuals and suffered serious injury and suffering due to the gross negligence of American corporations you may have a claim to recover damages for injuries and associated damages. American companies at fault due to gross negligence can be held liable for their behavior if you were seriously injured or harmed as a result. Doyle Trial Lawyers can help you understand your rights and how to pursue a claim against defendants whose negligent behavior results in severe injuries and damage to individuals. Doyle LLP will not charge you to complete an initial evaluation of your claim. Call us today to discuss your potential claim.
Texas employers often tell their employees that they are working “at-will” in order to suggest that they may take any action against them, including firing them for any reason. However, Texas law provides protections to a variety of employees, including health care workers who suffer from retaliation, termination, or firing by their employer. Doyle Dennis LLP’s lawyers have dedicated years to protecting employees across the United States. Based upon this experience, Doyle Dennis LLP was hired to file suit against a home dialysis company located in Texas for alleged violations of the Texas Occupations Code, Section 301.413. This home dialysis company provides dialysis services to patients who require kidney disease management. The dialysis procedures involve the use of reverse osmosis machines to clean patients’ blood. Because patients’ blood comes in contact with the dialysate solution, the water used to make the dialysate must be extremely clean. The lawsuit alleged that three home dialysis company nurses began reporting to their supervisors that they believed the home dialysis company’s reverse osmosis machines were not cleaned properly and would consequently endanger patients’ health and that the Texas-based home dialysis company failed to take action. The lawsuit also alleged that for seven months, the dialysis company received complaints about the cleanliness of their machines and still did nothing. Instead, the home dialysis company fired the three employees, claiming false bases for their terminations, in violation of the Texas Occupations Code. According to Section 301.4025 of the Texas Occupations Code, an employer may not retaliate against a nurse who reports in good faith that she had reasonable cause to believe that a given situation exposed a patient to substantial risk of harm. Thus, the three home dialysis nurses pursued protected activity under the Texas Occupations Code.
Doyle Dennis LLP is proud to represent employees who were wrongfully terminated by their employer. If you have experienced discrimination or wrongful termination, call us for a free evaluation of your potential legal claim.
Doyle Dennis LLP’s attorneys have filed suit to protect the rights of six Port of Houston Firefighters Union Members, who were victims of wrongful termination, in violation of the United States Constitution and Texas law.
The Port Firefighter Union leaders were proud to protect their community as firefighters for the Port of Houston Authority, with a combined tenure of over 60 years of dedicated service. They together constituted nearly the entire leadership of the International Association of Fire Fighters (“IAFF”) Local 1316 at Port Houston, including the President, Vice President, Treasurer, and Secretary.
The Port Firefighter Union leaders regularly participated in the activities of IAFF Local 1316, including speaking out for the union and its members regarding matters of public interest and concern. The Port Firefighter Union leaders spoke out and engaged in collective efforts with the Port Houston regarding firefighters’ compensation, schedules, and discipline mismanagement. William Buck, the Fire Chief of Port Houston, and others in the upper administration at Port Houston, actively opposed these measures and efforts by the Port Firefighter Union leaders.
In addition, the Port Firefighter Union leaders also spoke out regarding issues of public safety, including the implementation of an Active Shooter Hostile Event Response program (ASHER). In particular, the IAFF recommended this program for the protection of firefighters through providing them body armor and emergency trauma equipment to respond to ongoing hostile events. Similarly, the Port Firefighter Union leaders also spoke out regarding health concerns that arose from a cement plant that Port Houston had instituted next to Fire Station 2. In part, by speaking out regarding these important public safety issues, the Port Firefighter Union leaders were able to assist in remedying this hazard. Indeed, Port Houston ultimately created a second “dust free” cement facility.
Based upon this background, the suit alleges: in an attempt to stifle and deter the Constitutional rights of the Port Firefighter Union leaders and other firefighters working for Port Houston, Chief Buck and Chief Port Security and Emergency Operations (“PSEO”) Officer Marcus Woodring (together, Defendants”) retaliated against and terminated the Port Firefighter Union leaders from their employment at Port Houston. Defendants took this retaliatory action against the Port Firefighter Union leaders for exercising their Constitutional and lawful rights to freely associate and engage in protected speech, in violation of the rights safeguarded under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Texas law. These actions essentially decapitated the Port Firefighters Union leadership in one fell swoop.
To remedy Defendants’ wrongful conduct, the Port Firefighter Union leaders filed this lawsuit against William Buck, individually, and Marcus Woodring, individually. Because Defendants have violated federal law, the Port Firefighter Union leaders seek damages against Defendants in their individual capacity for their violations of the Port Firefighter Union leaders’ First and Fourteenth amendment rights, as protected by 42 U.S.C §1983.
In addition, the Port Firefighter Union leaders have filed an application for equitable relief to remedy Defendants’ unlawful conduct. The suit alleges ultra vires actions by state officials, including taking disciplinary action without following the requirements set forth by the Texas Legislature for protection of first responders.
In particular, Texas law mandates the following requirements before the illegal disciplinary action to be restrained herein may be taken:
Gov’t Code § 614.022 mandates that “[t]o be considered by the head of a state agency or by the head of a fire department or local law enforcement agency, the complaint must be: (1) in writing; and (2) signed by the person making the complaint.”
