By Super Lawyers

Outstanding Attorneys,Exceptional Firm,Satisfied Clients

FOR OVER 20 YEARS, THE FIRM HAS PROVIDED EXCEPTIONAL courtroom representation to local, regional, national and international businesses. At Ray, Valdez, McChristian & Jeans, P.C., pride is taken in the fact that the firm's clients receive effective and efficient services through a dedicated,
diverse team of proven trial attorneys. The firm represents publicly and privately held corporations, health-care providers, product manufacturers, insurance carriers, retailers, the transportation industry, construction companies and municipalities throughout Texas, New Mexico and the Southwest. With three fully staffed offices in Texas, the firm is equipped to address a range of legal needs in a variety of areas including complex business, personal injury, health care,
employment and environmental law. The firm is known for its outstanding trial success and its commitment to its clients. State-of-the-art technology, graphics and visual presentations are created in-house by technicians working directly with the trial lawyers. The firm also employs nurses and other professional staff that assist with case preparation in order to best serve each client's specific needs.

"Each client has unique interests and goals. We must understand and continually communicate objectives," says Jeff Ray. "Our clients deserve excellent quality and communication at a
good value. Integrity, innovation and hard work provide the best opportunity for success in today's litigation."

The firm is honored that Jeff Ray, Robert E. Valdez, John W. McChristian, Jr., David S. Jeans and Chris Borunda have been named to Texas Super Lawyers.

Contact: http://www.superlawyers.com

By Super Lawyers

Ray, Valdez, McChristian & Jeans, P.C. is based in El Paso, San Antonio and Fort Worth, representing clients throughoutTexas, New Mexico and the Southwest.

ABOUT THE FIRM
For nearly 20 years, the firm has represented businesses in the courtroom in complex business, personal injury, health care, employment and environmental litigation. The firm is known for its outstanding trial success and its commitment to its clients. State-of-the-art technology, graphics and visual presentations are created in-house by technicians working directly with the trial lawyers. The firm also employs nurses and other professional staff to assist with case preparation.

SERVICE TO CLIENTS
"Each client has unique interests and goals. We must understand and continually communicate objectives,"
says Jeff Ray. "Our clients deserve excellent quality and communication at a good value. Integrity, innovation and hard work provide the best opportunity for success in today's litigation." The firm's clients include publicly and privately held corporations, health-care providers, product manufacturers, insurance carriers, retailers, the transportation industry, construction companies and municipalities.

SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The firm is honored that Jeff Ray, Robert E. Valdez, John W. McChristian Jr. and David S. Jeans have been named to Texas Super Lawyers\\'ae. Ray and Jeans provide leadership in El Paso, McChristian supervises the Fort Worth office, and Valdez is in charge of the San Antonio office. The firm also congratulates Kris Bird for being selected to this year's Super Lawyers list. Kris is currently on medical leave, but the firm looks forward to her recovery and to her return to the firm's labor and employment department in the San Antonio office.

Contact: http://www.superlawyers.com

By Super Lawyers

Ray, Valdez, McChristian & Jeans, P.C. is based in El Paso, San Antonio and Fort Worth, representing clients throughoutTexas, New Mexico and the Southwest.

ABOUT THE FIRM
For nearly 20 years, the firm has represented businesses in the courtroom in complex business, personal injury, health care, employment and environmental litigation. The firm is known for its outstanding trial success and its commitment to its clients. State-of-the-art technology, graphics and visual presentations are created in-house by technicians working directly with the trial lawyers. The firm also employs nurses and other professional staff to assist with case preparation.

SERVICE TO CLIENTS
"Each client has unique interests and goals. We must understand and continually communicate objectives,"
says Jeff Ray. "Our clients deserve excellent quality and communication at a good value. Integrity, innovation and hard work provide the best opportunity for success in today's litigation." The firm's clients include publicly and privately held corporations, health-care providers, product manufacturers, insurance carriers, retailers, the transportation industry, construction companies and municipalities.

SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The firm is honored that Jeff Ray, Robert E. Valdez, John W. McChristian Jr. and David S. Jeans have been named to Texas Super Lawyers\\\\'ae. Ray and Jeans provide leadership in El Paso, McChristian supervises the Fort Worth office, and Valdez is in charge of the San Antonio office. The firm also congratulates Kris Bird for being selected to this year's Super Lawyers list. Kris is currently on medical leave, but the firm looks forward to her recovery and to her return to the firm's labor and employment department in the San Antonio office.



Contact: http://www.superlawyers.com

By Kris Bird

In a startling development, the California supreme court unanimously recognized sexual favoritism as a violation of its state law equivalent to Title VII. Miller et al. v. Dept. of Corrections et al., 36 Cal. 4th 446 (Cal. 2005) ("Miller"). In Miller, the female plaintiffs worked in various managerial capacities as subordinates to a chief deputy warden who then became warden of another facility, Lewis Kuykendall. While at two separate facilities, Kuykendall carried on affairs with three other women whom he promoted to various positions of power in each correctional facility.

When each of the plaintiffs made complaints both to Kuykendall himself as well as administratively, acts of retaliation were carried out against each female plaintiff, including, demotions, failures-to-promote, and, in one instance, a physical assault and battery by one of the paramours. Both plaintiffs, as a result of seven years of working under these circumstances, resigned their positions and filed administrative charges of discrimination. In a summary judgment proceeding, the Department of Corrections prevailed before the trial court and the court of appeals, arguing generally that sexual favoritism is not a violation of Title VII, and hence, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA").

The California supreme court recognized sexual favoritism as sexual harassment under FEHA under the following conditions:

...[W]e conclude that, although an isolated instance of favoritism on the part of a supervisor toward a female employee with whom the supervisor is conducting a consensual sexual affair ordinarily would not constitute sexual harassment, when such sexual favoritism in a workplace is sufficiently widespread it may create an actionable hostile work environment in which the demeaning message is conveyed to female employees that they are viewed by management as "sexual playthings" or that the way required for women to get ahead in the workplace is by engaging in sexual conduct with their supervisors or the management. ...

Miller at 451.

In this case, numerous employees came forward in a Department of Corrections' internal investigation and commented upon the brazen activities of the three female lovers, who made no pretense of their romance with Kuykendall, nor the favors he bestowed upon them in many of the promotions and transfers to higher paying positions that they received. Indeed, the California supreme court noted the pervasiveness of an attitude of having to provide sex as a means, in some employees' perception the only means, for advancement at the facilities managed by Kuykendall.

Even the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("EEOC") policy statement on the issue of sexual favoritism supports the California supreme court's decision. See Policy Guidance on Employer Liability under Title VII for Sexual Favoritism (Jan. 21, 1990) No. N-915-048 in 2 EEOC Compliance Manual. The EEOC's policy statement echoes the holding set forth above "...widespread sexual favoritism may create a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII by sending the demeaning message that managers view female employees as 'sexual playthings' or that 'the way for women to get ahead in the workplace is by engaging in sexual conduct.'" Id. Moreover, because the paramours were abusive in their roles as supervisors over the two plaintiffs, the hostile work environment elements were fulfilled - - that is, the conduct was found to be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the plaintiffs' employment and create an abusive working environment.

In the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sexual favoritism is not considered a violation of Title VII. Recently, the court of appeals in Wilson v. Delta State Univ., 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 16964 (5th Cir. August 12, 2005) ("Wilson") specifically affirmed that an alleged preferential treatment of a woman because she was having an affair with a male supervisor was not gender discrimination against the male plaintiff because "preferential treatment of a paramour, while obviously unfair, is not gender discrimination for the simple reason that such treatment discriminates not only against men, but also against all other women in the world except the one paramour." Wilson at *4.

What does this mean for Texas' employers? For those dealing with isolated incidents of sexual favoritism, there should be no violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act or Title VII. However, when an environment is created where the favorite employee is in such a position as to create an abusive working environment, coupled with the perception that sexual favors are the only way to advance in the workplace, possible claims might survive summary judgment. Employers would do well not to allow relationships such as these to exist in the workplace. In addition to possible claims of sexual harassment, certainly other tort claims could be alleged by those rejected for promotions or demoted within the context of a tortious interference with business relationship action. Additionally, there are bound to be workplace confidence problems associated with any sort of favoritism, much less sexual favoritism. In response to just these non-legal concerns, many employers have implemented nepotism policies to protect against issues such as these. These policies go a long way in safeguarding an employer's legal and morale concerns in the workplace and should be considered by employers faced with these issues.

