“Nonetheless, the summary judgment evidence also demonstrates that Defendant’s reasons for Plaintiff’s ‘separation’ from Tyson were inconsistent and create a fact issue as to their pretextual nature. For example, although Defendant relies on the union campaign as a reason for termination, Huske’s immediate supervisor received a write up and reduction in his bonus as a result of the union campaign but appears to still be working at the plant.”
Huske v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 4:12CV583, 2013 WL 5832248 at *6 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2013) (Bush, J.).