- Practice Areas
Settlement Against Former Bodyguard of Charlie Sheen
Texas Crime Victim Attorney Kevin Madison has settled an assault case against a former bodyguard of Charlie Sheen. Defendant assaulted Plaintiff after an altercation regarding a traffic situation in Austin, Texas. My law firm has successfully settled over a hundred assault cases just like this. All cases are handled on a percentage contingency fee. We are not paid anything unless we obtain a settlement for our clients. Call for a free confidential consultation: (512) 708-1650. We accept cases throughout the State of Texas. www.kevinmadison.com.
JANE DOE VS SID JOHNSON
TRAVIS COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2
On August 27 I tried a case in front of Travis County Court at Law Judge Shepperd. Case was against an Austin Child Protective Services (CPS) Investigator who had been sexually harassing a woman he was “investigating” on very thin allegations.
We alleged and proved that defendant made lewd statements to her during a home visit and texted her a disgusting lewd pornographic photo from his personal cell phone.
Judge Shepperd found that we had proven our allegations by a preponderance of the evidence and awarded a judgment for $50,000 for actual and punitive damages for my client.
Child Protective Services terminated this man as an employee as well.
Attorney Stephen Stewart and I represented the first victim to sue Dr. Charles Fischer, the Austin State Hospital Psychiatrist who was convicted of multiple counts of Indecency with a Child By Contact and Indecency with a Child By Exposure. This morning Judge Jan Soifer signed a judgment for our client (granting our Motion for Summary Judgment) and against Dr. Fischer for $750,000! Stephen did a spectacular job on our motion for summary judgment.
My office handles cases involving Sexual Exploitation of Patients against Doctors, Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Counselors, Clergy as well as cases against Attorneys who molest or sexually abuse their clients, throughout the State of Texas.
Attorney Kevin R. Madison- Former Police Chief and Former Assistant District Attorney of Travis County
I handle cases against doctors, therapists, psychiatrists, and psychologists and attorneys, throughout Texas, who violate their moral, ethical, and legal duties to their patients and clients by committing Sexual Exploitation. This criminal case against a San Antonio lawyer just concluded the guilt-innocence phase yesterday. Defendant lawyer was found guilty on all 6 counts. What is even more striking is that the District Attorney’s Office prosecuted the attorney as a sex trafficker which means he could face 25 years to 99 years in prison rather than a simple misdemeanor jail sentence for prostitution. I have attached the link to this criminal case report, below.
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: firstname.lastname@example.org. There is never a fee for a confidential telephone or email consultation at my law firm.
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.”
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
As most of you may already know, motor vehicle crashes kill more teenagers than any other trauma or disease. As we think back when we were teen drivers, many of us wonder how we survived. Distractions were present back then, as was substances that impaired one’s driving, as they are today. The only real new distractions today are CELL PHONES.
ARE YOU AWARE THAT AT&T AND VERIZON have applications that can impede any texting or cell phone use while your teenager’s car is moving. Verizon has an application that cost about $20 a month for fleet vehicle monitoring, which you can buy. You pay about $150 and plug in an electronic module that connects with your car’s computer system and this connects to your Verizon account and you can actually monitor your teen driver’s hours of driving, speeds, and location. You can even set parameters to notify you by text message if your teen driver’s vehicle exceeds a certain speed, is operated past your set curfew hours, or leaves geographic boundaries that you can set! Check these applications out…they could help save a life!!
Teen Drivers Distracted Big Time by Cellphones
A study, by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, analyzed about 1,700 videos taken from inside crash vehicles. The videos are used as part of a private program designed to coach drivers to improve performance. According to the group’s analysis, all forms of distraction were a factor in 58% of the studied crashes, including in 89% of the crashes where the vehicle left the road and in 76% of the accidents involving rear-end collisions. The top distraction, found in about 15% of the crashes, involved the driver interacting with at least one passenger in the vehicle. Next, at 12%, was the driver using a cellphone to talk, text or review the screen for messages and such.
MICHAEL MUSKAL, LA Times 03/26/2015
Read Article: LA Times
My cell number, office number, fax number, and email remain the same.
We also have an satellite offices for client appointments in: Lakeway, downtown Austin, downtown Dallas