Star-Telegram Reports on Keller ISD Board Changes, Voting Rights Act Lawsuit
December 11, 2025 – The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that Keller ISD board trustee Charles Randklev is resigning to run for City Council.
According to the report, "Randklev was the school board president when news broke in January that he and four other board members were planning to split the district along U.S. 377 in an effort to save money."
The reporting notes that the controversial plan sparked community outrage, criminal complaints, and legal action. Against this backdrop, the district also faces a Voting Rights Act lawsuit from Brewer Storefront client Claudio Vallejo. The Brewer Storefront, the pro-bono affiliate of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, sued the school district on behalf of Vallejo in February 2025, alleging the district’s at-large election system violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
In a statement provided to the Star-Telegram, William A. Brewer III, a partner at the Storefront, said there is “growing support” for its lawsuit — reflecting a community demanding fairness in its elections.
“Mr. Randklev’s resignation underscores the instability created by at-large voting and the urgent need to adopt cumulative voting. Keller ISD should see this moment as a wake-up call — an opportunity to embrace change and rebuild public trust,” said Brewer.
Law360: SCOTUS Leaves Title VII Split on Unpaid Workers
October 6, 2025 – Law360 reports today that the Supreme Court declined to review Wells v. Texas Tech University, leaving unresolved an important question in civil rights law: whether unpaid workers are protected from discrimination and harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Dr. Wells alleged that Texas Tech professors Samuel Prien and Lindsay Penrose sexually harassed and bullied her during her time as a student and research assistant, and later retaliated by undermining her startups and having her removed as a mentor in 2022. She also claimed that Prien misused her companies’ confidential data and deprived her of royalties by licensing related patents without consent.
The district court dismissed her case in 2024, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed in 2025, finding that unpaid mentors lacked the protections of Title VII.
Dr. Wells’ petition asked the Court to reconcile conflicting federal rulings that determine who qualifies as an “employee” under Title VII. In some jurisdictions, unpaid interns, researchers, and volunteers can seek redress for harassment and retaliation; in others, they cannot.
Although the Court’s decision leaves this disparity intact, Dr. Wells’ case brought national attention to the millions who perform meaningful work without pay – and to the urgent need for reform that ensures all workers, paid or unpaid, enjoy equal dignity under the law.
William A. Brewer III, counsel for Wells, said in a statement to Law360 that his client “is appalled that the Supreme Court declined review for herself and the many others who are left unprotected.”
He said, “Title VII protections must extend to unpaid workers. Dr. Wells’ stand against Texas Tech gave voice to millions of unpaid workers. Her efforts underscore a problem that must be remedied.”
Read more: https://www.law360.com/articles/2396307/justices-skip-unpaid-texas-tech-mentor-s-retaliation-suit
Kansas City Business Journal: Court Rejects Polsinelli’s Motion to Arbitrate Sexual Harassment Case
September 25, 2025 – The Kansas City Business Journal reports today that a federal judge in D.C. has denied a motion from Polsinelli law firm to dismiss a sexual harassment case and to compel arbitration.
As reported, “[former Polsinelli partner] Julia Rix filed suit in September 2023 in Washington, D.C., federal court against Kansas City-based Polsinelli and two senior partners in its New York office, Dov Scherzer and Gabriel Yomi Dabiri. She claimed that Scherzer and Dabiri, who were in positions to play an influential role in her advancement, subjected her to repeated sexual harassment and that she was fired after filing a complaint.”
The Journal reports that Judge Amir Ali denied Polsinelli's motions on September 18, finding that Rix's claims were legally sufficient to support a cause of action. He also ruled that the arbitration clause cannot be enforced because it would violate the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act. The result: the lawsuit will continue and be litigated publicly.
“This ruling is important,” said William Brewer III, Rix's attorney and a partner at Brewer Attorneys & Counselors. “It affirms that victims of sexual harassment are entitled to the public scrutiny that comes with the judicial system. Julia has shown courage in standing up to Polsinelli.”
