In this episode of the State Bar of Texas Podcast, host Rocky Dhir talks to Suzanne Anderson about her career as a trial attorney with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). They discuss how the office investigates claims and the processes that lead to litigation. Suzanne gives examples of cases the EEOC has dealt with and gives her perspective on the current state of discrimination in the workplace.
Suzanne Anderson is a supervisory trial attorney with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Dallas District Office.
Special thanks to our sponsor, LawPay.
State Bar of Texas Podcast
Workplace Discrimination – From Investigation to Litigation
Rocky Dhir: We would like to thank LawPay for their support of this show. LawPay’s online payment solution was developed specifically for lawyers to correctly separate earned and unearned fees so you can accept credit cards in compliance with ABA and IOLTA Guidelines. A proud member benefit of the State Bar of Texas, LawPay is trusted by more than 50,000 lawyers and integrated with more than 30 practice management solutions. Schedule a demo today at lawpay.com/texasdemo.
Intro: Welcome to the State Bar of Texas Podcast, your monthly source for conversations and curated content to improve your law practice, with your host, Rocky Dhir.
Rocky Dhir: Hi and welcome to the State Bar of Texas Podcast. If you were listening to this episode from the future, the year is 2019. The issue of equality including workplace equality is very much in the national consciousness. Truth be told, as a society we’ve been struggling with this issue for decades now.
So for those of you in the present and in the future, let’s try to understand equality with a sharper lens. Now, look, I could wax eloquent for the next 30 minutes and pontificate or I could bring in an expert.
I want to introduce you to someone I’ve known for many years. She stands at the forefront of workplace equality law and she’s one of the most dynamic speakers and dynamic people I have met.
Suzanne Anderson serves as the Supervisory Trial Attorney for the Dallas District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I had to practice really hard to be able to say that all in one breath, it’s pretty impressive; that’s a big title.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is also known as the EEOC, you might have heard of it.
Well, boy, does Suzanne have some stories whether you’re an employment lawyer, want to be an employment lawyer or just have an interest in the issues surrounding equality? Suzanne is your point person.
Suzanne, welcome, thanks for being here.
Suzanne Anderson: Thanks Rocky, glad to be here.
Rocky Dhir: Absolutely. So — now look, we need to get a disclaimer out of the way in full disclosure. Suzanne and I have known each other for many years now, it’s what like 10 years, Suzanne?
Suzanne Anderson: Oh, I’m sure, yes.
Rocky Dhir: Yes indeed, and I’ve gotten to hear some of your stories over the years that you tell from your vantage point of the EEOC. We’ll get to that in a second, but boy, you guys are in for a treat.
Now, Suzanne, tell us for a second and maybe just give us a quick overview for those that are unfamiliar, maybe are just afraid to ask what exactly is the EEOC and what does it do?
Suzanne Anderson: Well, the EEOC is an independent federal agency and we’re responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate in the workplace, so that’s for employees and applicants.
So discrimination like sex discrimination, race discrimination, color, disability discrimination, age discrimination, those are the types of laws that EEOC enforces.
Rocky Dhir: Okay, and how exactly do you guys go about enforcing it? So if somebody believes that they have been the subject of workplace discrimination, what are the steps at that point?
Suzanne Anderson: Okay, what the employee ordinarily should do is first try to complain to their own employer talk to their own HR person, call a hotline, tell their supervisor, but after that if they’re not getting any results they should come to the EEOC. You can meet with an investigator here and file a charge of discrimination. You can also set up a charge meeting, an interview with the investigator, you can set that up online if you want, or you can mail it in.
EEOC conducts an investigation of the claims that you make. We contact the employer and we gather documents. We interview witnesses and then the EEOC will make a finding, a Letter of Determination will issue that, that will say, that we believe there has been discrimination in response to your claims.
Now sometimes we don’t issue a Letter of Determination. Sometimes we just say, well, the evidence isn’t enough, we can’t find it, so here’s your right to sue and the person can go in the Federal Court and sue themselves.
Rocky Dhir: Okay, so in some cases the EEOC will actually take up the claim. Would it be fair to say that it’s on behalf of the employee or are you really representing a different entity if you are the EEOC taking up the claim?
Suzanne Anderson: Right. So sometimes the EEOC will actually will file suit ourselves and when we bring a lawsuit we bring it on behalf of the public good, and we bring it on behalf of the people who we find have been discriminated against.
