Employment Discrimination

Subscribe to Employment Discrimination via RSS

“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.).

“Plaintiffs presented evidence showing that at least three … out of the six employees present in the break room heard Koopman say something that could have been perceived as racially offensive…  Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to create a fact issue….”…

“Plaintiff also testified that Anderson often joined in the co-workers’ jokes about Plaintiff’s mispronunciation of English words, and daily called Plaintiff ‘crybaby.’  While Defendant is correct that such name-calling does not, in and of itself, constitute discrimination under Title VII, the fact that the names were allegedly uttered because of Plaintiff’s reaction to other harassment…

“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…

“Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff’s claims, there is evidence that throughout her tenure at LHS, the same group of co-workers and supervisor perpetrated the alleged discriminatory acts (i.e., name-calling, teasing, increasing work load, and prohibiting the use of Spanish). Thus, there is sufficient nexus between the national origin discrimination claims…

“The Texas Labor Code’s ‘Election of Remedies’ provision states: ‘A person who has initiated an action in a court of competent jurisdiction . . . based on an act that would be an unlawful employment practice under this chapter may not file a complaint under this subchapter for the same grievance.’  The section ‘limits the…

“Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor also acknowledged that Plaintiff had never received a written reprimand due to work related issues.  Indeed, Barajas’s deposition was taken, but he could not identify specific incidents where Huske was unprofessional.  About the only seed he could throw was that Huske was rude, but he could not identify any instance where she…