Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workplace Conduct And Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Farmers Branch council hears harassment, discrimination briefing; council convenes closed session for legal advice
Summary
Director of Human Resources Jeffrey Ross gave a detailed briefing on harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation law, then council entered executive session under Texas Government Code §551.071 to seek legal advice on the item.
City of Farmers Branch City Council members heard a presentation Oct. 8 from Jeffrey Ross, the city’s director of human resources, on harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation laws and reporting procedures, and then moved into a closed executive session to seek legal advice about the presentation.
Ross told the council that “just last year in 2024, there were 88,531 new cases that were reported to the EEOC,” and that national research and agency data show many incidents go unreported. “Eighty-five percent of people never file a formal charge,” he said, adding that about 70% of people never report incidents internally.
The presentation reviewed which statutes and policies can apply to city representatives, noting that whether an elected official is treated as an “employee” varies by law but that many statutes use the term “agent” to describe someone who represents the city. Ross cited the city charter and the city’s code of ethics as the governing city documents for council members’ conduct, and named federal and state authorities that apply in these matters, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Texas Workforce Commission rules.
Ross outlined three legal fact patterns that commonly arise in claims: quid pro quo, hostile work environment and retaliation. He emphasized that retaliation is the most common finding in EEOC and TWC cases because it can occur after a complaint is filed even if the original complaint is not upheld. “Someone does something that they’re allowed to do, and we take an adverse or disparate action against them for doing that,” Ross said.
He gave concrete examples of prohibited conduct — nonconsensual physical contact, certain nonverbal behaviors (for example standing over or crowding someone), virtual harassment (texts, social accounts, tagging without consent) and a range of verbal conduct (sarcasm, belittling remarks, suggestive jokes). Ross advised council members who observe or experience concerning behavior to report it; he recommended reporting alleged misconduct involving a city employee to the city manager and following the city’s code of ethics for other situations (referencing section 2-284 of the internal code of ethics).
When Councilwoman Bennett asked about deadlines for filing with the Texas Workforce Commission, Ross replied, “300 days.” The presentation also flagged a potential legal consequence under Texas law: individuals who “knew or should have known” about prohibited conduct and failed to take prompt, appropriate action can be held personally liable in addition to the city.
After the briefing, Councilman Villafranca requested an immediate executive session pursuant to Texas Government Code §551.071 to seek legal advice related to item C‑2. The council went into closed session with city legal counsel and the presenter; on return the mayor reported “no action” from the executive session.
The briefing and subsequent closed-session request come as the council and staff are reviewing reporting pathways, applicable statutes, and the responsibilities of elected officials and staff when allegations arise.