So sometimes you’ll get a charge filed by one person and once EEOC conducts its investigation and looks into it, we find, oh god, there are a hundred other people who’ve been subjected to the same type of discrimination.
So sometimes we bring it on behalf of the person who files the charge and a class of people. Sometimes we just bring it on behalf of the person who filed the charge. And before we litigate we’re required by the statute to engage in conciliation, which really is just a settlement discussion. We’re supposed to have good-faith settlement discussions with the company and with the people who have been harmed and try to resolve the case before we file suit.
Rocky Dhir: Does it ever happen that in the course of the investigation EEOC says, not only do we not find evidence of discrimination, we actually think the employer did nothing wrong here, has that ever happened in your experience?
Suzanne Anderson: I mean, there are times that we find that there’s no discrimination. I mean, if you look at the litigation that EEOC brings, we file suit on less than 2% of everything that walks in the door. So more often than not the Commission is not bringing a lawsuit.
Rocky Dhir: Okay, and how long have you been with the Commission? I guess —
Suzanne Anderson: I’ve been with the EEOC 28.5 years.
Rocky Dhir: So you’re the new person in the office?
Suzanne Anderson: Hardly.
Rocky Dhir: 28.5 years, and you’ve been litigating that whole time. You have been a Trial Attorney for that entire duration?
Suzanne Anderson: Right. I’ve been a Trial Attorney and then Supervisory Trial Attorney, but I still litigate cases, and I supervise others.
Rocky Dhir: So walk us through your career path. What brought you here? Talk to us about — you graduate from law school and then you work for a while and you get to the EEOC, so let’s take us through that process.
Suzanne Anderson: Okay. Well, I went to University of Texas in Austin and didn’t really fit in with The Reagan Group and I didn’t really understand why I wasn’t the type of law student that the big law firms and the corporations were really looking for, and then I started looking into civil rights which I had a big interest in anyway. And I went to the Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights and worked there for two years. Then I left there, because I really wanted to be in court, and I came to the EEOC, because I understood that they went to trial and they prosecuted cases.
Rocky Dhir: Well, so technically this is your second job after law school, is that?
Suzanne Anderson: Yeah, well, it was my second job and then I had a third job because I left the EEOC at some point and went and worked for the City of Dallas for a couple of years, because I thought I really needed to take a look from the other side as a someone working for the city and I was in their labor and employment section for a couple of years and then came back to EEOC.
Rocky Dhir: Got it, okay. So — but this is — the EEOC has kind of been for the most part your home after law school, your work home?
Suzanne Anderson: Yes, absolutely.
Rocky Dhir: If you could, educate us a little bit about the actual statutory scheme that EEOC works under. I know it’s Title 7, but tell us about Title 7 and the related laws and what Title 7 is? Again, there may be people that are too afraid to ask these questions. So I’m going to be that kid in class who asked what sounds like dumb questions.
Suzanne Anderson: Okay, that’s all right. Yes, we enforce Title 7, the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Equal Pay Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act known as GINA. So Title 7, they all do pretty much the same thing. They prohibit discrimination in the workplace and with Equal Pay being involved with pay, the Americans with Disabilities Act that protects people who are disabled and calls for things like reasonable accommodation of people with a disability so that disabled people have more opportunity in the workplace. Age Discrimination Act protects people over age 40.
Rocky Dhir: Over age 40, yey, okay, I’m protected.
Suzanne Anderson: Yeah.
Rocky Dhir: This is good. This is good.
Suzanne Anderson: Yes, protected.
Rocky Dhir: Okay finally, I’ve been waiting for this moment all my life, so that’s good, and then there’s also the ADA Amendments Act?
Suzanne Anderson: Right, which is the ADA that has been amended, it’s — the same basic purpose is to protect people with disabilities in the workplace. It just was amended to make changes in the law.
Rocky Dhir: And I have to confess I’m not familiar with GINA, tell us a little bit about GINA, that sounds kind of interesting. Is that fairly new or —
Suzanne Anderson: Well, let me tell you that of the charges we take in, 0.2% are GINA charges. It’s a small part of the law that we do. It’s a little complicated, basically companies cannot discriminate against you because of genetic information in your background.
So a company can’t ask you when you apply for job. They can’t say, well, how are your parents doing? Anybody got cancer? You got any history of heart attacks in your family? They can’t get to that information and then say, we don’t want anybody working here, for example, whose parents had diabetes or who have a family history of some type of medical condition.
