Credentials at a Glance

ranked

Labor & Employment (Texas)

– Chambers USA, 2014 – 2025

Where We Excel

V&E’s employment lawyers have provided thoughtful advice and aggressive advocacy in the defense of claims of discrimination, retaliation and harassment for decades. V&E is particularly well equipped to assist employers in navigating and, if necessary, defending sensitive, complex, or other high-stakes cases involving such claims.

Our experience is founded on frequent representation of employers in a wide range of employment discrimination and retaliation matters involving claims based on race, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, and sexual harassment arising under federal and state statutes. Our record is distinguished by frequent dismissals before trial and favorable jury verdicts for employers in trials where employees had asserted claims under Title VII, Section 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and under various states workers’ compensation retaliation statutes.

Additionally, as the landscape of whistleblower protection legislation has become increasingly complex, with growing numbers of federal and state laws drafted or amended to include whistleblower protection provisions, the Employment, Labor & OSHA (ELO) practice group has established itself as a leader in assisting employers in a wide array of industries in investigating, managing, and defending retaliation claims filed by whistleblowers in federal and state courts, in arbitration, and before the U.S. Department of Labor.

Experience

  • (Harris County, Tex.) — Obtained complete summary judgment on behalf of independent oil and gas company sued by former manager asserting claims of sex discrimination, age discrimination, and retaliation

  • Obtained summary judgment on all aspects of age discrimination, promissory estoppel, and misrepresentation claims in arbitration brought by a former employee of an international well services company

  • (S.D. Tex.) — Obtained summary judgment on all aspects of Americans with Disabilities Act discrimination, retaliation, and harassment claim brought by a staffing services employee against a national manufacturer

  • (S.D. Tex.); (5th Cir.) — Principal counsel in a race discrimination suit brought by multiple plaintiffs alleging systemic race discrimination in pay and promotion practices. Obtained summary judgment on all claims and successfully defended judgment in the Fifth Circuit

  • Principal counsel for a national consumer goods company in defense of a race discrimination suit brought by a large group of former employees alleging systemic race discrimination in job assignment, promotions, and work environment

  • Represented a leading global accounting firm during an EEOC investigation which resulted in a “no cause” finding and dismissal of all charges

  • (Tex. Dist. – Harris County) — Defended a national security company in a jury trial against former employee’s claims of national origin discrimination and retaliation

You Have Goals. Let’s Get Started

At Vinson & Elkins, we bring decades of knowledge, skill, and experience to our clients’ most complex legal matters.

Find Lawyers

Discover our latest:

Insights

Client Alerts

Supreme Court Sides with Heterosexual Woman: Majority Plaintiffs and Minority Group Plaintiffs Alike Need the Same Evidence of Discrimination

On June 5, 2025—in the midst of heightened scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives triggered by executive orders issued by President Trump as well as various federal agency guidance—the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the heightened “background circumstances” requirement imposed on Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who filed a gender and sexual orientation discrimination claim against her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services. The decision, as projected, confirms that a majority-group plaintiff is not required to proffer more evidence of discrimination than a non-majority-group plaintiff in order to state a prima facie claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).

June 23, 2025

June 23, 2025 • 3-minute read

View Insight
The Supreme Court “Finally” Grants Review of LGBTQ Title VII Cases Background Decorative Image

Client Alerts

New Federal Guidance Addresses Workplace Discrimination Questions

On March 19, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued two technical assistance documents (the “DEI Guidance”) addressing the application of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) to employers’ diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) policies and practices.

March 24, 2025

March 24, 2025 • 3-minute read

View Insight
Property Lines: Where Employee Rights Meet Company Property Rights Background Decorative Image

Client Alerts

Supreme Court Signals it Will Reject Heightened Burden for Majority Group Plaintiffs in “Reverse Discrimination” Employment Claims

On February 26, 2025, the Supreme Court and all three counsel appearing before it in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, appeared to walk away in “radical agreement” — as noted by Justice Neil Gorsuch — that a majority-group plaintiff is not required to proffer more evidence of discrimination than a non-majority-group plaintiff in order to state a prima facie claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

February 27, 2025 • V&E Employment, Labor and OSHA Update

February 27, 2025 • 4-minute read

View Insight
AOL - US Supreme Court

Client Alerts

What is “Illegal DEI”: Vagueness Partially Sinks President Trump’s Executive Orders on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

On February 21, 2025, a federal judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that partially prevents the Trump administration from enforcing its executive orders on diversity, equity and inclusion (“DEI”).

February 24, 2025 • V&E Labor & Employment Update

February 24, 2025 • 4-minute read

View Insight
Three Quick Takeaways on the SEC’s Approval of Nasdaq’s Board Diversity Rules Background Image

Client Alerts

President Trump Takes Aim at Affirmative Action and DEI Via Executive Order

On January 21, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (the “Executive Order”), which significantly impacts not only requirements applicable to federal government contractors and subcontractors, but also could lead to private sector investigations or enforcement actions concerning Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives — particularly those maintained by larger companies (whether privately held or publicly listed), regardless of whether they contract or subcontract with the government.

January 24, 2025

January 24, 2025 • 3-minute read

View Insight
Three Quick Takeaways on the SEC’s Approval of Nasdaq’s Board Diversity Rules Background Image

Client Alerts

Lowering the Bar: Unlawful Discrimination Can Exist Absent a Showing of “Significant” or “Serious” Harm

On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court in Muldrow v. St. Louis held that an employee who claimed she was involuntarily transferred to another position because of her sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) needed only to show that the transfer caused “some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment”

April 24, 2024

April 24, 2024 • 3-minute read

View Insight
Managing the Modern Workplace

Client Alerts

Supreme Court Confirms Retaliatory Intent Is Irrelevant in Proving SOX Retaliation

On February 8, 2024, in its Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a whistleblower pursuing a claim for retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) does not need to show that the employer acted with “retaliatory intent.”

February 14, 2024 • V&E Labor & Employment Update

February 14, 2024 • 3-minute read

View Insight
AOL - US Supreme Court

Related Capabilities