“Hill also offered at least some legitimate reasons for Thomas’ termination: that Thomas had not indicated if or when he would return and that he had in mind Thomas’ derogatory behavior towards him. However, those reasons are offset by the contradictory evidence. Thomas had indicated in his emails to Hill and others that he intended
A Plaintiff’s own testimony is sufficient to prove actual disability.
“Admittedly, Thomas has offered his own testimony about his restrictions, but Hill argues that Thomas cannot show, with any medical evidence, that he actually has these restrictions. The Court rejects Hill’s arguments.”
Thomas v. Hill, 2014 WL 3955656, at *7 (W.D. La. Aug. 13, 2014) (James, J.).
A subordinate employees discriminatory suggestion can be attributed to the decisionmaker if they have influence or leverage.
“When superintendent Pope informed the school board that an individual needs to be hired because a local organization “expressed concern about a lack of black workers the court held that “discriminatory animus of a manager can be imputed to the ultimate decisionmaker if the decisionmaker acted as a rubber stamp, or the cat’s paw, for
In establishing a prima facie case regarding if a Plaintiff is “qualified” for the position, such qualifications should be construed broadly in favor of the Plaintiff.
“Pace’s argument to the district court and throughout the trial was that she had five years of “warehouse experience,” if that undefined term was construed broadly, and that “[s]he was the best qualified.”*5 …In light of the ambiguity in the phrase, the jury considered the employer’s argument that Pace did not have the requisite experience,
Statements indicating spitefulness for reporting discrimination is evidence of pretext because it shows motive.
“[Plaintiff] claims that the Disciplinary Warning was issued in retaliation for his reporting of Cooper’s racially hostile statements. [Defendant] asserts that the warning issued because Willis demonstrated a ‘lack of good judgment’ and a ‘lack of respect for others’ when he sent the mass email disclosing that his co-worker son overdosed on pills. But [Plaintiff]
When the harassment is at the hands of two supervisors at different times, a plaintiff needs to prove that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and did not take prompt remedial action, and the plaintiff is still able to use the continuing violation doctrine.
“As Dr. Vives alleges putatively harassing acts after February 3, 2009, she may sweep back in all of the harassment that she alleges has occurred during her time at Children’s. It is possible that a jury could conclude the sustained pattern of conduct she alleges constitutes severe and pervasive harassment. It is also possible a
The lack of documentation of complaints at the time of the incident is evidence of pretext.
“The only two documented complaints against De La Cruz are dated February 8, the day she was demoted. Although not incriminating evidence, the suspicious timing of these documents, taken with reasonable inferences in favor of De La Cruz’s claim that they were fabricated, could support a finding of discriminatory motive.”
De La Cruz v. Coastal
The lack of interview notes favors plaintiff’s version of events.
“In response to Defendants’ claim that De La Cruz was only temporarily filling the fulltime position, De La Cruz insists that Diaz actually hired her for the full-time position. De La Cruz next asserts that, although Defendants admitted that notes should have been taken during her job interview and kept in her employee file, no
Plaintiff can establish pretext for defendants stated reason of saving money by showing other individuals where hired.
“Plaintiff argues pretext based on the following points: (1) that defendant’s proffered reason is not supported by any documentation; (2) that Sheriff Little hired fourteen (14) new employees before plaintiff was discharged and hired fifteen (15) new employees after the alleged reduction in force due to budget constraints; and (3) that Sheriff Little explained
A supervisor not being terminated for same conduct is evidence of pretext.
“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