“McMann testified in his deposition that Watson told him that he had an option of turning in his two weeks notice or being terminated immediately….  The factual dispute[s] … are enough to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact.”

McMann v. Greystar Management Services, LP, CA No. 1:12-CV-909, 2013 WL 6243847 at *4 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2013) (Austin, J.).

“Although the City’s complaints about the alleged shortcomings in [Plaintiff]’s analysis may go to the probative value of his testimony, based on the record as a whole we conclude that there is sufficient statistical evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that the Consolidation Agreement caused the disparate impact alleged.”

City of Austin v. Chandler, 2014 WL 524671 at *8 (Tex. App.—Austin, no pet.  February 7, 2014) (Field, Goodwin, and Puryear, JJ.).

“A fact issue exists as to whether conduct is severe or pervasive where an employee provides evidence that the harasser ‘sought her out, gave her hugs, invited her to drinks, took a photo of her and showed it to his subordinate, used her cell phone and added him to her Facebook ‘friends,’ and showed her a picture of a man performing oral sex on a woman and told her that he changed his mind about oral sex’ and where the harasser admits to showing the employee a video clip of a horse sodomizing a woman.”

Sanders v. Christus Santa Rosa PASC, 13-CV-250, 2014 WL 201071 at *4 (W.D. Tex. January 17, 2014) (Rodriguez, J.).

 

“[Defendant] asserts that Plaintiff ‘was unable and/or refused to recognize and acknowledge any wrong doing.’ Plaintiff has presented substantial evidence that Defendants’ allegations against her are false and that she committed no ‘wrong doing.’ Consequently, a refusal to acknowledge misconduct would be neither surprising nor a basis for termination.”

Bautista v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., 2013 WL 4647677 at *5 (S.D. Tex. August 30, 2013) (Atlas, J.).

“Plaintiffs noted that during his second interview, Rick Mills asked Walsh such questions as, ‘How much do you value your job? Do you value your job over your friendship with Jody?…  These actions by Tower can be reasonably perceived as pressuring Walsh into altering the truth to secure its desire to find no supporting evidence that Koopman had in any way made the comments; thus, absolving Koopman and creating cause for Plaintiffs to be terminated.”

Smith v. Tower Automotive Operations USA I, LLC, 2013 WL 6240247 at *8 (S.D. Miss. December 3, 2013) (Reeves, J.) (emphasis in original).

“Plaintiff has presented evidence that her supervisors, [names], suggested the discipline of having Wade recite the SOPs.  Plaintiff expressed her disagreement with the proposed disciplinary procedure but ultimately followed her supervisors’ instructions.”

Bautista v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., 2013 WL 4647677 at *5 (S.D. Tex. August 30, 2013) (Atlas, J.).

“In the instant case, the differences among employees in the putative class—job classifications, descriptions, and duties—are not materially relevant to plaintiffs’ allegations.”

Behnken v. Luminant Min. Co., LLC, 2014 WL 585333 at *7 (N.D. Tex. February 14, 2014) (Fitzwater, J.).

“Plaintiff provided notice to the TWC that Dr. Decherd was sexually harassing her and that she complained to her supervisor of the alleged conduct. Plaintiff was not required to specifically detail each and every instance of sexually harassing conduct allegedly engaged in by Dr. Decherd.”

Sanders v. Christus Santa Rosa PASC, 13-CV-250, 2014 WL 201071 at *3 (W.D. Tex. January 17, 2014) (Rodriguez, J.).

 

“Plaintiff has presented evidence that when she attempted to explain her position to supervisors, they told her ‘they didn’t want to hear it.’ Plaintiff has presented evidence that, when she attempted to explain her positions, Hoffman called her ‘annoying.’  The investigation summary includes only Ms. Wade’s allegations and none of Plaintiff’s explanations.  These alleged short comings in the investigation suggest that the investigation and its result may have been one-sided and result driven.”

Bautista v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., 2013 WL 4647677 at *4 (S.D. Tex. August 30, 2013) (Atlas, J.).

“Drawing reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, however, Ross’s alleged action, coming on heels of Plaintiff’s complaints of discrimination, and culminating in her termination, is sufficient to raise an issue of material fact as to Plaintiff’s retaliation claim.  Said a different way, Plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence that but-for her report to Ross of the allegedly discriminatory actions of Ross, Anderson and co-workers, she would not have been placed on unpaid leave and, ultimately, terminated.”

Garcia v. Garland Ind. Sch. Dist., No 3:11-cv-502-N-BK, 2013 WL 5299264 at *12 (N.D. Tex Sept. 20, 2013) (Godbey, J.).