“In the instant case, the differences among employees in the putative class—job classifications, descriptions, and duties—are not materially relevant to plaintiffs’ allegations.”

Behnken v. Luminant Min. Co., LLC, 2014 WL 585333 at *7 (N.D. Tex. February 14, 2014) (Fitzwater, J.).

“Plaintiff provided notice to the TWC that Dr. Decherd was sexually harassing her and that she complained to her supervisor of the alleged conduct. Plaintiff was not required to specifically detail each and every instance of sexually harassing conduct allegedly engaged in by Dr. Decherd.”

Sanders v. Christus Santa Rosa PASC, 13-CV-250, 2014 WL

“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

“Drawing reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, however, Ross’s alleged action, coming on heels of Plaintiff’s complaints of discrimination, and culminating in her termination, is sufficient to raise an issue of material fact as to Plaintiff’s retaliation claim.  Said a different way, Plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence that but-for her report to Ross of the allegedly

“Moreover, Plaintiffs offer evidence that may call into question whether Tower’s investigation was made in good faith.  In Walsh’s first interview with Tower, he admitted that Koopman made statements that he interpreted as racially offensive….  The Tower interviewers doubted Walsh’s credibility and chose to interview him a second time.”

Smith v. Tower Automotive Operations USA

“Compelling is the fact that Defendant’s basis for the insubordination charge stems from Plaintiff’s refusal, for arguably legitimate reasons, to sign a form Defendant has not required be signed in the past, and which Defendant had not previously taken any adverse personnel action on account of her failure to sign. That, taken in conjunction with

“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

“Although Defendant suggests that the remote temporal proximity of the African American hire and Plaintiff’s termination indicate no relation between the two events, such is an inference more properly drawn by the trier of fact.  Thus, Plaintiff has established a prima facie case of disparate treatment, causing the burden to shift to Defendant to assert

“Requesting reasonable accommodations is generally a protected activity against retaliation under the ADA; however, first a plaintiff must have a good faith belief that he or she was disabled or perceived as disabled.”

Williams v. Rocktenn, 2013 WL 5960671 at *14 (W.D. La. November 6, 2013) (Trimble, J.).

 

“[An employee] sets forth the factors for similarly situated employees as follows: (1) they shared the same supervisor, (2) were subject to the same standards, and (3) engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer’s treatment of them for it.”

Hoffman v. Baylor Health