Employee Rights

Qualified immunity defense has nothing to do with Plaintiff’s ability to prove essential elements of his or her 1983 retaliation claim.

By Colin W. Walsh on December 29, 2014

“The district court’s belief that Appellees had established beyond dispute that they did not demote Haverda because of his speech has nothing to do with the qualified immunity defense.”

Haverda v. Hays Co., 723 S.W.3d 586, 599 (5th Cir. July 17, 2013) (Martinez, J.).

In Section 1983 first amendment retaliation case, membership in a political association is considered speech protected by the first amendment.

By Colin W. Walsh on December 28, 2014

Posted in Retaliation

“The content—support for Kaelin’s opponent—and form—participation in a PAC—of the speech at issue clearly support the notion that it involved matters of public concern, as we have previously held that there can be no question that . . . associating with political organizations and campaigning for a political candidate related to a matter of public…

A jury may reasonably conclude that Defendant failed to establish the Ellerth /Faragher defense when an employer has failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassing behavior.

By Kalandra N. Wheeler on December 27, 2014

Posted in Hostile Work Environment

“[Defendant] argues…that it had an Equal Employment Opportunity policy, the jury could have believed…that the policy was not followed. At trial, the jury heard evidence that in response to the EEOC’s request for information, [Defendant] produced affidavits stating that [Plaintiff] never complained…. The jury heard and saw evidence and testimony demonstrating that this was false. …

An employee can create a hostile work environment for their supervisor.

By Adam S. Greenfield on December 21, 2014

Posted in Hostile Work Environment

“The record shows that Plaintiff’s subordinate made an anonymous complaint against Plaintiff allowing other individuals to steal money and time from Defendant. The subordinate then filed a grievance against Plaintiff complaining that since she was hired for the position he had harassed her, wrote her up, investigated her and yelled at her in front of…

Testimony of an employer’s statements evincing retaliatory animus are regarded as direct evidence, and no further inference to determine retaliatory intent is required.

By Eric P. Dama on December 19, 2014

Posted in Retaliation

“The Court finds that [Supervisor]’s unambiguous statement that Plaintiff ‘didn’t do anything wrong, but [he] filed that Complaint,’ recalled by both Plaintiff and a co-worker, amounts to direct evidence of retaliation sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Had [Supervisor] said something more along the lines of, ‘I did not vote to promote you because you filed…

An employee can demonstrate pretext by producing evidence that the employer’s stated reason for termination was based, in part, on allegations contained within an employee’s complaint that forms the basis of the employee’s protected activity.

By Carmen Artaza on December 8, 2014

Posted in EEOC

“During his deposition, [decision-maker] testified that he made the decision not to renew [employee’s] contract because ‘it came down to issues of trust.’ When explaining what issues of trust he had with [employee], [decision-maker] referenced, among other things, [employee’s] report in which she claimed he bumped into her. . . [a]ccordingly, when asked to explain…

Evidence demonstrating the falsity of the defendant’s explanation, taken together with the prima facie case, is likely to support an inference of discrimination even without further evidence of the defendant’s motive.

By Eric P. Dama on December 5, 2014

Posted in Retaliation

“When asked why Plaintiff’s position was eliminated, as opposed to one of the workers in the maintenance department, Childress testified that the District was ‘making decisions based on cost savings.’ Plaintiff points out that none of the other employees laid off as a result of the reduction in force were terminated after the 2010 through…

An independent contractor may be considered an “employee” for purposes of analyzing a Title VII claim when several factors are considered.

By Nicole M. Conger on December 4, 2014

Posted in FLSA violations

“Plaintiff alleges that the workers are ‘hourly employees’ who ‘supply no materials or tools of their own’ and ‘are directly supervised, directed and controlled by [Owner] and [Supervisor]. These allegations, taken as true, are sufficient to overcome the instant motion to dismiss.”

Stewart v. Caton, 2013 WL 4459981, at *9 (E.D. La. Aug. 13, 2013)…

A single act of harassment by a supervisor need not be severe and pervasive to create a hostile work environment, especially when an employer relies on unbinding authority.

By Nicole M. Conger on November 27, 2014

Posted in Hostile Work Environment

“In determining if conduct is ‘severe and/or pervasive,’ the Court should consider the totality of the circumstances, ‘including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Stewart v. Caton, Civ. No. 13-823, 2013…

In making a prima facie case, a time lapse under four (4) months is sufficient to satisfy the causal connection requirement needed to survive Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

By Kalandra N. Wheeler on November 22, 2014

Posted in EEOC

“The evidence shows that the [P]laintiff submitted a DOTD grievance form on May 24, 2011 regarding alleged improper conduct by [Supervisor] and then provided testimony to the EEOC on July 7, 2011 in connection with complaints filed by two subordinate employees…. Additionally, the evidence indicates that DOTD transferred the [P]laintiff to the Baton Rouge office…

Texas Employment Lawyer

Employee Rights

Qualified immunity defense has nothing to do with Plaintiff’s ability to prove essential elements of his or her 1983 retaliation claim.

In Section 1983 first amendment retaliation case, membership in a political association is considered speech protected by the first amendment.

A jury may reasonably conclude that Defendant failed to establish the Ellerth /Faragher defense when an employer has failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassing behavior.

An employee can create a hostile work environment for their supervisor.

Testimony of an employer’s statements evincing retaliatory animus are regarded as direct evidence, and no further inference to determine retaliatory intent is required.

An employee can demonstrate pretext by producing evidence that the employer’s stated reason for termination was based, in part, on allegations contained within an employee’s complaint that forms the basis of the employee’s protected activity.

Evidence demonstrating the falsity of the defendant’s explanation, taken together with the prima facie case, is likely to support an inference of discrimination even without further evidence of the defendant’s motive.

An independent contractor may be considered an “employee” for purposes of analyzing a Title VII claim when several factors are considered.

A single act of harassment by a supervisor need not be severe and pervasive to create a hostile work environment, especially when an employer relies on unbinding authority.

In making a prima facie case, a time lapse under four (4) months is sufficient to satisfy the causal connection requirement needed to survive Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

About the Texas Employment Lawyer Blog