“In this case, the plaintiff’s averments regarding the defendant’s billing practices are criminal in nature. For example, the plaintiff’s original complaint alleges that ‘BCH began requesting that the Plaintiff see multiple patients at the same time, bill units in empty time slots, and bill incorrectly. However, Plaintiff refused….’ Such practice could subject individuals to criminal

“Fuqua and Vontice were both assistant managers at the same Wal-Mart store. Vontice had an arguably worse history of work violations. Both were found to have improperly taken cash advances and both timely paid them back. . . .[E]ach was given thirty days to repay the money and obtain an hourly position at another store.

“[Plaintiff] claims that [coworker] was treated more favorable than plaintiff because [employer] did not terminate [coworker]’s employment for engaging in the same behavior that led to [Plaintiff]’s dismissal.” Walsh v. Stratos Offshore Servs. Co., CIV. A. H-11-2603, 2012 WL 3929870, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2012). Court denied summary judgment on the discrimination

“[O]ther employees . . . received similar performance critiques to hers but none was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan or had their employment terminated.” Edwards, 2013 WL 474770 at *3. “[T]here is at least a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether similarly situated employees were treated differently.” Id.

“[Plaintiff] can establish the third prima facie element, that she was subjected to an adverse action based on her disability, because [employer] readily admits that [Plaintiff] was terminated because she was unable to return to work without lifting restrictions at the time her FMLA leave expired.” Molina, 840 F. Supp. 2d at 1004.

“[Plaintiff] claims that [supervisor] gave her an ultimatum that, in effect, forced her to miss her regularly-scheduled physical therapy session in order to keep her job. Specifically, [Plaintiff] was told that if she missed the upcoming Wednesday for therapy, or any day for that matter, she would be fired. This allegation is sufficient[] . .

“[T]he job description states that the supervisor ‘may perform manual labor’ . . . . Just because . . . the supervisor sometimes ‘may perform’ such labor does not override the consideration that the ability to perform physical labor is not an essential or even mandatory component of the supervisor’s job. Therefore, [Plaintiff]’s inability to

“Despite the coaching plan being bogus, Plaintiff satisfied all requirements of the initial coaching plan. However, [supervisor] never took Plaintiff off of the plan. Instead, he extended it . . . and moved Plaintiff to a PIP almost immediately after the extended coaching plan ended. Thus, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s conduct clearly was calculated to

“It was not until after [Plaintiff] . . . brought to [employer]’s attention that he had a Texas Teachers Certificate that [employer] reconsidered the propriety of qualifying an instructor based on a Texas Teachers Certificate. At that point, [employer] determined that a Texas Teachers Certificate is not the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree. The issue

“[Plaintiff] stated that it was his custom as supervisor to perform manual labor alongside his employees. Further, as an example of the type of work the supervisor might perform, the job description states that the supervisor ‘may perform manual labor . . . . Just because [Plaintiff] routinely performed manual labor or that the supervisor