Read more here.
ABA Journal Reports on Key Developments in Polsinelli Lawsuit
September 24, 2025 – The ABA Journal reports today on key developments in the case of Brewer client Julia Rix against the Polsinelli law firm and two of its former partners.
As reported by the ABA Journal, “A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has refused to toss claims or to compel arbitration in a $20 million lawsuit alleging that Polsinelli retaliated against an international corporate attorney after she reported sexual harassment by two influential partners.”
U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali of the District of Columbia ruled for the plaintiff in a September 18, 2025, opinion.
The ABA Journal reports, “Ali said Rix doesn’t have to arbitrate her sex harassment claims because of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, which bans enforcement of agreements to arbitrate future claims involving sexual assault and harassment. He also said Rix plausibly alleged sexual harassment under the D.C. Human Rights Act and infliction of emotional distress under D.C. common law.”
In a statement to the ABA Journal, Brewer partner William A. Brewer III said the decision on arbitration “affirms that victims of sexual harassment are entitled to the public scrutiny that comes with the judicial system. Julia has shown courage in standing up to Polsinelli. Her decision to do so is now translating into protection for her and others.”
The article follows reporting in the National Law Journal, Law 360, and Bloomberg Law.
Read more here: “Sexual harassment suit against Polsinelli continues, without arbitration, after judge’s ruling,” ABA Journal
Law360, Bloomberg Law, and the National Law Journal: Federal Court Rules Against Polsinelli in Sexual Harassment Case
September 19, 2025 — Law360, Bloomberg Law, and The National Law Journal report that Polsinelli PC and two former partners cannot compel arbitration or trim claims in a $20 million sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by Brewer client Julia Rix. On September 18, 2025, U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali ruled that Rix plausibly alleges her claims and is not required to arbitrate the dispute.
“This ruling is important,” said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel to Rix. “It affirms that victims of sexual harassment are entitled to the public scrutiny that comes with the judicial system. Julia has shown courage in standing up to Polsinelli. Her decision to do so is now translating into protection for her and others.”
Originally filed in D.C. Superior Court in 2023, the lawsuit alleges that two male Polsinelli partners subjected Rix, a former attorney in the firm’s D.C. office, to repeated sexual advances, unwanted physical contact, and professional retaliation after she rejected their overtures.
Rix claims the partners tied access to business opportunities to her compliance with their demands, sabotaged her performance review, and influenced the firm’s decision regarding her career. Ultimately, she alleges she was terminated shortly after reporting the misconduct. Her claims span sexual harassment and retaliation under the D.C. Human Rights Act and Title VII, as well as intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Polsinelli sought to dismiss the case, compel arbitration, and apply Missouri law. The Court rejected each defense. Regarding arbitration, Law 360 writes that "Judge Ali found that Rix is not required to arbitrate her sexual harassment dispute, noting that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act bars pre-dispute arbitration agreements from covering sexual assault or harassment disputes."
Judge Ali writes, “…the test for whether the EFAA applies is not whether claims are ‘inexorably intertwined’ or ‘rise or fall’ together; it is whether the claim is or ‘relates to’ a sexual harassment dispute. And on that test, the claim of retaliation for reporting sexual harassment is plainly covered.”
Workplace Fairness Files Amicus Curiae in Support of Dr. Cara Wessels Wells’ Supreme Court Petition Urging Title VII Protections for Unpaid Workers
July 11, 2025 — In an important show of support for workplace justice, Workplace Fairness, a leading national nonprofit fighting for the dignity and rights of all workers, filed an amicus curiae brief supporting Dr. Cara Wessel Wells in her civil rights Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Dr. Wells, represented by Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, is a scientist and entrepreneur who alleges she was pushed out of a Texas Tech University business accelerator after reporting sexual misconduct by her supervisor in the program, then denied Title VII protection because she wasn’t paid for her workplace contributions.
