“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…
“[P]laintiffs have alleged and offered proof that they suffered an adverse employment action, namely, a denial of the opportunity for overtime and accompanying compensation.” Zeigler v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr., 877 F. Supp. 2d 454, 459 (S.D. Miss. 2012).
“Denial of overtime pay is an adverse employment action because it relates to [Plaintiff]’s compensation.” Johnson v. Manpower Professional Servs., Inc., 442 F. App’x 977, 982 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).