In the face of a global pandemic, workplaces as we know them have drastically changed. Working from home has become common place, jobs that were undervalued in our society are now seen as essential, and workplaces once seen as safe now have increasing health and safety risks. The circumstances in this essentially unprecedented time serve

“Lopez responds that she suffered the following adverse employment actions as a result of her complaints: (1) she became the subject of actual sabotage in the workplace; (2) she was given a machine that usually had two operators, but she was supposed to operate it alone; (3) the men in the workplace were threatened not

“The Defendants also claims [sic] that the Plaintiff could not satisfy the third prong of the prima facie case [for FMLA retaliation] and could not establish a causal connection that her pregnancy caused her to get fired. The Defendants contend that there is no indication [Defendant] was aware that the Plaintiff was pregnant or wanted

“A ‘qualified individual’ means ‘an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodations, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.’ In Plaintiff’s Third Amended and Restated Complaint, Plaintiff adds the allegation that she ‘required the cane to perform the tasks within the course and scope of employment at

“The plaintiff attested that, as a Technical Support Specialist, she worked offsite and from home through telecommunication and reported to the Tampa, Florida corporate office, which has more than 50 employees . . . . Here, the plaintiff provides sufficient evidence to support her claim that she is an eligible employee under the FMLA. Because

“[Defendant] was not acting as AUM’s agent in any respect. Instead, [Defendant] was AUM’s customer. The proper description of the facts here is not that [Defendant] was acting as an agent of AUM, and AUM was passing on legal advice to [Defendant] in the context of a principal-agent relationship; rather, [Defendant] was AUM’s customer, and

“[D]espite there being instances, such as in Section 12.1056(d), where an open- enrollment charter school is treated in the same manner as a school district, nothing in the Texas Education Code or the common law dictates that open-enrollment charter schools and school districts are universally equivalent.”

Section 7.057(a)(2)(B) sets forth the process by which

“[The investigator] testified that a portion of the hours she found Dow to have been overbilled was in the form of employees arriving late, leaving early, and taking breaks. (Id. at pp. 113—15). [The investigator] stated that the contract between Axion and Dow did not permit Axion to bill Dow for its employees’ breaks.

“[Plaintiff] testified that [manager] Young instructed her to refuse [the customer’s] attempted return, and that she was disciplined for doing just that. [Plaintiff] explained that [customer] requested her termination, and that [manager] Young responded “don’t you worry sir. I’m fixing to take care of her right now.” And according to [customer], his complaint to co-manager