Rocky Dhir: Wow, I thought it was pretty familiar with employment law as a non-employment lawyer, but I never heard of this. That’s kind of interesting. But you said it’s only 0.2% that comes in. I’m a little surprised that I would think it would be higher than that?
Suzanne Anderson: Well, we just see very few of those cases. In fact I would have to say I’m hardly an expert on that.
Rocky Dhir: Now, we’ve talked a little bit about some of these protected classes, there’s gender, age, am I forgetting a few here?
Suzanne Anderson: Yeah, religion, color, national origin.
Rocky Dhir: Disability status, obviously we talked about that just a few minutes ago.
Suzanne Anderson: Right. Pregnancy —
Rocky Dhir: Right.
Suzanne Anderson: That’s part of the sex discrimination.
Rocky Dhir: Okay, yeah and I’m sure — that’s got to be a pretty big component of what you guys see is pregnancy discrimination.
Suzanne Anderson: It is. I mean, we’re litigating a case right now where a lady was — got hired by a dental office and she worked there for a couple weeks and then came in and told her boss, hey, by the way, I’m pregnant and they told her that they wish they had known that ahead a time.
Rocky Dhir: Oh boy.
Suzanne Anderson: And then they fired her.
Rocky Dhir: Oh my goodness, okay.
Suzanne Anderson: So that’s problematic.
Rocky Dhir: That’s a very diplomatic way of putting that. That’s beyond problematic in the employment context. Of these protected classes, are you seeing one or more that are kind of dominating the field in terms of the kinds of cases that are being brought?
Suzanne Anderson: Well, if we take a look at our statistics nationally, for the last fiscal year we received about 85,000 total charges and of those the biggest percentage were race discrimination cases.
Rocky Dhir: Okay.
Suzanne Anderson: Followed closely by disability.
Rocky Dhir: Okay, and I think it’s been that way for quite some time now. I think race and disability have been kind of the two leaders for what maybe 10 years or more, or — is my recollection off on that?
Suzanne Anderson: No, you’re right about that, and this year — over the last year we’ve had — we’ve seen an increase here in the Dallas office, and I think nationwide on sex harassment cases as a result of the publicity that came out with the #MeToo.
Rocky Dhir: With the Me Too movement, is that?
Suzanne Anderson: Yes, movement yes.
Rocky Dhir: So then, this kind of — I guess at least to me this begs a pretty interesting question, which is if #MeToo is in the national spotlight, then you would think — you would think people would be more careful in their workplaces not to engage in conduct that might elicit a charge of discrimination or a complaint to the EEOC. It sounds like maybe the exact opposite is happening. How do you process this? What do you chalk this up to?
Suzanne Anderson: Well, I mean, I wish that were the case. I mean we have been seeing sex harassment cases all along. All the years I’ve worked here we’ve seen sex harassment cases.
With the new focus on #MeToo, I think more people are coming in with better defined complaints. Employees, women particularly who get sexually harassed, now that they have seen it on TV, if they get a text message from their supervisor, that’s inappropriate. They will hold on to it.
If they receive a picture from their boss, that is inappropriate. They will save that. They will get on Facebook, download or save screenshots of things, that are harassing to them.
So I think the women are coming in, particularly the women are coming in with more defined evidence and better evidence and more defined claims.
Rocky Dhir: Okay. So I am going to try to approach this from a different angle. Please don’t get upset with me, I’m trying to understand this, and I think one of the retorts we’ve heard to this is, hey, there is sexual harassment and then there’s people being hypersensitive. That’s the stuff people talk about behind closed doors and then they don’t want to bring it out to the public, but when you get them privately that’s the thing they struggle with. What is the line? When does something cross from being jovial or innocent to becoming harassing? Do you think that we’ve changed the definition of what harassment is, or are we just now becoming more aware of what harassing conduct is? How do you parse through that from your vantage point?
Suzanne Anderson: I don’t believe it’s hypersensitivity. The cases I see and the cases that we litigate are cases that nobody could turn an eye away from. We have a lady who worked for a company.
This is a suit we brought. She worked for a company and her manager followed her into the bathroom, came in behind her in the bathroom, and attempted to sexually assault her in the bathroom. It was only after she ran out and told her co-worker, hey, hey, come here, help me, that it stopped. Cases like that — I don’t consider that hypersensitive.
We have a case involving at McDonald’s in a small town in Texas where the guy that was doing IT and the guy that was a General Manager was coming up behind all these young women who worked there and reaching around them on the counter, touching them, making comments to them. One of them would give — the ladies told us one of them would give the young ladies a hotel key and say come meet me at the hotel later, that type of thing.
