“[Employee] told Plaintiff that she would be okay financially because she was old enough to receive Social Security benefits … [and] that training Plaintiff was ‘not a priority’ and that she and [Employee] were ‘old ladies’ who were ‘slow to make decisions’ … [T]he statements are evidence that, combined with other evidence discussed above, raises a genuine issue of material fact.”
Bautista v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., 2013 WL 4647677 at *6 (S.D. Tex. August 30, 2013) (Atlas, J.).
“McMann testified in his deposition that Watson told him that he had an option of turning in his two weeks notice or being terminated immediately…. The factual dispute[s] … are enough to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact.”
McMann v. Greystar Management Services, LP, CA No. 1:12-CV-909, 2013 WL 6243847 at *4 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2013) (Austin, J.).
“Although the City’s complaints about the alleged shortcomings in [Plaintiff]’s analysis may go to the probative value of his testimony, based on the record as a whole we conclude that there is sufficient statistical evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that the Consolidation Agreement caused the disparate impact alleged.”
City of Austin v. Chandler, 2014 WL 524671 at *8 (Tex. App.—Austin, no pet. February 7, 2014) (Field, Goodwin, and Puryear, JJ.).
“A fact issue exists as to whether conduct is severe or pervasive where an employee provides evidence that the harasser ‘sought her out, gave her hugs, invited her to drinks, took a photo of her and showed it to his subordinate, used her cell phone and added him to her Facebook ‘friends,’ and showed her a picture of a man performing oral sex on a woman and told her that he changed his mind about oral sex’ and where the harasser admits to showing the employee a video clip of a horse sodomizing a woman.”
Sanders v. Christus Santa Rosa PASC, 13-CV-250, 2014 WL 201071 at *4 (W.D. Tex. January 17, 2014) (Rodriguez, J.).
“[Defendant] asserts that Plaintiff ‘was unable and/or refused to recognize and acknowledge any wrong doing.’ Plaintiff has presented substantial evidence that Defendants’ allegations against her are false and that she committed no ‘wrong doing.’ Consequently, a refusal to acknowledge misconduct would be neither surprising nor a basis for termination.”
Bautista v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., 2013 WL 4647677 at *5 (S.D. Tex. August 30, 2013) (Atlas, J.).