“In conducting this analysis, the court confines itself to the complaint and does not consider the defendants’ affidavit attached to the motion. In her complaint, Henderson asserts she was employed as a customer service representative by all three defendants…. She alleges that defendant entities employed more than fifteen employees…. Taking these assertions s true and constructing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Henderson’s complaint states a valid claim under Title VII.”
Henderson v. Saf-Tech, Inc., CA No. H-13-1766, 2013 WL 6858503 at *3-4 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 30, 2013) (Miller, J.).
“The Court notes that every case relied upon for Defendant’s substantive arguments was decided under the summary judgment standard, not under Rule 12(b)(6).”
Mosley v. Tutle & Tutle Trucking, Inc., CA No. 6:13-CD-468, 2013 WL 6824385 at *2 (E.D. Tex., Dec. 26, 2013) (Davis, J.).
“Leissner stated that McMann’s prior offenses and failure to secure the trash trailer would not justify his termination…. He also points to the deposition of Katya Watson, the regional property manager, who stated that McMann’s failure to secure the cart and prior offenses were not grounds for termination…. Accordingly, McMann has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Greystar’s proffered reason for terminated was pretextual.”
McMann v. Greystar Management Services, LP, CA No. 1:12-CV-909, 2013 WL 6243847 at *6 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2013) (Austin, J.).
“Further, the question is not what Greystar thought when it returned McMann to work, but what it (and its managers) believed when, three months later, they forced McMann to resign.”
McMann v. Greystar Management Services, LP, CA No. 1:12-CV-909, 2013 WL 6243847 at *5 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2013) (Austin, J.).
“[Defendant] does not appear to have formal written procedures in place for handling disciplinary matters, and there is no indication that [Plaintiff] was in fact informed that her work was subpar prior to the termination of her employment…. The Court finds that there are contested issues of material fact regarding the reason for [Plaintiff]’s termination and its legitimacy.”
Bourgeois v. Matrana’s Produce, 2013 WL 4525652 at *6 (E.D. La. August 30, 2013) (Roby, J.).