In June, Dr. Wells turned to the Supreme Court to urge it to declare what should be clear-federal civil rights laws protect all those who " work"- regardless of whether the compensation is money or other benefits. The Petition asks the Court to strike down the Fifth Circuit’s “remuneration” rule, which categorically excludes workers whose pay is not money from Title VII’s reach.
“The brief by Workplace Fairness powerfully underscores the critical issue at stake: denying Title VII protections to unpaid workers leaves countless individuals exposed to workplace harassment and retaliation without recourse,” said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, and lead counsel to Dr. Wells. “Their advocacy reinforces our client’s position that the Supreme Court should close this gap and ensure that federal civil rights laws protect all workers — regardless of pay.”
“The remuneration rule creates an artificial barrier to civil rights protections — one that is at odds with both Title VII’s purpose and today’s workplace realities,” said William A. Brewer IV, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, and counsel to Wells. “Civil rights should not hinge on compensation. We urge the Court to clarify the law on this important federal issue.”
Dr. Wells served as a mentor in Texas Tech University’s business accelerator program in 2022. After speaking out about alleged sexual misconduct, she was abruptly excluded from the program and subjected to retaliation. Because she did not receive a paycheck, the Fifth Circuit ruled she was not legally an “employee” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act — stripping her of protection.
The Workplace Fairness brief warns that excluding such workers — interns, fellows, volunteers — from federal protections “creates a dangerous loophole.” The Fifth Circuit’s decision, it argues, “encourages employers to reclassify labor to avoid accountability,” subverting Title VII’s central purpose: eradicating workplace discrimination.
“This is a civil rights crisis. The uneven application of federal civil rights laws creates disparate impacts for similarly situated workers—an outcome that is clearly not just,” said Brewer III. “We applaud Workplace Fairness’ important recognition and advocacy of Dr. Wells’ petition and echo their call to the Court to weigh in on this critical issue.”
Read more here:
Workplace Fairness Press Release
Fort Worth Report: Brewer Storefront Filing in Keller ISD Voting Rights Lawsuit
June 22, 2025 – The Fort Worth Report reports that Brewer Storefront filed a brief on behalf of plaintiff Claudio Vallejo in opposition to the Keller Independent School District's attempt to dismiss a federal voting rights lawsuit.
Originally filed on February 14, 2025, the case is in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth. The lawsuit by Vallejo, a Hispanic parent with two children enrolled in the district, seeks to replace Keller ISD's at-large voting system with cumulative voting, "a more representative alternative" in which voters can allocate votes to one or more candidates. The lawsuit alleges that the at-large election system violates the Voting Rights Act and U.S. Constitution by diluting the political voice of Hispanic voters.
“A Hispanic candidate has not been elected to the board in 25 years,” the brief filed on June 12 argues. “This lack of representation leaves Hispanic families without a voice to champion the needs of their children.”
The article reports that the plaintiff states that the proposed cumulative model would allow geographically dispersed minority groups to combine their votes and elect representatives aligned with their views. The article states that Vallejo argues that relying on geographic compactness ignores modern community patterns and that current legal precedent is outdated.
“This case seeks to ensure that the voices of Hispanic voters are heard and accounted for in school board elections,” said William A. Brewer III, counsel for Vallejo. “Cumulative voting offers a constitutionally sound, locally empowered solution that aligns with the values for which the Voting Rights Act was adopted.”
The Storefront is the Brewer firm's community service legal affiliate.
Read more here.
Plaintiff Files Opposition in Landmark Voting Rights Act Challenge Against Keller ISD
Dallas, Texas…June 13, 2025 – Brewer Storefront filed a federal court brief (“Vallejo’s opposition”) on behalf of Claudio Vallejo – a Hispanic parent in Keller ISD – in opposition to the district’s attempt to dodge a landmark voting rights case.
