“When asked why Plaintiff’s position was eliminated, as opposed to one of the workers in the maintenance department, Childress testified that the District was ‘making decisions based on cost savings.’  Plaintiff points out that none of the other employees laid off as a result of the reduction in force were terminated after the 2010 through 2011 academic year began. Moreover, the District’s contention that the decision to terminate Plaintiff was made and finalized on May 26, 2010 strains the credulity of the Court. Specifically, Defendant cites the Board minutes from that date, contending that the minutes contain the names of all employees who were to be employed for the following school year. According to Defendant, ‘[h]ad Plaintiff’s position and his employment continued, then his name would have been on that list.’  The fundamental problem with such a contention, however, is that Plaintiff’s employment did continue both into the next fiscal year and into the next academic year. Additionally, Rutledge, who the District also slated for termination but then continued to employ, is not listed on the Board’s minutes which purportedly contain the names of all 2010 employees.  For the foregoing reasons, the Court determines that Plaintiff has established a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendant’s proffered legitimate non-retaliatory reason for his termination was merely pretext for unlawful retaliation.”

Newcomb v. Corinth School Dist., 2014 WL 1746066, at *7 (N.D. Miss. May 1, 2014) (Aycock, J.).