“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

“Thus, Koopman is the only person who definitely denies that the statements were ever made…. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have present sufficient evidence to create a fact issue….”

Smith v. Tower Automotive Operations USA I, LLC, 2013 WL 6240247 at *8-9 (S.D. Miss.

“[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.

“Indeed, the interviewed employees’ responses that the Spanish-speaking employees were trying to ‘cause trouble,’ and that they felt uncomfortable when the Hispanic employees spoke Spanish, might have suggested the need to investigate further.  However, there is no evidence that Defendant took additional steps after the cursory investigation to remedy the situation about which Plaintiff complained.

“Pretext may be shown ‘either through evidence of disparate treatment or by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is false or unworthy of credence.”

Hoffman v. Baylor Health Care System, 2014 WL 772672 at *2 (N.D. Tex. February 27, 2014) (Lindsay, J.) (quoting Jackson v. Cal-Western Packaging Corp., 602 F.3d 374, 378 (5th

“The question is whether the deposition testimony from [the supervisor] that some drivers used his personal truck for business-related purposes is sufficient to prevent summary judgment as to [the Plaintiff]’s claim … when [the supervisor] testified that he would occasionally ask some drivers to use his personal truck for business-related matters.  [The Plaintiff] testified in

“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

“Plaintiff provided her own testimony and the testimony of a coworker concerning English only requirement, increased workload, and the mocking of plaintiff.  Supervisor also testified that she may have had the English only rule.”

Garcia v. Garland Ind. Sch. Dist., No 3:11-cv-502-N-BK, 2013 WL 5299264 at *5 (N.D. Tex Sept. 20, 2013) (Godbey, J.).