“[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.).

“Moreover, Plaintiffs offer evidence that may call into question whether Tower’s investigation was made in good faith.  In Walsh’s first interview with Tower, he admitted that Koopman made statements that he interpreted as racially offensive….  The Tower interviewers doubted Walsh’s credibility and chose to interview him a second time.”

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

“Compelling is the fact that Defendant’s basis for the insubordination charge stems from Plaintiff’s refusal, for arguably legitimate reasons, to sign a form Defendant has not required be signed in the past, and which Defendant had not previously taken any adverse personnel action on account of her failure to sign. That, taken in conjunction with evidence supporting Plaintiff’s prima facie case of discrimination, gives rise to a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant’s justification is creditable or merely pretext for discrimination based on her national origin.”

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.).

“As Dr. Vives alleges putatively harassing acts after February 3, 2009, she may sweep back in all of the harassment that she alleges has occurred during her time at Children’s.  It is possible that a jury could conclude the sustained pattern of conduct she alleges constitutes severe and pervasive harassment.  It is also possible a jury could conclude this pattern of harassment is on account of one of Dr. Vives’s protected characteristics.  And as at least some of this harassment occurred at the hands of Dr. Ellis during the time Dr. Ellis was her supervisor (and as some of the harassment afterwards allegedly occurred at the hands of Dr. Robson, who is now her supervisor), Dr. Vives need not have produced evidence on the fifth element of her hostile work environment claim.”

Vives v. Children’s Hosp., Inc., CIV.A. 11-2080, 2013 WL 5607215 at *15 (E.D. La. Oct. 14, 2013) (Morgan, J.).