Vallejo’s case seeks to overhaul the district’s at-large voting system, asserting it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) and the U.S. Constitution. The Storefront is the community service legal affiliate of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors.
Filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, Vallejo’s brief contends that the current election system dilutes the votes of Hispanic and other minority voters, preventing them from electing candidates who represent their interests. Despite the fact that Hispanic students constitute nearly a quarter of the district’s enrollment, not a single Hispanic candidate has been elected to the Board in over two decades.
At the heart of Vallejo’s opposition is a complaint that argues that the so-called “Gingles factors” established by the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court Case Thornburg v. Gingles as a standard to prove a VRA violation are outdated, particularly the requirement that a minority group be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district.
Vallejo argues that the geographic “compactness” requirement for majority-minority districts should not apply outside redistricting cases – particularly when the remedy sought is not the creation of new district lines, but implementation of a cumulative voting system.
This alternative voting system, expressly permitted under the Texas Education Code since 1995, would allow minority voters to elect candidates of their choice by pooling support across geographic lines. Under the cumulative system, a voter may cast the number of votes equal to the number of seats up in an election for one or more candidate in any combination. The candidates receiving the highest number of votes for the open positions are elected.
The filing also outlines predictable educational disparities among student subgroups: only 51% of Hispanic students in KISD met grade-level benchmarks on state exams, compared to 69% of white students. Vallejo’s filing notes the social science data that a lack of representation on the school board contributes to an ongoing failure to address the needs of minority students.
“This case seeks to ensure that the voices of Hispanic voters are heard and accounted for in school board elections,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer Storefront and counsel to Mr. Vallejo. “Cumulative voting offers a constitutionally sound, locally empowered solution that aligns with the values for which the Voting Rights Act was adopted.”
Vallejo’s opposition challenges the district’s reliance on outdated precedent.
The complaint asserts that Gingles should only apply to redistricting cases, and notes that the KISD case is not a redistricting case.
“Gingles should only apply to redistricting cases,” the filing contends. “This is not a redistricting case…cumulative voting would allow minority viewpoints to have a voice in KISD.”
Cumulative voting will give underrepresented groups in KISD greater power to elect candidates aligned with their interests. Such voting systems have been adopted by other local school districts, including Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD.
The legal action includes claims under the 14th and 15th Amendments, alleging that the Board’s continued use of a discriminatory voting system reflects intentional racial bias. Vallejo points to recent actions by the Board – including a now-abandoned plan to split the district along socioeconomic and racial lines – as further evidence of discriminatory intent.
Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the district’s motion to dismiss, allow the case to proceed, and grant appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief to reform the election system.
In requesting that the Court deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Vallejo argues that this case represents a natural evolution of civil rights litigation – one aimed at adapting the Voting Rights Act to a changing America.
“Today’s innovative argument is tomorrow’s binding precedent,” the filing concludes.
About Brewer Storefront
Brewer Storefront is the community-service legal affiliate of the national litigation firm of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors with offices in Dallas and New York. Founded in 1995, the Brewer Storefront tackles local and national issues, providing legal assistance to a wide range of individuals, business and community entities in need.
The Storefront has successfully challenged violations of the Voting Rights Act on behalf of other communities of interest in previous actions. Notably, in 2015, the Storefront settled a lawsuit brought against the Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District on behalf of Hispanic voters and a cumulative voting system was established as a result. There are currently two Hispanic trustees on the school district’s board.
The Storefront also successfully resolved Voting Rights Act cases with the Lewisville Independent School District in 2023, Richardson Independent School District in January 2019, and the Grand Prairie Independent School District in 2014. All districts now utilize remodeled voting systems. The Storefront also secured trial victories in Voting Rights Act cases against the Irving Independent School District in 2014, the City of Farmers Branch in 2012, and the City of Irving in 2009. Those lawsuits paved the way for the formation of new voting systems and the election of minority candidates.