“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

“Where statutory or constitutional provisions create an entitlement to payment, suits seeking to require state officer to comply with the law are not barred by immunity merely because they compel the state to make those payments.  Tamayo claims that Chapter 614 created a statutory requirement that Tamayo continue his employment until Sheriff Lucio complied with

“Plaintiffs’ allegations that they were nonexempt, regularly worked more than forty hours per week, and were not paid time-and-a-half to be factual allegations and not legal conclusions.”

Rodriguez v. Gold & Silver Buyers, Inc., Civ. A. No. 4:12–CV–1831, 2013 WL 5372529 at *3 (S.D.Tex. Sept.24, 2013) (Harmon, J.).

“The Court finds that [the employee] meets his burden to establish that he is similarly situated to other employees in the proposed class.  In his declaration, [the employee] states that he was required to work approximately seventy-three hours per week and was paid a flat rate of $145 per day.  He did not receive overtime