So these are not — there may be people out there who are saying, oh, he wouldn’t stop commenting about my outfit and I’m upset. That’s out there sure. But there are also real complaints of sexual harassment that there’s just no place for it in the workplace.
I think the worst example, one of the worst examples I’ve seen this is a case that we went to trial on and it went to the Fifth Circuit where the manager, it was Bring Your Child to Work Day, and the manager looked at his secretary’s 15-year-old daughter and made a comment about her size of her breasts for being 15. That’s just so inappropriate. You can’t even imagine. And the pictures we get in the investigative file, the text we see in the investigative file, it’s not like the managers are being misunderstood. It’s very easy to understand what they want.
Rocky Dhir: I’m surprised that people would even have the gumption to do this, especially in this day and age. I don’t know that you have the answer to what emboldens them this way, but it’s — I’m sort of sitting here stunned at just the blatant nature of some of these stories you’re telling. It’s how — for the first time in my life I’m speechless, it’s —
Suzanne Anderson: Yeah — no, it is, it’s shocking what you see at the EEOC. I mean, I never would have expected the number of cases I’ve seen involving nooses, where nooses are left at a Black employee’s workstation or on their workbox or on their locker, KKK symbols that people take pictures of. You wouldn’t believe it if you didn’t have the pictures. But the harassment both because of race and sex harassment, yeah, it’s pretty shocking.
Rocky Dhir: I guess maybe then that gives me the answer to the question that was in my head or maybe you will surprise me. I hope you will surprise me when I ask you this, but you’re seeing some of the worst examples of discrimination and harassment and everything coming across your desk. Do you think — do you think we’re getting any better over time as a country or have we stayed the same over the last 28 years that you’ve been doing this, regressing, getting worse?
Suzanne Anderson: I hope we’re getting worse, and I mean some days I think that the newest generation of workers, may be — they may bring us some fresh air. I mean I have two kids who are Millennials and Millennial kids there’s a lot of crossover in music, they have kids who are their friends, who are from racially blended families. I think that helps.
So I’m hoping that the newest group of workers will be better. The problem is that we keep seeing just a disregard of workers in blue-collar jobs or in lower-level jobs, where people just really take advantage of having power. I am not sure that will ever change, because there always be the power struggle. The manager will always feel that they have the power over the hourly worker.
Rocky Dhir: Although you would think in this day and age with technology and the ability to record and take pictures, that power balance, at least arguably is changing, is it not?
Suzanne Anderson: I think it will. I think it will. I really do, because just described — for example, just describing a noose, oh somebody had a noose and then the manager, the company can say, oh well, that was just a rope tied for some reason or like I’ve had a lawyer for a company explained that it wasn’t a noose it was rodeo art.
Rocky Dhir: I don’t mean to make light of it, it’s just that’s that —
Suzanne Anderson: That’s ridiculous.
Rocky Dhir: — that sounds a little weird.
Suzanne Anderson: That’s what that is, that’s ridiculous.
So having the picture I think really helps a jury to visualize the difference between rodeo art and a noose. So I do think technology will help.
Rocky Dhir: Have you actually had to do that in court, like show a picture of a — of rodeo art versus a noose and say, look, see the difference?
Suzanne Anderson: We have absolutely. Yes, we have absolutely shown pictures of nooses, and let me tell you, they are not small, they are not the picture on the cell phone. They are blown up as big as possible. So that is clear as day to everyone what this is.
Rocky Dhir: Wow, now there’s another kind of subtopic that kind of comes up in the national discourse, and that’s the topic of reverse discrimination. You were just talking about how the Millennials are coming from blended families and there may be a bit more shall we say enlightened or evolved when it comes to issues regarding race. Do you think at some point we’re going to see a serious push towards this topic of reverse discrimination and whether maybe White Caucasian workers are being discriminated against because of their backgrounds? Are you seeing these cases? Do you think you’re going to see them? How are they being received?
Suzanne Anderson: Well, I mean, we don’t really call them reverse discrimination, but we do — we consider any case where somebody is being discriminated against because of their color or national origin, that’s discrimination, whether they’re Black or White.
So, I mean, we do see these types of cases all the time. I mean, there are sex harassment cases. For example, we had a sex harassment case involving a pizza company and the mid-level manager was a woman and she was harassing the male, younger — young man delivery driver. So that could be reverse.