Contact: kbird@rvmjfirm.com

By Kris Bird

In a decision that surprised many seasoned employment law practitioners, the United States Supreme Court, on March 30, endorsed another theory of proving discrimination on the basis of age under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). Although the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's judgment in Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss., 2005 U.S. LEXIS 2931 (U.S. Mar. 30, 2005) ("Smith"), it reversed the lower court's dismissal of the disparate-impact claim. In Smith, a group of older officers filed suit under the ADEA claiming that they had been adversely affected by an employee pay plan. The City of Jackson had granted raises to all police officers and police dispatchers with less than five (5) years service at a proportionately higher rate than those with more seniority. Most officers over the age of forty (40) had more than five (5) years of service and, as such, received proportionately smaller pay raises. The City justified the higher percentage pay raises to those with Less seniority on the basis that the City needed to make junior officers' salaries more competitive with comparable positions in the surrounding labor market.

Twenty-four (24) years ago, the Supreme Court recognized the "disparate-impact" theory of liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) ("Griggs"). There the Court considered whether Title VII prohibited an employer from requiring a high school education or passing two general education tests as a condition of employment for janitorial jobs when neither the high school education nor the tests were shown to be significantly related to successful job performance. This was especially so when both requirements operated to disqualify African-American applicants at a substantially higher rate than White applicants. Recognizing that the motivation of the employer was immaterial to this type of discrimination, the disparate-impact theory of discrimination focused on the effects of the neutral policy on the minority employees since the policy excluded them at higher rates than non-minorities.

Writing for the Court in Smith, Justice Stevens observed that the ADEA and Title VII used virtually identical language in certain sections of each act that would permit the advancement of the disparate-impact theory in an ADEA action. Significantly, however, the ADEA does narrow the applicability of disparate-impact cases by permitting otherwise illegal or prohibited actions, policies, or procedures where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age ("RFOA"). Therefore, when there are employment practices, which are facially neutral in their treatment of different age groups, (i.e., under the age of forty (40) versus over the age of forty (40)), but that, in fact, fall more harshly on the older age group, an employer may avoid liability if that adverse or disparate impact is attributable to a reasonable factor other than age.

Another protection provided to employers facing disparate-impact age claims is the ADEA's exclusion from the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 expanded the coverage of Title VII under the disparate-impact theory, when the Act, in effect, overturned the Supreme Court's decision in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989). Wards Cove set a more stringent test for establishing adverse impact claims by relaxing an employer's burden of proof. As the Supreme Court points out in Smith, however, the Civil Right Acts of 1991 did not amend the ADEA. As such, the more stringent requirements of Wards Cove facing a plaintiff bringing a disparate-impact ADEA action still survives. So, for example, the burden of proof that existed in Wards Cove requiring plaintiffs to isolate specific employment practices which cause an adverse impact to those over the age of forty (40) is still required along with establishing an alternative employment practice which has to be equally as effective as the employer's chosen employment procedure. This would include factors such as the cost or other burdens of a proposed alternative employment practice or selection device.

The fact that the RFOA defense does not require the employer to determine the effectiveness of other ways to achieve its goal makes it the better of the two (2) defenses. In fact, under the RFOA defense, the only burden that an employer must meet, after disparate-impact is established, is to demonstrate that the factors upon which its employment policy or practice is based are reasonable, and nothing more.

