Attorney Kevin Madison settled a sexual harassment claim against a North Texas doctor for the sum of $25,000.00.
- Practice Areas
Attorney Kevin Madison settled a sexual harassment claim against a North Texas doctor for the sum of $25,000.00.
Just filed a lawsuit against a CPS (Child Protective Services) Investigator employed by the State of Texas for sending lewd text messages and pornographic photo to a woman he was investigating. Suit filed on January 1, 2018 in Travis County Court at Law.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT/EXPLOITATION ATTORNEY KEVIN MADISON JUST SETTLED A CLAIM AGAINST A TEXAS MAN WHO INFECTED HIS SEXUAL PARTNER WITH HERPES VIRUS FOR $150,000.00. At the Law Offices of Kevin R. Madison, P.C., Attorney Kevin R. Madison has settled cases throughout Texas for Intentional, Reckless, and Negligent Transmission of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (Herpes Simplex Virus) for amounts that range from $25,000 to over $160,000. Although the most common STD claims are usually Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV) claims, we handle all types of sexually transmitted disease claims, including: Herpes, HIV, AIDS, Hepatitis, Human Papillomavirus (HPV), Genital Warts, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID), and Chlamydia. Call for a free telephone or office consultation. (512) 708-1650. All consultations are held in the strictest of confidence. We have a female Registered Nurse on staff for those who prefer to discuss their case with a female medical provider.
Sexual Harassment at Work (copyright 2017)
Sexual Harassment occurs when an employer, supervisor, or co-employee makes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or unwanted physical contact that is offensive or lewd.
Employees have the legal right to assert sexual harassment claims against their employer based on sexual harassment and sexual discrimination at the workplace if the employer fails to take corrective action or violates a mandate contained in federal or state regulations.
These cases are brought under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII. The complaint is filed by an individual or their attorney with the Texas Workforce Commission or the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Claims pursued against employers under the 1064 Civil Rights Act can only be investigated and pursued if your employer has 15 or more full-time employees. The first question a labor law attorney will probably ask you is, “how many full-time employees does your employer have.”
What do employees do when they work for a small business or just one boss? At my law firm, we do not handle EEOC cases. We do not have to worry about the onerous time reporting limitations, some as short as 180 days, and 15 employee threshold requirements of federal and state civil rights laws.
We pursue sexual harassment cases against employers, business owners, and high-level supervisors using Common Law (case law not statutes). Case law that comes from our English Justice system. For hundreds of years, England and America have recognized the legal right of an assault victim (physical assault with bodily injury and even offensive touching) to sue their assailant.
In cases that involve groping, touching, or outrageous intentional lewd conduct, we assert a claim of “civil assault” against the offender. Civil charges of Assault by Contact and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress are utilized to pursue business owners and upper level management (President, Vice President, CEO, Directors, etc.) who sexually harass and physically assault an employee. Some examples of illegal conduct by an employer or a high-level supervisor include:
• Repeated unwelcome comments of a sexual or lewd nature to an employee
• Sending lewd or pornographic emails, text messages, or voicemail to an employee
• Unwelcome groping or touching of an employee
• Unwelcome kissing of an employee
• Sexual assault of an employee
• Requesting sexual acts from an employee
• Describing sexual fantasies about an employee to that employee
In Texas, it is illegal for an employer to even touch an employee in a manner that would be considered offensive or provocative by a reasonable person.
We have obtained monetary damage recoveries against doctors, lawyers, business owners, and others who have molested their employees by kissing their employees, touching their employees’ buttocks or breasts, and even lewd and lascivious behavior, such as making repeated and unwelcome lewd comments of a sexual nature.
Send any questions you want answered to: email@example.com. There is never a fee for a confidential telephone or email consultation at my law firm.
Attorney Kevin R. Madison
Suing Your Employer or High-Level Supervisor for Sexual Harassment
Sexual Harassment occurs when an employer or supervisor makes continued unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or unwanted physical contact that is offensive or lewd. At The Law Offices of Kevin R. Madison, P.C. we vigorously pursue cases against employers and high-level supervisors who sexually harass employees. Mr. Madison has pursued business owners, doctors, psychiatrists, lawyers for sexually harassing their employees.
Kevin R. Madison pursues sexual harassment cases against employers, business owners, and high-level supervisors using state laws that prohibit unwelcome touching (“assault by contact”) and outrageous conduct that causes serious emotional distress (“intentional infliction of emotional distress”), rather than using federal Equal Employment Opportunity laws that prohibit sexual harassment.
In cases that involve groping, touching, or outrageous intentional lewd conduct, Mr. Madison pursues the predators using Texas statutes and causes of action recognized by Texas appellate courts (case law). Civil charges of Assault by Contact and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress are utilized to pursue those who sexually harass their employees.