I had a case where the male — we received a complaint from a male bartender who said he was not being moved — he was not being allowed to be a bartender at the restaurant because the owners wanted female and they indicated they wanted 80% females and 20% male bartenders. And they were smart enough to put that in an email which was quite helpful to the EEOC’s case, and so we brought this case on behalf of male bartenders, because that was discrimination. You can’t set up a quota, you can’t put it in an email. That case was settled and the company agreed to change that policy obviously.
Rocky Dhir: Let’s talk for a second about small businesses, because in the very beginning you were talking about the HR Department, and you were saying, look, if you’re an employee, you feel like you’ve been discriminated against, go to your HR Department.
Small businesses oftentimes don’t have HR Departments. They just — there’s an owner, maybe a few people who don’t have titles and they are all just kind of working towards the same thing.
How do small businesses try to make sure that they maintain an equal work environment when they may not have the resources to have somebody on hand to tell them what they should and should not do? Have you seen that come up and what advice would you give to those types of employers?
Suzanne Anderson: Yes. We have seen that come up, and most of the laws if you have 15 or more employees, you’re covered by Title 7. With the Age Discrimination Act it’s 20 employees.
So for small employers really what they should do is when a complaint arises they should be smart. They shouldn’t just push it aside and say, I’m too busy. They shouldn’t say, oh, well, that’s just Joe. He is a hugger, you just need to ignore him, and that happens all the time.
If they receive a complaint or if they recognize that something is going on, if they can put a stop to it right away, if they can seriously address the issue, most of these companies, even the small ones, have a sexual harassment policy or the EEO policy of some kind.
If when you get a complaint or if you see something happening that seems inappropriate, if the employer can pull out that policy and read it, it will probably give them enough information about what they should do. Because what they should do is they should talk to the person that it’s happening to, they should pull the manager in, have the manager read the policy, talk to the manager about why they feel it’s inappropriate and tell the manager to stop.
And if they do that the people will — their employees will never come into my door, because they will resolve their own problems.
Rocky Dhir: And have you heard of cases where they actually do just — they resolve it appropriately within the confines of their business? Do you know of cases like that?
Suzanne Anderson: Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, we get charges of discrimination where the Employer Rights Position Statement says, hey, you know what, we learned about this on this date, we contacted the employee, we interviewed the manager. He didn’t have a good excuse and we disciplined him or we fired him or we took some type of action, that’s how they should resolve their charge. That’s so much cheaper, easier and smarter.
Rocky Dhir: Do you ever see situations where you have an employer, say a company that actually does care about equality and you meet with them, you talk to the people involved in, they really do want an equal workplace, but a mistake gets made and they get sued. Have you seen that? Have you seen that occur and maybe — and it may not get resolved internally, it might go to the courts or the EEOC takes it up, how do you approach those cases where you’ve got a good employer who just made a mistake in one case?
Suzanne Anderson: Well, the best way to handle that is through the statutory requirement of conciliation. So if a company gets a Letter of Determination from EEOC and they realize, oh gosh, we’re in trouble, we messed up here. They can come to conciliation, meet with the EEOC. They have to agree to do some type of training usually. They have to put in place policies. They may have to pay and they will probably have to pay the victim some amount for lost wages or mental and emotional harm. But it’s all a confidential experience, it’s confidential settlement and before EEOC files suit, you can resolve these issues quietly and to the agreement of everybody.
Now, after EEOC files suit, it can’t be settled confidentially. EEOC will issue a press release. We will put it on our webpage and it’s a public activity brought on behalf of the public.
So for a company that just made a mistake, sometimes companies they grow too fast and so the person who is in place of hiring has never been trained or maybe they just don’t know what they’re supposed to be doing, and they make stupid mistakes.
That happens or sometimes mid-level managers who are just not trained enough and don’t have enough experience, they make mistakes. A company can resolve those through conciliation, that is what I would recommend they do.
Just saying, oh, I’m a good person. I mean, I hear this all day every day from employers, that say, oh, I am a good — I’m a good guy. We see position statements. I am a Sunday school teacher. There’s no way that harassment occurred under my watch, like, oh okay. We did. So, sometimes being a good person, that’s not the criteria.
Rocky Dhir: Now, I have to tell you, one of my favorite things when I get to hear you speak is, is you telling actual cases. Obviously to the extent you need to, you will protect names and keep things confidential, but I’ve always enjoyed your war stories. You’ve got some of the best in the business.
So you mind sharing one or two of your favorites, maybe some recent ones where you say, here’s — these are employers behaving badly. Let me tell you what happened. You got one or two of those for us?
