Photo of JMANCHESTER

“[Defendant] does not appear to have formal written procedures in place for handling disciplinary matters, and there is no indication that [Plaintiff] was in fact informed that her work was subpar prior to the termination of her employment….  The Court finds that there are contested issues of material fact regarding the reason for [Plaintiff]’s termination

“Contravening the heavy weight of this inference is the fact that the text messages at some point changed, indicating [Plaintiff]’s strong desire that [harasser] stop contacting her.  This suggests that [harasser]’s overtures were later uninvited.”

Bourgeois v. Matrana’s Produce, 2013 WL 4525652 at *6 (E.D. La. August 30, 2013) (Roby, J.).

“[A]fter the Plaintiff was hired and before she was fired, Wade made an allegation of race discrimination.  Abadilla (age 61 at the time Plaintiff was discharged) was herself implicated in the Wade situation…. [T]hese changed circumstances, primarily Wade’s allegation of race discrimination, render the ‘same actor’ inference inapplicable.”

Bautista v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc

“[B]ecause there were a number of individuals involved in the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment, some of whom were not involved in the decision to hire her, the ‘same actor’ inference is inapplicable.”

Bautista v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., 2013 WL 4647677 at *6 (S.D. Tex. August 30, 2013) (Atlas, J.).

“[Employee] told Plaintiff that she would be okay financially because she was old enough to receive Social Security benefits … [and] that training Plaintiff was ‘not a priority’ and that she and [Employee] were ‘old ladies’ who were ‘slow to make decisions’ … [T]he statements are evidence that, combined with other evidence discussed above, raises

“[Defendant] asserts that Plaintiff ‘was unable and/or refused to recognize and acknowledge any wrong doing.’ Plaintiff has presented substantial evidence that Defendants’ allegations against her are false and that she committed no ‘wrong doing.’ Consequently, a refusal to acknowledge misconduct would be neither surprising nor a basis for termination.”

Bautista v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories,

“Plaintiff has presented evidence that her supervisors, [names], suggested the discipline of having Wade recite the SOPs.  Plaintiff expressed her disagreement with the proposed disciplinary procedure but ultimately followed her supervisors’ instructions.”

Bautista v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., 2013 WL 4647677 at *5 (S.D. Tex. August 30, 2013) (Atlas, J.).

“Plaintiff has presented evidence that when she attempted to explain her position to supervisors, they told her ‘they didn’t want to hear it.’ Plaintiff has presented evidence that, when she attempted to explain her positions, Hoffman called her ‘annoying.’  The investigation summary includes only Ms. Wade’s allegations and none of Plaintiff’s explanations.  These alleged short

“Plaintiff has presented strong evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether [Defendant]’s assertion that [Plaintiff] discriminated against Wade on the basis of [employee]’s race is false.  [Another employee], Director of Human Resources, testified in her deposition that she did not believe that Plaintiff was a racist and that she thinks Plaintiff

“[Plaintiff’s manager] commented that Plaintiff should relocate to the Hammon property because ‘she is black and the residents are black’ … the Fifth Circuit set forth the criteria for direct evidence of discrimination…. [and] the comments cited by Plaintiff meet the criteria.”

Zeno v. Livingston Management, Inc., 2013 WL 4520532 at *2-3 (M.D. La.