Some examples of illegal conduct by an employer or a high-level supervisor include:
CIVIL TORT CLAIMS FOR PHYSICAL ASSAULT, SEXUAL ASSAULT & INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
There is a movement across the United States to seek redress for assaults and sexual assaults in civil courts. Although we are all too familiar with the criminal justice system as a system of redress for victims of sexual assaults, many victims remain unaware that they may have a viable cause of action for monetary (money) damages against sexual predators in the civil justice court system. These civil actions are becoming more common in courts throughout the U.S. I was the first attorney in Travis County to file a civil lawsuit against a rapist and obtained a judgment of 1.5 million dollars around 1987. My experience and training as a police officer, police chief, and prosecutor helped shaped my destiny as an advocate for victim rights in the civil justice system.
Why file a civil lawsuit against the perpetrator of a sexual assault or the owner of the premises where a sexual assault took place? There are several answers to this question. I think, foremost, that by initiating civil litigation against a perpetrator, a crime victim can help regain her or his feelings or balance and control over their environment. Sexual and physical assaults can cause emotional scars that leave a victim feeling as if they have lost control of their lives. If a crime victim can get out of the “role” of “victim” they may be able to regain a feeling of independence and control over their own life again. This redemption or catharsis may be the most important of all reasons for pursuing civil litigation against a perpetrator.
Other reasons for pursuing civil litigation against predators include, but are not limited to:
(1) Exposing individuals who commit these crimes to the public through media coverage and press releases;
(2) Seeking money damages to assist the victim in obtaining medical and psychological counseling;
(3) Obtaining information about the predator or dangerous premises that may help law enforcement or criminal prosecutors prevent future attacks.
Before one considers going down the path of civil litigation, a conference with an attorney who is well-versed in crime victim law and inadequate security litigation should occur. Beware of attorneys who advertise in the yellow pages or television who claim to be “experts” in personal injury and intentional injury (tort) law. Most attorneys who advertise on TV or in telephone directories have little or no network of former clients for referrals and practice a high-volume “mill” law practice.
Crime victim cases and inadequate security cases are much different than automobile collision personal injury cases. Most lawyers are wholly unequipped to properly investigate these cases and do not understand how to prosecute these civil cases. They do not understand the nature of these cases, the elements of proving these cases, or how to utilize litigation “tactics” to win these cases. There are only a handful of lawyers in the United States who understand these cases. My background as a security supervisor of a 28 story co-ed college dormitory shopping mall complex (Dobie Center in Austin), 4 years street experience as a police officer, experience as a prosecutor, coupled with 25 years litigation experience and 18 years judicial experience give me a unique advantage over other attorneys in this area of law. I am also a licensed EMT-I and have served as a Firefighter/EMS First Responder for 5 years with Austin EMS. I understand the emotional and physical trauma that criminal predators inflict on their victims.
What kind of cases might a crime victim be able to pursue?
An experienced attorney should be able to discuss statutes of limitations which bar civil lawsuits from being pursued if a plaintiff delays too long after the cause of action accrues. For example, a victim of a simple assault by touching has two years to bring her lawsuit against the perpetrator. More serious assaults even ones that cause death are limited to the two-year limitation period (See Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Sec. 16.003). The same limitation applies to a civil cause of action for “Intention Infliction of Emotional Distress” against a perpetrator. I use Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claims when I am dealing with non-violent assaults like the office supervisor who is groping on his subordinate female employees and making lewd statements to them. I sued an Austin doctor using simple assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress for a young UT student who was being groped and harassed by this doctor, who employed her. The jury came back with a verdict of $15,000 actual mental anguish damages and a punitive damages award of $30,000 against the doctor.
For Sexual Assaults and Aggravated Sexual Assaults the limitation period is extended to five (5) years (See Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Sec. 16.0045). These include sexual assaults of children and elderly, and sexual assaults where a deadly weapon is utilized or threatened. It is important to note that in all cases involving children that the limitation periods do not begin running until the child turns 18 years of age and becomes a legal adult.
There are specific statutes that address Sexual Exploitation of a Patient by a Health Care Provider. Chapter 81 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code (TCPRC) addresses these crimes and provides some special damages, such as recovery of all attorneys’ fees for these victims, but it is important to note that the limitation period for these offenses is only three (3) years! These cases include sexual assault and consensual sexual relations between therapist/doctor and patient and may include exploitation of former patients. TCPRC, Chapter 81 defines Mental Health Service “Providers” as including: Licensed Social Workers, Chemical Dependency Counselors, Licensed Professional Counselors, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists, Clergy, Physicians, and Psychologists. These Providers are Liable to Patients and Former patients for damages for sexual exploitation if the patient or former patient suffers a physical, mental, or emotional injury caused by, resulting from, or arising out of:(a) Sexual Contact Between patient and Provider; (b) Sexual Exploitation of patient by Provider; or (c) Therapeutic Deception of patient by Provider. TCPRC, Section 81.005(a) states that: It is NOT a defense that the sexual exploitation of the patient or former patient occurred: (1) with the consent of the patient; (2) outside the therapy or treatment sessions; or (3) off the premises regularly used by the mental health services provider for therapy or treatment.
