In May 2004, Plaintiff became a letter carrier with the USPS. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant retaliated against him after he filed numerous grievances and EEO complaints. He argues that his disciplinary actions began around the same time and are separated from his protected activity by only a two-month period. Because of this, Plaintiff contends that
Adam S. Greenfield
We asked Adam S. Greenfield, an experienced Trial Attorney in the Dallas office of Rob Wiley, P.C., to provide his outspoken answers to a range of questions. After reading, you will be more acquainted with the soundness and ability that Mr. Greenfield emanates.
1. If you were not practicing labor and employment law what would you be?
Either a General Manager of a sports team, or a Teacher.
2. What is the most important issue to you of being an advocate?
3. Why did you decide to become a lawyer?
At some point during law school, I decided that I wanted to be able to help people who were in a bad place, and I thought the best way to do this was to represent employees.
4. What is the most satisfying part of working for Rob Wiley, P.C.?
Working with other kind and smart people.
5. What is the biggest mistake you see employers make?
Not treating employees with respect.
6. What issue would you argue before the Supreme Court?
That discrimination against members of the LGBT community should be protected under The Civil Rights Act of 1964 for gender discrimination.
7. Besides Rob Wiley, P.C., what is the most interesting job that you have had?
Working for a Sports Agency.
8. What skills do you most value as an employment attorney?
9. What is your favorite food?
Fried egg and bacon sandwiches, and sashimi. Not at the same time though!
10. What’s the best part of living in Dallas?
Dallas is home!
Adam S. Greenfield is a Trial Attorney in the Dallas office of Rob Wiley, P.C. He graduated from The University of Texas at Austin in 2006. Mr. Greenfield went on and received his law degree from The University of Miami School of Law in 2010.
The statutory duty not to retaliate against employees for reporting violations of law does not directly relate to treatment that was or should have been performed for a patient therefore does not fall within the definition of an HCLC [Health Care Liability Claim].
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order denying Loyds of Dallas Enterprises, LLC’s motion to dismiss an alleged health care liability claim (HCLC) for failure to file an expert report. … Jennings alleges she was fired for reporting violations of the health and safety code consisting of failures by Loyds to make adequate medication…
An employee can create a hostile work environment for their supervisor.
“The record shows that Plaintiff’s subordinate made an anonymous complaint against Plaintiff allowing other individuals to steal money and time from Defendant. The subordinate then filed a grievance against Plaintiff complaining that since she was hired for the position he had harassed her, wrote her up, investigated her and yelled at her in front of…
A Plaintiff’s subjective beliefs about why they are terminated are not relevant in determining whether they make a valid Title VII claim; the court is guided by McDonnell Douglas.
“During deposition, Plaintiff answered ‘no’ when asked if he was terminated because of his race but later stated that he believed race was a motivating factor in his termination.”
Brooks, et al. v. Firestone Polymers, LLC, 2014 WL 4792653, at *27 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 24, 2014) (Crone, J.).
Race related comments made by the alleged decisionmaker, on the day of termination, and apparently related to the employment decision at issue is arguably direct evidence of discrimination.
“Here, the alleged termination decision maker repeated (three times) the derogatory racial remark ‘[Plaintiff] didn’t fit into the culture of [Defendant].’ The last time the remark was made was on the day of Plaintiff’s termination.”
Miller v. Kimes & Stone Const. Co., Inc., 2014 WL 4803094, at *2 (N.D.Miss. Sep. 24, 2014) (Brown, J.).
Summary judgment should be denied when Defendant’s version of events is substantially different from the Plaintiff’s.
“The Court held the following to be issues of material fact based on Plaintiff’s and 3rd party affidavits: (1) discrepancy regarding who made the decision to terminate; (2) Plaintiff offering evidence that employees were undermining him while Defendant offers a company policy prohibiting discrimination; (3) Plaintiff’s claims of ‘phenomenal’ performance v. Defendant’s Affidavit’s claiming insubordination,…
The 4th prong of a plaintiff’s prima facie case is met when the Plaintiff’s position is eliminated but someone outside the protected class assumes their job duties.
“Here, the Plaintiff (white male) used an affidavit to assert that ‘defendant transferred his job responsibilities and authorities to … all African –American[s], and none of whom had anywhere near the experience and training.’”
Quinn v. Capital Transp. Corp., 2014 WL 4782708, at *4 (M.D. La. Sep. 24, 2014) (De Gravelles, J.).
Success is the most critical “Johnson” factor for a prevailing plaintiff when a Judge adjusts the lodestar amount, but success is not measured solely on the recovery of monetary damages.
“[A] lawsuit spawning some remedial measures to prevent a [civil rights violation “recurrence” is considered success when adjusting the lodestar. Here, the employer “distributing an employment manual to its employees containing its sexual harassment policy and … the company now [having] discussions with management to prevent sexual harassment” is considered success. Damages recovered in this…