We think it significant that, although [decision-maker] refused to give [employee] any reason when he notified her that her contract was not being renewed, during the instant litigation [decision-maker] was able to supply a laundry list of reasons.”

Hague v. Univ. of Tx. Health & Sci. Ctr. at San Antonio, 560 Fed. Appx. 328,

“This Court has previously held that transfers to jail duty, even without a decrease in pay, can be adverse employment decisions because jobs in the jail are not as interesting or prestigious as jobs in the law enforcement section.  We made that finding only after reviewing the evidence presented at trial, and thus we can

“Although [Plaintiff] … is unaware of who actually made the decision to hire or fire her…, it undoubtedly was [Coworker]’s recommendation that [Plaintiff] be reprimanded for insubordination that initiated the termination process.  Moreover,…testimony indicates that [Coworker] was involved in [Plaintiff’s] hiring to some degree, and…testimony tends to indicate that [Coworker] may have input regarding the

“Leissner stated that McMann’s prior offenses and failure to secure the trash trailer would not justify his termination….  He also points to the deposition of Katya Watson, the regional property manager, who stated that McMann’s failure to secure the cart and prior offenses were not grounds for termination….  Accordingly, McMann has raised a genuine issue

“[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

“McMann asserts that he resigned even though he did not want to because he felt compelled to do so…. Additionally, in a sworn statement, Gregg Williams states that Leissner told him the missing trash cart had been the reason for McMann’s termination…. The factual dispute[s] … are enough to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material

“[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.).

“McMann testified in his deposition that Watson told him that he had an option of turning in his two weeks notice or being terminated immediately….  The factual dispute[s] … are enough to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact.”

McMann v. Greystar Management Services, LP, CA No. 1:12-CV-909, 2013 WL 6243847 at *4 (W.D. Tex.

“Although the City’s complaints about the alleged shortcomings in [Plaintiff]’s analysis may go to the probative value of his testimony, based on the record as a whole we conclude that there is sufficient statistical evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that the Consolidation Agreement caused the disparate impact alleged.”

City of Austin v.