Retaliation

What to do if You are the Victim of Discrimination at the Workplace

By Jairo N. Castellanos on June 8, 2020

Posted in Employment Discrimination, Retaliation, Sexual Harassment, Title VII

Do you find yourself in a situation where you are being discriminated at work, but you have no idea what to even do beyond going to HR? This is probably one of the most common scenarios I encounter during consultations. What I’d like to do is go over some very basic things to keep in mind if you find yourself in a situation where you suspect that you are the victim of discrimination.

Documentation is king.

The very first thing to do is take stock of the documents you have that are related to your employment. For example, any type of disciplinary documents, employee handbook, company memos, pertinent emails, termination letter, any complaints that you have filed or sent to anyone at the company like your boss, HR, or a coworker, or anything that may be relevant.Continue Reading What to do if You are the Victim of Discrimination at the Workplace

Four references to an employee’s protected activity during a much longer meeting where multiple subjects were discussed is sufficient to create a fact issue as to causation.

By Colin W. Walsh on January 12, 2015

Posted in Retaliation

“While it is true that these statements are few in number, and that much of the meeting was spent discussing other subjects, their number does not strip the statements of their status as evidence. After a court draws the negative inference that Sheriff Cutler was negatively referencing Haverda’s letter to the editor, the amount of…

To establish the third element of a prima facie case for retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must ultimately present evidence that there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.

By Eric P. Dama on January 9, 2015

Posted in Retaliation

“A review of her pleadings reflects that [Employee] has alleged that she has worked for [Employer] since 1988, she encountered no problems in the workplace until she was listed as a witness in [Co-worker]’s complaint in July 2008, and, shortly after being listed as a witness in the legal action [Co-worker] filed in state court…

Global statement that company did not fire any employee for complaining about wages is not a legitimate non-retaliatory reason.

By Nicole M. Conger on January 8, 2015

Posted in Retaliation, Unpaid wages

“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…

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 January 3, 2015

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 January 2, 2015

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 December 29, 2014

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 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…

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…

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…

Texas Employment Lawyer

Retaliation

What to do if You are the Victim of Discrimination at the Workplace

Four references to an employee’s protected activity during a much longer meeting where multiple subjects were discussed is sufficient to create a fact issue as to causation.

To establish the third element of a prima facie case for retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must ultimately present evidence that there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.

Global statement that company did not fire any employee for complaining about wages is not a legitimate non-retaliatory reason.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

About the Texas Employment Lawyer Blog