“After describing statements in an email exchange about terminating plaintiff and how hard on business a sales’ rep’s extended medical leave can be, the court concludes, ‘These statements, in conjunction with Lentin’s testimony [about how the job did not have to be eliminated] and the plain language of the November 19 confidential letter, suggest that

“[T]he court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated a causal connection between her request for FMLA-qualified leave and her termination, which was discussed with her a mere three days after her FMLA-qualified leave request.”

Hiltabrand v. Direct Energy, LP, 2013 WL 3480532 at *6 (S.D. Tex. July 10, 2013) (Lake, J.).

“Plaintiff cites her email dated June 6, 2011, in which Plaintiff informed Coughlin-Rowley that she was scheduled for an eye surgery … Plaintiff also points to Coughlin-Rowley’s email exchange with Atkinson on June 7, 2011, wherein Coughlin-Rowley recommended that Plaintiff’s employment be terminated as of July 1, 2011 [specifically referencing] Plaintiff’s intention to undergo surgery

“In the case at bar, Plaintiff suffered injury on August 2, 2010. Shortly thereafter, Defendant was made aware that Plaintiff had suffered an injury to his arm and would be at least temporarily unavailable for work. Plaintiff provided and continued to provide all relevant medical paperwork to his employer. Plaintiff further informed Defendant that he

“In addition to actually informing Mr. Perkins that he was working, but under-reporting his time, Plaintiff testified that a review of his time records would reflect that he was recording 15 minutes of travel time for a drive … of over 105 miles.”

Arnett v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 2013 WL 3324070 at *2

“Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, she initially chose to leave LHS after Anderson gave her an ultimatum to either follow her directions or clock out, and upon complaining to Ross, he told her not to return to work until he instructed.  While there is conflicting evidence of whether Ross promised

“In summation, Chevron has failed to meet its burden and establish as a matter of law that it would have fired Ion despite its retaliatory motive. Chevron’s evidence of Ion’s history of attendance and performance-related deficiencies is insufficient to establish that it would have fired Ion because Chevron chose to address those deficiencies with a

“The omission of the clinic incident from the termination letter calls into question whether Chevron truly relied on the clinic incident as a reason for terminating Ion.  Second, all accounts of the clinic incident offered by Chevron are vague and include no specific or objective description of Ion’s behavior. The accounts do not describe foul

“Chevron’s failure to conduct even the most cursory investigation, confront Ion about Peel’s statements, or seek a second opinion under the FMLA calls into doubt Chevron’s reasonable reliance and good faith on Peel’s statements, and, at the very least, creates a fact issue as to whether it would have terminated Ion despite its retaliatory motive.”