“The Court finds that [Supervisor]’s unambiguous statement that Plaintiff ‘didn’t do anything wrong, but [he] filed that Complaint,’ recalled by both Plaintiff and a co-worker, amounts to direct evidence of retaliation sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Had [Supervisor] said something more along the lines of, ‘I did not vote to promote you because you filed that Complaint,’ further analysis of whether [Supervisor]’s retaliatory animus infected the rest of the five-member committee would be warranted.But, because the statement was phrased as an omniscient recollection of what took place, it is enough to create a fact issue as to whether retaliatory animus was the but-for cause of [Employee]’s termination.”

 

Rao v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., 2014 WL 1846102 at *3 (S.D. Tex. May 08, 2014) (Ellison, J.).