“[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.).

“[P]laintiff argues that one or two times in 2007, he told his former supervisor (Bob Perkins) hat he was not reporting all of his time and that Mr. Perkins understood and acknowledged he knew of the under-reporting.”

Arnett v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 2013 WL 3324070 at *2 (W.D. Tex. July 1, 2013) (Rodriguez, J.).

“In conducting this analysis, the court confines itself to the complaint and does not consider the defendants’ affidavit attached to the motion.  In her complaint, Henderson asserts she was employed as a customer service representative by all three defendants….  She alleges that defendant entities employed more than fifteen employees….  Taking these assertions s true and constructing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Henderson’s complaint states a valid claim under Title VII.”

Henderson v. Saf-Tech, Inc., CA No. H-13-1766, 2013 WL 6858503 at *3-4 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 30, 2013) (Miller, J.).

“The Court notes that every case relied upon for Defendant’s substantive arguments was decided under the summary judgment standard, not under Rule 12(b)(6).”

Mosley v. Tutle & Tutle Trucking, Inc., CA No. 6:13-CD-468, 2013 WL 6824385 at *2 (E.D. Tex., Dec. 26, 2013) (Davis, J.).