“A reasonable jury could conclude from [plaintiff’s supervisor’s] explanation, together with the summary judgment evidence that Plaintiff’s’ co-worker, Clark, also did not strictly follow TDCJ’s timesheet policy as written, that [employer’s] timesheet policy recognized a de facto exception for [public information officers]. If the de facto exception was selectively ignored in [plaintiff’s] case, a reasonable
Showing that white employee was denied raise, even though fully funded by federal grant, by new black sheriff who recently hired two new blacks employees is enough create fact issue regarding intentional discrimination.
“Kelvin Williams, a black male, was elected sheriff. James Moore, a black male, became warden. Shortly thereafter, Williams promoted another black female, with no college degree or counseling certification, to be the director of the male alcohol and drug program at the facility at a salary of $40,000 per year. He appointed Jean Fair, a
Two statements made by non-supervisor, proximate to the termination, are enough to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding direct evidence under Medina test.
“Here, [Employee] alleges two statements in particular as evidence of age discrimination. First, [employee] asserts that McKinley, during or immediately after [employee’s] termination, declared: ‘[G]o get a job as a Wal–Mart door greeter.’ Second, [employee] alleges that a fellow employee overheard McKinley say, on the day immediately following [employee’s] termination, ‘I’m the one that got
Negative comments are still racially based if white coworkers are not subjected to the same type of comments.
“Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to [Plaintiff], the Court finds that he has presented sufficient evidence to establish a genuine dispute of material fact from which a jury could conclude that the harassment complained of was based on race. Such a conclusion is underscored by the deposition testimony of Bell’s white co-worker,
In the prima facie analysis of the qualified prong, Defendant can use only objective requirements. “Pertinent experience” is not an objective requirement.
“An employer may establish job requirements, and rely on them in arguing that a prima facie case is not established because the employee is not ‘qualified.’ However, only objective requirements may be used in making this argument.” Johnson v. Louisiana, 351 F.3d 616, 622 (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2003) (citing Medina v.
Non-race based harassment can be combined with race based harassment when analyzing if the harassment was severe or pervasive.
“[T]he plaintiff has presented evidence of a pattern of race-based harassment, it is appropriate for the Court to consider incidents of non-race-based harassment. Compare EEOC v. WC&M Enters., Inc., 496 F.3d 393, 400 (5th Cir. Aug. 10, 2007) (determining that a fact finder could reasonably conclude that a co-worker’s frequent banging on the glass
Pregnancy discrimination can occur when the employee is terminated three months after the birth as long as there is some relation to the termination and pregnancy.
“Chapter 21 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees “on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.” Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 21.106(a). Women who were pregnant at, or very near the time of, an adverse employment action are members of the protected class, as are women who were on maternity leave, or who
Pretext is established when the selection vote is divided on racial lines.
“Plaintiff argues that the changes to the vacancy notice regarding college graduation indicate the City’s true intent, which he claims was to hire a black police chief. Plaintiff contends that the vacancy initially required applicants to graduate from a four-year university or college but was later changed so that African–Americans would qualify. …. Plaintiff further
When establishing that a Plaintiff is “regarded as” disabled, a heart condition resulting in by-pass surgery is not “minor.”
“Thomas need only show that Hill terminated him because of his actual or a perceived physical impairment, regardless of whether the impairment limits a major life activity. Hill’s arguments to the contrary are simply wrong. Thomas cannot meet his burden, however, if the impairment is “transitory and minor.” Given the facts in this case, the
Pretext is established when costs are cited as a reason for termination, but employer hires other employer to do employees job duties.
“In the letter itself, Hill raised Thomas’ medical condition, the need for Thomas to seek a less stressful job, and Hill’s desire to reduce costs. Yet, before and after Thomas’ termination, Hill hired a total of three employees to perform Thomas’ job duties. Under these circumstances, Thomas has presented a genuine issue of material fact