A civil judgment against a sexual or physical predator who intentionally (willfully and maliciously) assaults another cannot be discharged by a bankruptcy court. Title 11 of United States Code, Section 523(a)(6) states that a discharge normally allowed under the federal bankruptcy code (for civil judgments) does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt for a willful and malicious injury caused by the debtor.
Unfortunately, the most important factor for an attorney when deciding whether to accept a crime victim case may hinge on whether the perpetrator has any significant assets. Without assets to seize, there is little point to justify the expense and time to pursue civil litigation against the perpetrator. When meeting with potential clients I discuss this matter fully with the client. Every case is different. There is never a charge to discuss a case at my law firm. All cases that are accepted are solely on a percentage fee of the total amount we are able to recover for our clients plus expenses. However, if we are unable to obtain a positive benefit for our clients, the client does not owe us a penny, not even our costs. We have a female Registered Nurse for our women clients who are more comfortable discussing their case with another woman.
Yours very truly,
Attorney Kevin R. Madison
This is a huge victory for women who are assaulted or sexually assaulted by an employer! Under the previous law (Waffle House case) women who were victims of sexual assaults or physical assaults at work were forced to pursue their claims through EEOC administrative channels and had to get permission from the Texas Workforce Commission or EEOC to sue their employers (“Right To Sue” letter). Not anymore. This is an amazing victory for men and women in the workplace who are victims of sexual assaults by their supervisors.
The background to his win in B.C. v. Steak N Shake is as follows, according to the high court’s decision:
B.C., formerly an associate at the Frisco, Texas, Steak ‘n Shake restaurant, alleged she was sexually assaulted by her supervisor on company property in 2011.
B.C. alleged her supervisor pushed her against a sink, grabbed her by the back of the head and pulled her toward him and tried to kiss her. She repeatedly told him to “no” and tried to push him away but was unable to escape. During a struggle, the supervisor unbuckled his pants, exposing his genitals to B.C. and later lost his balance allowing her to escape.
Later that same day, B.C. and her mother reported the incident to Steak’n Shake and the police. After completing an internal investigation, Steak ‘n Shake was unable to confirm B.C.’s allegations and as a result, B.C.’s supervisor was not terminated, nor was he transferred to another location. The company offered for B.C. to return to work at any other Steak N Shake location, but she terminated her employment instead.
B.C. later sued Steak’n Shake and her supervisor asserting assault, sexual assault, battery and negligence among other claims. Steak’n Shake moved to dismiss B.C.’s claims by arguing that the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), which governs sexual harassment claims controlled B.C.’s common law assault claims. Under that law’s statutory framework, a plaintiff must first receive permission from the state before filing an employment discrimination lawsuit.
The TEXAS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS was established by the state legislature when the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act passed on June 26, 1983, authorizing the agency to enforce the law and handle complaints filed under the commission or under United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) when an employee alleges sexual discrimination by an employer.
The trial court granted Steak ‘n Shake’s motion to dismiss, but did not explain its ruling. B.C. nonsuited her claims against the supervisor and only appealed the trial court’s ruling on her assault claim against Steak ‘n Shake.
Dallas’ Fifth Court of Appeals later upheld the trial court’s ruling on the grounds that the TCHRA preempted B.C.’s assault claim. The Fifth Court held that under a 2010 Texas Supreme Court decision in Waffle House v. Williams that the TCHRA is the exclusive remedy for “workplace sexual harassment” and that to let her pursue the assault claim would circumvent the anti-harassment regime created by the state law.
B.C. appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court arguing that the Fifth Court misapplied the Waffle House ruling to her case. But Steak N Shake argued that high court should apply their holding from Waffle House to B.C.’s assault claim because it could give rise to sexual harassment claim which is subject to the TCHRA’s authority.
In a unanimous Feb. 24 decision, the Supreme Court held that B.C.’s claims were not preempted by the TCHRA and to rule otherwise would “muddle and obscure” the purpose of TCHRA which is designed to protect Texans who suffer from workplace harassment.
There were significant differences between the Waffle House case, which involved repeated sexual harassment claims, and B.C.’s case which involved “a single violent assault,” wrote Justice Paul Green in a decision that reverses and remands the case back to the Fifth Court for rulings on other issues.
