“Defendants cite the following global statement in both declarations: ‘SDT did not fire anyone for complaining about not getting paid for all time worked.’ Neither [Defendant] mentions [Plaintiff] by name, nor do Defendants identify any other evidence to establish the basis for [Plaintiff’s] termination. The Court finds this evidence insufficient to establish a legitimate, non-retaliatory
Employee Rights
Plaintiff’s inconsistent statements when reporting the circumstances surrounding a job related personal injury does not preclude Plaintiff from asserting a claim of retaliatory termination, when there is evidence of impaired thought processes.
By Kalandra N. Wheeler on
Posted in Retaliation
“[Plaintiff] claims his thought processes and memory were impaired following the accident because of the injuries he sustained in it. His testimony is corroborated by testimony from his wife and one co-worker. Because it is not disputed that [Plaintiff] sustained some injuries to his head, his claims are not intrinsically unbelievable. While the fact that…
A time lapse of five (5) to six (6) months does not negate a causal connection between an employee’s engagement in a protected activity and her discharge.
By Eric P. Dama on
Posted in Retaliation
“The Fifth Circuit has suggested that an extended gap of time between the plaintiff engaging in a protected activity and an adverse employment action can cut against a finding of retaliation. Mayberry v. Vought Aircraft Co., 55 F.3d 1086, 1092 (5th Cir. 1995) (noting that an interval of several years between the adverse action and…
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
Posted in Retaliation
“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
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
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
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
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
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
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…