For Texas employers, Smith also signals the demise of the Austin Court of Appeals decision in Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. v. Gearing et al., 150 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. App.--Austifl 2004, pet. denied) ("Texas Parks and Wildlife") which held that disparate-impact claims were not cognizable under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act ("TCHRA"). The TCHRA required court interpretation to determine the viability of an age-based disparate-impact claim. The Austin Court of Appeals extensively analyzed and adopted the Fifth Circuit's disparate-impact ADEA conclusions in Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss., 351 F.3d 183 (5th Cir. 2003). That reasoning is now no longer valid. As such, employers facing age discrimination claims under the TCHRA will now also face the possibility of disparate-impact claims. Unfortunately, Texas employers do not have the RFOA defense as it is not included in the State act. Additionally, the State legislature adopted the Civil Rights Act of 1991's amendments eviscerating Wards Cove and made the more-onerous disparate-impact burden of proof provisions applicable to age claims.

Practically speaking, employers should always analyze policies, procedures and actions (such as layoffs) for an adverse impact on minorities or age-protected employees. The simple 80% test used by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs ("OFCCP"), the agency that reviews affirmative action plans prepared by federal contractors, is the easiest to perform. The minority or less-favored group (i.e., those over the age of forty (40)) have experienced an adverse impact if their ratio in the employment action, policy or procedure is less than (or more than, depending on the type of employment action), 80% of that experienced by the favored group. However, before implementing any procedure or policy that may adversely affect an older group of employees, companies may want to retain their employment Law counsel to analyze the impact so as to preserve confidentiality under the attorney-client privilege.

In summary, employers should anticipate more age discrimination claims now that older employees may use the effects of an employment action or policy to establish, potentially, liability under the ADEA. This is especially so under the TCHRA which offers plaintiffs the best avenue for pursuit of disparate-impact age claims.

Contact: kbird@rvmjfirm.com

By Kris Brid

I. Introduction

What do the following employers have in common \endash USAA, Zachry Construction Company, Valero Energy Corporation, and H.E.B? Each of these aompanies, among San Antonio's largest employers, has instituted a program of alternative dispute resolution which utilizes, as its centerpiece, arbitration.

II. Benefits of Arbitration

In the last ten years, EEOC charges have more than doubled. Charges increased in 2002 to
their highest levels in seven years. Employment litigation has increased significantly to now represent forty percent of the federal civil docket.

Employment dispute resolution programs /arbitration have become recognized as a growing trend in the employment arena. Why?

- Resolution of disputes more equitably, expeditiously and economically;
- Reduction of legal and settlement costs/decreased expenditure of management time;
- Greater privacy and confidentiality;
- Reduction of claims/legal exposure to large jury awards/class actions;
- Maintenance of working relationships and decreased turnover;
- Retention of employees;
- Employee relations/public relations benefits, and;
- Possible insurance premiums discounts.

III. Pitfalls of Arbitration

To be sure, arbitration does have its draw backs.

1. Cost;

2. Perceived arbitrator tendencies;

3. Limited review and;

4. Trial by ambush.


IV. Successful Employee Dispute Resolution Programs

A. Elements

Each organization is faced with the task of determining what type of employee dispute resolution program it wishes to implement. For example, there can be several steps which can occur prior to or in place of arbitration such as:

1. Informal resolution \endash an informal internal process involving human resources and/or management for facilitating early resolution of problems with an employee.

2. Internal or external mediation \endash a program whereby a mutually selected mediator from outside the organization acts as a facilitator to assist the parties in reaching a quick and mutually acceptable solution.

3. Arbitration \endash the more formal proceeding similar to a trial or hearing where witnesses can be called and evidence submitted to an external neutral arbitrator who renders a binding, final written decision. Some companies, however, use non-binding arbitration.

4. Mandatory jury-trial waivers \endash as an alterative to mandatory arbitration, some employers use mandatory jury trial waivers in an effort to avoid the downside of both arbitration and jury trials yet preserving the protection of a court of law.

Once the steps have been selected for an employee dispute resolution program, an employer must next determine the scope of that program. In this regard, employers need to determine what types of claims are to be included within the confines of the program. Typically, companies will exclude claims such as worker's compensation, unemployment claims, benefit claims and unfair competition claims from an arbitration process. This is because either the claim cannot be resolved through arbitration by virtue of law or an injunction may be needed which cannot be obtained through the arbitration process.

Another item which must be discussed by management is that of cost sharing. For example, in the event an employer chooses mediation as part of its employee dispute resolution program, will the costs of mediation be split between the parties? With respect to arbitration, court decisions as well as rules of the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") typically require the employer to pay the lion's share of the filing fee as well as the arbitrator's fees and expenses associated with conducting the hearing and pre\endash arbitration matters.