“Moreover, were we to apply Waffle House here, we would effectively rule that any action by an employer, no matter how egregious or severe, is subject to the TCHRA’s administrative scheme so long as the conduct can be characterized as sexual harassment,” Green wrote. “Neither the TCHRA’s text nor its purpose, nor our prior holdings interpreting the statute, requires such an extreme result.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has reprimanded U.S. District Judge Walter Smith of Waco for making “inappropriate, unwanted physical and non-physical sexual advances” toward a court employee in 1998 and stopped his new case assignments for one year as punishment.
The Dec. 4 order of reprimand from the Fifth Circuit’s Judicial Council, concludes that Judge Smith “does not understand the gravity of such inappropriate behavior and the serious effect that it has on the operations of the courts.” The order also concludes that Smith “allowed false factual allegations to be made in response to the complaint” that was filed against him September 2014.
However, the disciplinary body ultimately concluded that Smith’s actions do not warrant a recommendation for impeachment. Instead the judicial council imposed the most severe sanction otherwise available to him by suspending his new case assignments, according to the order. “It is imperative that Judge Smith not allow such events to recur and he is so directed,” wrote Carl Stewart, chief judge of the Fifth Circuit, in the order. The order requires Smith to complete sensitivity training to the satisfaction of the Judicial Council before he can resume new case assignments. Smith did not immediately return a call for comment. Neither did Stewart.
Austin Lawyer Arrested in Murder-for-Hire Plot
Angela Morris, Texas Lawyer
September 21, 2015
A recent arrest warrant alleges that an Austin solo was selling heroin to a man and tried recruiting the man to commit a murder-for-hire, alleged an arrest warrant affidavit.
The lawyer, James N. Walker, was arrested and charged on Sept. 18 with solicitation of capital murder. He is being held in the Travis County Jail on a $100,000 bond, according to Travis County Sheriff’s Department inmate records. If Walker were convicted of solicitation of capital murder, a first-degree felony, he could face five to 99 years in prison, or life in prison, and up to a $10,000 fine.
The Austin Police Department received a call on Sept. 11 from a tipster, “Joshua,” who reported that he was solicited to kill someone, said the Sept. 21 affidavit for warrant of arrest and detention in Texas v. Walker, filed in Travis County District Court.
“Joshua stated … that he is a heroin user and that the person he buys heroin from is an attorney and the attorney was trying to get ‘Joshua’ to kill someone for him,” said the affidavit. Detectives met with Joshua, who said he buys heroin twice per day from “Skip.” He described Skip’s appearance and said he lived at a car dealership in North Austin. Joshua drew a map to Skip’s residence, and detectives deduced the address. Based on all of the information, the detectives identified the suspect as Walker, an attorney who is licensed to practice law in Texas, the affidavit said.
On Sept. 14, the APD Major Crimes Task Force started helping with the case. A detective met with Joshua on Sept. 15 and showed him a booking photo of Walker. Joshua positively identified the person as “Skip.” “‘Joshua’ stated that approximately two weeks ago, ‘Joshua’ was buying heroin from Walker and Walker asked ‘Joshua’ to kill someone for him. Walker asked ‘Joshua’ if he had a long rifle and told ‘Joshua’ that he wanted the intended victim dead because of a dispute. ‘Joshua’ was not able to positively identify the intended victim and only knew the intended victim was a white male that frequents a known bar in the Austin area,” the affidavit said.
On Sept. 17, an APD detective had Joshua do a “controlled narcotics buy” from Walker, under surveillance and recorded with audio and video. Joshua bought heroin from Walker. Later, an analysis of the substance tested positive for heroin with a weight of 0.85 grams. “Walker agreed to pay ‘Joshua’ $1,000 … to kill the intended victim. Walker told ‘Joshua’ that he would provide a photo and the address of the intended victim to ‘Joshua.’ Walker told ‘Joshua’ that he (Walker) would look for a gun to give to ‘Joshua’ to commit the murder of the intended victim. Walker told ‘Joshua’ … the first and last name of the intended victim, and spelled it,” said the affidavit.
The detective researched the intended victim’s name, and found his Texas driver license and social security number. The detective confirmed that the intended victim did frequent the Austin-area bar. Walker’s State Bar of Texas profile lists an address that matches the address in the warrant and affidavit. The profile said he was licensed in 1981 after he received his law degree in 1979 from St. Mary’s University School of Law. He has no public disciplinary history. The profile said that Walker practices in the areas of: business, technology, creditor-debtor, criminal, intellectual property, commercial litigation, personal injury litigation and more. Walker did not answer a phone call, and an automated message said that the mailbox would not accept new messages.
Read more: http://www.texaslawyer.com/id=1202737740507/Austin-Lawyer-Arrested-in-MurderforHire-Plot#ixzz3mOO3jFjY