buy cialis online canada

 

The fact that an employer returned an employee to work after illness does not alone defeat a plaintiff’s claim.

“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.).

Company’s lack of disciplinary procedures and failure to inform an employee of subpar performance prior to termination for performance constitutes evidence of pretext.

“[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.).

A supervisor’s comment to an employee not to die is evidence that the employee was regarded as disabled.

“Leissner’s alleged warning to McMann not to die in someone’s apartment, may enable a reasonable jury to find that Leissner regarded McMann as having an impairment, namely heart disease, which substantially limits him in the major life activity of working.”

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.).

Prior congenial contact with alleged harasser is permissible if at some point the conduct becomes uninvited.

“Contravening the heavy weight of this inference is the fact that the text messages at some point changed, indicating [Plaintiff]’s strong desire that [harasser] stop contacting her.  This suggests that [harasser]’s overtures were later uninvited.”

Bourgeois v. Matrana’s Produce, 2013 WL 4525652 at *6 (E.D. La. August 30, 2013) (Roby, J.).

Changed circumstances render a same actor inference inapplicable.

“[A]fter the Plaintiff was hired and before she was fired, Wade made an allegation of race discrimination.  Abadilla (age 61 at the time Plaintiff was discharged) was herself implicated in the Wade situation…. [T]hese changed circumstances, primarily Wade’s allegation of race discrimination, render the ‘same actor’ inference inapplicable.”

Bautista v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., 2013 WL 4647677 at *7 (S.D. Tex. August 30, 2013) (Atlas, J.).