“At this stage, should Plaintiffs prevail on their argument that the bonuses were non discretionary and overtime wages were improperly calculated, this finding would be applicable to a class of all operators or riggers.”

Wilson v. Anderson Perforating, Ltd., 2013 WL 3356046 at *2 (W.D. Tex. July 3, 2013) (Rodriguez, J.).

“[Plaintiff] claims that the Disciplinary Warning was issued in retaliation for his reporting of Cooper’s racially hostile statements. [Defendant] asserts that the warning issued because Willis demonstrated a ‘lack of good judgment’ and a ‘lack of respect for others’ when he sent the mass email disclosing that his co-worker son overdosed on pills. But [Plaintiff] has proffered summary judgment evidence sufficient to show a genuine dispute of material fact about whether these stated reasons are pretext for an underlying retaliatory motive. Specifically, Willis references an affidavit from Jerome C. Ardoin, Jr. (“Ardoin”), another Cleco employee, in which Ardoin explains that Melancon, Taylor’s direct supervisor in the Human Resources department, told him that he was ‘very pissed’ with Willis for reporting the conversation with Cooper. Moreover, Ardoin’s affidavit claims that Melancon stated: “If we have to find a reason, Ed [Taylor] and I have decided; we are going to terminate that nigger Greg Willis for reporting me and trying to burn my ass.’ If credited by a trier of fact, this statement fairly indicates that Taylor, whose direct supervisor is Melancon, issued the Disciplinary Warning because of retaliatory intent—that is, because Willis previously engaged in the protected activity of reporting the racially hostile comments Cooper made in a conversation with Melancon. Accordingly, Willis has produced the requisite ‘evidence indicating that the proffered elgitimate nondiscriminatory reason is a pretext for discrimination.’ Laxton v. Gap, Inc., 333 F.3d 572, 578 (5th Cir. 2003).”

Willis v. Cleco Corp., 749 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. July 9, 2014) (Garza, J.).

“This Court has previously held that transfers to jail duty, even without a decrease in pay, can be adverse employment decisions because jobs in the jail are not as interesting or prestigious as jobs in the law enforcement section.  We made that finding only after reviewing the evidence presented at trial, and thus we can only make such a finding in this case after further facts have been adduced.  However, it is certainly plausible that a position in the jail is less prestigious or interesting that Cox’s previous position on a DEA task force.  Thus, it is plausible from the facts alleged, including the loss of various benefits, that Cox’s reassignment to the jail was indeed an adverse employment action.”

 

Flex Frac Logistics v. NLRB, 746 F.3d 205, 209 (5th. Cir. March 24, 2014) (Stewart, Higginbotham, and Jones, JJ.) (internal citations omitted).

“[A] lawsuit spawning some remedial measures to prevent a [civil rights violation “recurrence” is considered success when adjusting the lodestar. Here, the employer “distributing an employment manual to its employees containing its sexual harassment policy and … the company now [having] discussions with management to prevent sexual harassment” is considered success.  Damages recovered in this case totaled $3,000.00 with Attorneys fees of $33,000.00.”

Norsworthy v. Nguyen Consulting and Services, Inc., 2014 WL 3338795, at *2 (5th Cir. July 9, 2014) (Wiener, Owen, and Haynes, JJ.).

“Although [Plaintiff] … is unaware of who actually made the decision to hire or fire her…, it undoubtedly was [Coworker]’s recommendation that [Plaintiff] be reprimanded for insubordination that initiated the termination process.  Moreover,…testimony indicates that [Coworker] was involved in [Plaintiff’s] hiring to some degree, and…testimony tends to indicate that [Coworker] may have input regarding the promotion or demotion of certain employees. Likewise, the court finds the references to [Coworker] as a supervisor in…internal documents to be yet another factor that could render reasonable a finding that [Coworker] was delegated authority that allowed him to take some part in [Plaintiff]’s hiring, firing, promotion, and discipline.”

 

Smith v. Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc., 2014 WL 2533181, at *4 (N.D. Miss. June 5, 2014) (Mills, J.).

“In Krystek v. University of Southern Mississippi, the Fifth Circuit explained that workplace comments provide sufficient evidence of discrimination if they are ‘1) related [to the protected class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member]; 2) proximate in time to the terminations; 3) made by an individual with authority over the employment decision at issue; and 4) related to the employment decision at issue.’” 164 F.3d 251, 256 (5th Cir. 1999) (alteration in original) (quoting Brown v. CSC Logic, Inc., 82 F.3d 651, 655 (5th Cir. 1996)).”  Lawson v. Hinds County School Dist., 2014 WL 373199 *5 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 3, 2014) (Jordan, J.).  The court found that the direct evidence test was satisfied where: “[Plaintiff] asked for an explanation and was told: ‘Mr. Lawson, you being a black man, I believe that you could easily get a job in the education system with your connection.’”

 

Lawson v. Hinds County School Dist., 2014 WL 373199, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 3, 2014) (Jordan, J.).

“[I]n the present matter, the Court finds that Stewart alleges facts sufficient to state a claim.  Stewart alleges that Caton lifted her shirt and touched her breasts, installed cameras to look down her shirt, and made repeated comments of a sexual and/or derogatory nature.”

Stewart v. Caton, 2013 WL 4459981, at *7 (E.D. La. Aug. 13, 2013) (Barbier, J.).

“Defendant appears to blur the distinction between incidents that may not be considered for purposes of establishing liability for damages, because they occurred outside the limitations period, and what nevertheless may be admissible and probative as background evidence to support a claim based on alleged conduct that falls within the limitations period.”

Arnett v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 2013 WL 3324070 at *3 (W.D. Tex. July 1, 2013) (Rodriguez, J.).

“White clearly stands for the proposition that where an employer prevents its employee from reporting overtime or was otherwise on notice of the employee’s unreported work, an employee may recover damages under the FLSA, regardless of whether the employee exhausted any internal company grievance policy or time correction policy.”

Arnett v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 2013 WL 3324070 at *4 (W.D. Tex. July 1, 2013) (Rodriguez, J.).

“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 (W.D. Tex. July 1, 2013) (Rodriguez, J.).