Suzanne Anderson: I do, because that’s —
Rocky Dhir: That’s what you do.
Suzanne Anderson: — part of my job. I think — I mean I have a couple of good examples but really one of the worst examples is a case I had out in Oklahoma several years ago and the company had four regional managers; one was a woman and three were men. In the company the woman never got felt like she was getting respect. She wasn’t getting the same clients and that type of thing, but she worked through it. Then they had a company picnic and as part of this picnic with the clients there and the families there, they put these four regional managers on a stage and blindfolded them, and said, hey, we’re going to have a banana eating contest. On your mark and they have these bananas. They are going to handle the managers, on the mark, get set go. When they say “go” they take the blindfolds off the three men and it’s just the woman eating the bananas with the blindfold on. People are laughing, she finally gets a joke. It was so humiliating. That to me is just — that’s, that’s ridiculous. That’s such a — such harassment. And that case settled, quite a bit of money for the young lady.
Rocky Dhir: Was the company’s name Dunder Mifflin, because that sounds like an episode I might have seen?
Suzanne Anderson: No, it was not like the office, but no, it was real life, yeah. And we have another case that we’re suing on right now where — and we bring it on behalf of three women who worked there, two of them were Hispanic and the boss constantly made comments about Mexicans, deadbeats, lazy and that type of thing. They told her you’re not worth the money you’re being paid because you’re a Mexican.
Rocky Dhir: Wow.
Suzanne Anderson: And so during the investigation we asked the company will you send us — as part of our request will you send us your EEO policy, your Harassment policy, any personnel files you have? They sent us their EEO policy, but on the top of it said, Sample Policy, and then there was a space for the employer. So it’s more likely they got it from Google than their own employee handbook. So, I think sending that into the EEOC is a mistake.
We have another case too, and this happens a lot where harassment begins and then it’s not stopped, and it gets worse and worse. We have two guys, one was from Syria who is a naturalized citizen, one was from India and they were working on the oil fields, and their co-workers kept calling them names and harassing them, making fun of them, calling them terrorists. And the supervisor got in on the joke and so then he was using the same terms, they were talking on the radio. It just got worse and worse and worse to the point that one of the workers was put up on a crane and couldn’t get down.
And he finally came to HR and it’s like I’m afraid for my safety, and that is an example of when you have workers out in the field and they’re just — nobody’s being accountable, even though there’s a foreman, even though there’s a supervisor, they all feel free to do what they want. It gets companies in trouble because the harassment escalates.
Rocky Dhir: My goodness. Okay, you’ve always got stories that sort of leave me wanting more and yet also leave me really, really afraid. Wow. It’s both.
Suzanne Anderson: Yeah.
Rocky Dhir: It’s wow. Well, Suzanne, we are getting up to that point where we need to wrap up. I did want to ask you and I don’t mean to treat you like a stand-up comedian, but where can people come and hear you speak and how can they get in touch with you if they are interested in employment law or they want to know more about the EEOC or let’s say they are law students looking at this as a possible career. What’s the best way to get a hold of you?
Suzanne Anderson: Well, I’m a public servant, so you can contact me by email, [email protected]. You can also reach me by phone, but it’s a little more difficult at (214)253-2740, and if you want to see us in action, we have an age discrimination trial in Federal Court April 29th, so we will be speaking then.
Rocky Dhir: Very much so, and you will have exhibits and everything.
Suzanne Anderson: Well, yeah.
Rocky Dhir: Unfortunately, that is all the time we have, and Suzanne, you’ve been so generous with your time coming out from your busy schedule. I want to thank you so much for joining us. And of course, I want to thank you, the listener, for tuning in.
This podcast is brought to you thanks to the generous support of LawPay. So, LawPay, if you are listening, thank you too.
And if you like what you heard today, please rate and review us in Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts or your favorite Podcast app. Until next time, remember, life’s a journey, folks. I’m Rocky Dhir signing off for now.
Outro: If you would like more information about today’s show, please visit legaltalknetwork.com. Go to texasbar.com/podcast. Subscribe via Apple Podcasts and RSS. Find both the State Bar of Texas and Legal Talk Network on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn or download the free app from Legal Talk Network in Google Play and iTunes.
The views expressed by the participants of this program are their own and do not represent the views of, nor are they endorsed by the State Bar of Texas, Legal Talk Network, or their respective officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, shareholders, or subsidiaries. None of the content should be considered legal advice. As always, consult a lawyer.