B. Succesesful Arbitration Agreement/Programs

In the case of In re Halliburton, the Texas Supreme Court decided in 2002 that a program put in place by an employer, which altered the at\endash will employment contract between employer and employee was not unconscionable and was otherwise enforceable under general contract principles. Halliburton had sent notice to all of its employees by mail enclosing the Employee Dispute Resolution program and advising them that arbitration had been designated as exclusive method for resolving all disputes between the company and its employees. The notice informed the employees that by continuing to work after January 1, 1998, they would be accepting the new program.

The legal principle Halliburton relied upon was succinctly outlined in 1986, when the Texas Supreme Court set forth the manner in which an employer may change the terms of an at-will employment contract. The employer must establish, the court advised, that employees received (1) notice of the change, and (2) accepted the change. To prove notice, an employer asserting a modification must prove that it unequivocally notified the employee of definite changes of employment terms. When an employee continues to work with knowledge of the changes, the Texas Supreme Court recognized that the "[employee] has accepted the changes as a matter of law."

In connection with its program, Halliburton promised to arbitrate its employment claims against the employee which made it equally bound to the employee's promise to arbitrate employment claims. Significantly, under the Halliburton program, no amendment or change to the program was to apply to a dispute until after ten days notice to employees. Moreover, the amendments could never apply retroactively, only prospectively, upon effectuation of the ten day notice period.

V. Conclusion
All and all, arbitration is the wave of the future. More and more employers are turning to the private, confidential and customized format that arbitration provides in the event of disputes with their employees. The benefits to having programs of this nature are significant. Likewise, there are some drawbacks and each employer is left with the sole decision that it must make when determining if this is their appropriate dispute mechanism.

Contact: kbird@rvmjfirm.com

By Kris Bird

Can an employer's express oral promise not to fire an employee under specific circumstances stand as an exception to the employment at-will doctrine? Absolutely, said the Houston court of appeals in El Expreso, Inc, v. Zendejas, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 2395 (Tex. App. \endash Houston [1st Dist.] March 31, 2005), affirming an approximately $163,000.00 jury verdict. Although this case is unique in a number of aspects, employers should be very cognizant of promises made by their managers of continued employment under any circumstances.

The plaintiff, Mr. Zendejas, began working for a bus company ultimately acquired by Coach USA, beginning in 1992. At the time that Coach purchased the company, El Expreso, Mr. Zendejas had been promoted to Lead Operations Manager. He was laid off in 2000 due to downsizing, but returned to work in May 2001 to serve as Manager of Scheduling and Charters. Mario Pedraza held Mr. Zendejas' former position as Director of Charters and Bus Operations.

Shortly after he commenced working for El Expreso, several El Expreso bus drivers complained to Zendejas that they were being coerced into violating safety regulations by driving their buses too frequently or too long. Zendejas tried to bring these issues to the attention of Mr. Pedraza, Jorge Martinez, Manager of Safety and Training, and the company president, Joe Escobedo, in one-on-one conversations or meetings between all four. His efforts were rebuffed by all.

Zendejas eventually contacted Kathy Wagner, the Regional Safety Director at Coach, regarding his concerns about safety compliance. Wagner requested Zendejas' assistance in bringing El Expreso into compliance with safety laws and regulations. When Zendejas expressed trepidation that he might be terminated if he followed her instructions, Ms. Wagner assured Zendejas that he would not be fired for complying with safety regulations. Wagner then conducted an audit of El Expreso and discovered fairly substantial deviations from safety laws, including driver log fraud. As a result, Mr. Pedraza was reassigned to the position of Director of Terminal Operations.

Wagner continued to request Zendejas' help concerning El Expreso's compliance with safety logs and regulations. He was repeatedly assured that he would not be terminated from employment if he ensured that drivers complied with safety regulations. With this in mind, Zendejas canceled bus routes when eligible drivers were unavailable and sought outside sources to fulfill the need for drivers not able to work within the safety regulations. Zendejas was ultimately promoted within about six (6) weeks of his hire to his former position as Director of Charters and Bus Operations, a position previously held by Pedraza.