Similarly, Tex. Gov’t Code § 614.023, states as follows: (a) A copy of a signed complaint against a law enforcement officer of this state or a fire fighter, detention officer, county jailer, or peace officer appointed or employed by a political subdivision of this state shall be given to the officer or employee within a reasonable time after the complaint is filed. (b) Disciplinary action may not be taken against the officer or employee unless a copy of the signed complaint is given to the officer or employee. (c) In addition to the requirement of Subsection (b), the officer or employee may not be indefinitely suspended or terminated from employment based on the subject matter of the complaint unless: (1) the complaint is investigated; and (2) there is evidence to prove the allegation of misconduct.
Defendants refused to follow these mandatory requirements, refusing even after request to provide a written complaint; identify a complainant; within a reasonable time. In light of these violations of Texas law, Port Firefighter Union leaders requested that the Court enter a declaratory judgment and declare as follows:
Port Houston violated Tex. Labor Code §§ 101.001, 101.052, and 101.301 and Texas Government Code § 617.004. by terminating and then reinstating on administrative leave the Plaintiffs.
Port Houston violated Texas Government Code Sections 614.023 and 614.022 because it failed to provide the Port Firefighter Union leaders with copy of the complaint(s), which formed the basis for the terminations and suspensions, within a reasonable time after that complaint was filed.
The Port Firefighter Union leaders further requested that the Court enter a preliminary and final injunction and enter a temporary and permanent restraining order, as follows:
Defendants be restrained and enjoined from taking adverse employment action against the Port Firefighter Union leaders related to the complaints, which formed the basis for the terminations and suspensions of the Plaintiffs because Defendants failed to provide them with the complaint within a reasonable time after that complaint was filed.
Defendants be restrained and enjoined from taking adverse employment action against the Port Firefighter Union leaders related to their union activity as protected by Tex. Labor Code §§ 101.001, 101.052, and 101.301 and Texas Government §Code 617.004.
Defendants be ordered to cease and desist from continuing to deprive the Port Firefighter Union leaders of their legal rights, and from continuing to interfere with and infringe upon their rights
Finally, Port Firefighter Union leaders further requested that the Court grant its petition for mandamus and order the following:
Defendants be restrained and enjoined from taking adverse employment action against the Port Firefighter Union leaders related to the complaints, which formed the basis for the terminations and suspensions of the Plaintiffs because Defendants failed to provide them with the complaint within a reasonable time after that complaint was filed.
Defendants be restrained and enjoined from taking adverse employment action against the Port Firefighter Union leaders related to their union activity as protected by Tex. Labor Code §§ 101.001, 101.052, and 101.301 and Texas Government §Code 617.004.
Defendants be ordered to cease and desist from continuing to deprive the Port Firefighter Union leaders of their legal rights, and from continuing to interfere with and infringe upon their rights
Finally, Port Firefighter Union leaders further requested that the Court grant its petition for mandamus and order the following:
Defendants expunge and correct all files to eliminate any reference to Plaintiffs’ termination or suspensions, as well as any infractions they were cited for during their employment arising from the claims herein;
Defendants reinstate Plaintiffs to their positions and remove them from administrative leave.
Finally, Plaintiffs requested award their costs and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees.
Doyle Dennis LLP is proud to represent these firefighters and union members, who have dedicated their lives to public service. If you have been subjected to wrongful or discriminatory work practices, including wrongful termination or suspension, contact the lawyers at Doyle Dennis LLP for a no-charge initial evaluation of your claim.
Doyle Dennis LLP’s lawyers have proudly represented doctors for years. In fact, our lawyers already secured a $6.3 million verdict for a Texas doctor who the jurors confirmed was defamed and disparaged by Memorial Hermann Health System in attempt to protect its business interest, instead of patient safety. Our attorneys provide strong legal representation to physicians. In light of our firm’s extensive experience with doctors and health care workers, we were recently hired to represent a physician in a lawsuit pending against CHI St. Luke’s Health for retaliation for speaking out for his patients.
Acting on his duty as a physician, our client reported several issues relating to patient endangerment, quality improvement, and other problems that he observed. In response, the hospital and its staff began taking steps to discredit our client’s reputation. In an effort to identify and respond to patients with early signs of clinical deterioration, St. Luke’s implemented a “Rapid Response System” (RRS), which in part requires that a “Rapid Response Team” (RRT) contact the primary physician when transferring patients to the ICU. However, the RRS often fails to contact the primary physician, thereby endangering the health and safety of patients. Our client believed this practice was in violation of state law and began reporting his concerns. Our client continued to raise concerns regarding the RRT and the ICU. Following his reports, he was subjected to several retaliatory actions. Our client was also warned that his actions would be the subject of the exact type of retaliation he eventually faced. Shortly after, false accusations were made against him, and his hard-earned career was shattered.
Texas law provides strong protections for physicians. Under the Texas Health and Safety Code, a hospital may not retaliate against a person for reporting a violation of law. The statute also provides that hospitals must afford physicians due process when considering applications for medical staff membership and privileges or the renewal, modification, or revocation of medical staff membership and privileges. Despite these laws to protect patient safety and those that speak out for their protection, CHI St. Luke’s acted directly against our client after he stood up for his patients and their families.
Doyle Dennis LLP is proud to represent physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals who have been retaliated against for standing up for their patients. If you have experienced discrimination, wrongful termination, or retaliation by your employer, contact us for a free evaluation of your potential legal claim.
