“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

“In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she engaged in a protected activity when she filed a charge with the EEOC, that she was terminated immediately, and that her filing of the charge caused her termination.  Given the proximity of the termination to the charge, it is reasonable to infer at this stage of the litigation

“[Plaintiff] claims that the Disciplinary Warning was issued in retaliation for his reporting of Cooper’s racially hostile statements. [Defendant] asserts that the warning issued because Willis demonstrated a ‘lack of good judgment’ and a ‘lack of respect for others’ when he sent the mass email disclosing that his co-worker son overdosed on pills. But [Plaintiff]

“In conducting this analysis, the court confines itself to the complaint and does not consider the defendants’ affidavit attached to the motion.  In her complaint, Henderson asserts she was employed as a customer service representative by all three defendants….  She alleges that defendant entities employed more than fifteen employees….  Taking these assertions s true and

“Plaintiffs noted that during his second interview, Rick Mills asked Walsh such questions as, ‘How much do you value your job? Do you value your job over your friendship with Jody?…  These actions by Tower can be reasonably perceived as pressuring Walsh into altering the truth to secure its desire to find no supporting evidence

“Plaintiff provided notice to the TWC that Dr. Decherd was sexually harassing her and that she complained to her supervisor of the alleged conduct. Plaintiff was not required to specifically detail each and every instance of sexually harassing conduct allegedly engaged in by Dr. Decherd.”

Sanders v. Christus Santa Rosa PASC, 13-CV-250, 2014 WL

“Requesting reasonable accommodations is generally a protected activity against retaliation under the ADA; however, first a plaintiff must have a good faith belief that he or she was disabled or perceived as disabled.”

Williams v. Rocktenn, 2013 WL 5960671 at *14 (W.D. La. November 6, 2013) (Trimble, J.).

 

“Section 301 of the Texas Occupations Code provided: ‘[A] person may not suspend or terminate the employment of, or otherwise discipline or discriminate against, a person who reports, without malice, under this section.’  Thus, wrongful termination is not a necessary element for Plaintiffs to assert a claim under section 301.  Plaintiffs have alleged that in

“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