During this time frame, the personal relations between Zendejas, Pedraza, and Escobedo deteriorated, especially in light of the fact that a number of bus runs had been canceled which, in Escobedo's mind, was causing the company to lose money. Two months after he had been promoted, Zendejas was notified that a bus driver had complained that another driver was committing safety violations. Zendejas was requested to keep the report confidential, but ultimately confronted the driver suspected of violating the safety rules. Soon after, Escobedo asked Zendejas about the matter, and Zendejas replied that the matter was now in the hands of the Safety Department. Later that month, the employee making the complaint to Zendejas complained to the Director of Safety that he had been exposed as the source of the complaint. The Safety Department then informed Ms. Wagner that its investigation had been compromised because Zendejas had approached the suspected driver. Although denying that he had told the suspected driver who had reported the suspected safety violations, Zendejas' employment was terminated on September 12, by Escobedo.

The parties clashed repeatedly at trial over the issue of at-will employment. Significantly, though, Ms. Wagner testified that she told Zendejas several times that he would not be fired for assuring El Expreso's compliance with safety laws. Moreover, Zendejas testified that he had relied on Wagner's promise that she would not allow him to be fired for compliance with safety laws and regulations.

In Montgomery County Hospital District v. Brown, 965 S.W. 2d 501 (Tex. 1998), the Texas supreme court held that, absent a specific agreement to the contrary, an employer or employee may end their employment at-will relationship for a good cause, a bad cause, or no cause at all. Id. at 502. Specifically, in order to modify the at-will status of the relationship, the employer must unequivocally indicate a definite intent to be bound not to terminate the employee under specific circumstances. Id. The agreement to modify the at-will employment relationship must be (1) expressed rather than implied, and (2) clear and specific. El Expreso at *10. The Texas supreme court also held in Brown, an employer's oral statement may not modify an employee's at-will status unless there is a definite, stated intention to do so. Id. at 501. Thus, according to the court in El Expreso, "[t]he critical factor in determining the validity of an agreement to modify at-will status, is whether an employer has 'unequivocally indicated a definite intent to be bound not to terminate the employee except under clearly specified circumstances.'" (citation omitted) Id. at *11.

The Houston court of appeals also recognized a similar holding made by its sister court of appeals in Houston. In that case, a supervisor made a promise to a secretary that certain events would not cause her termination in violation of the employer's conflict of interest policy. The other court of appeals found that particular statement did not contain ambiguous terminology or require one to speculate as to the parameters of the purported agreement. Miksch v. Exxon Corp., 979 S.W. 2d 700,705 (Tex. App. - - Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied). As such, the employer there was also held to have orally modified the secretary's at-will employment status. The Houston court of appeals, Fourteenth District, like the First District court of appeals, recognized that in Brown, the Texas supreme court had left open the possibility that such verbal statements could, under certain circumstances, be sufficient to create an enforceable agreement. Id. at 704.

What then can employers do to protect themselves from situations such as these? Policies need to be put in place which recognize that the only individual who may modify the employment at-will status is a specified executive officer, typically the president of the company or business, and even then only in writing, not orally. While many employment applications contain this proviso, a number of handbooks or policy manuals that discuss employment at-will do not contain this limitation on authority. Prudent employers would reexamine their policy manuals or handbooks in order to ensure that this limitation on authority to expressly modify the employment at-will status is in place and that current employees have acknowledged having read and agreeing to abide by such policies. This policy should also be stressed in new employee orientations as well as any annual human resource training programs.

Contact: kbird@rvmjfirm.com

By Dan Hernandez

Please join me in thanking Chris, Yvonne, and our team for their excellent work on two recent seminars that we have presented in the last year and one other last year. Their good work has been recognized by the those who have attended the seminar. See attached brochure and attendee evaluations. The Council on Education in Management has now asked us to continue presenting the seminars due to the positive feedback. This has provided exceptional marketing opportunities for us and we have also received an honoriam for our efforts. Thanks.

Contact: dhernandez@rvmjfirm.com