“Section 301 of the Texas Occupations Code provided: ‘[A] person may not suspend or terminate the employment of, or otherwise discipline or discriminate against, a person who reports, without malice, under this section.’  Thus, wrongful termination is not a necessary element for Plaintiffs to assert a claim under section 301.  Plaintiffs have alleged that in addition to their terminations, [their supervisor] … retaliated against Plaintiffs … by instituting a bogus criminal complaint, subjecting them to unwarranted and harassing interrogations … and subsequent arrest and criminal prosecutions … [one plaintiff] alleges that … prior to his termination, [his supervisor] subjected him to harassing and unwarranted discipline by transferring him to the graveyard shift ….  The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have properly alleged a plausible claim for relief for violations of section 301 of the Occupations Code by Smith, and therefore denies [the supervisor]’s motion to dismiss this cause of action.”

Duffie v. Wichita County, 7:13-cv-0032, 2013 WL 6869374 at *17 (N.D. Tex. December 31, 2013) (O’Connor, J.) (internal citations omitted).

“Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, she initially chose to leave LHS after Anderson gave her an ultimatum to either follow her directions or clock out, and upon complaining to Ross, he told her not to return to work until he instructed.  While there is conflicting evidence of whether Ross promised to pay Plaintiff for her time off and actually followed through on such promise, the Court cannot resolve such a factual dispute in the context of a motion for summary judgment.”

Garcia v. Garland Ind. Sch. Dist., No 3:11-cv-502-N-BK, 2013 WL 5299264 at *10 (N.D. Tex Sept. 20, 2013) (Godbey, J.).

“The only two documented complaints against De La Cruz are dated February 8, the day she was demoted.  Although not incriminating evidence, the suspicious timing of these documents, taken with reasonable inferences in favor of De La Cruz’s claim that they were fabricated, could support a finding of discriminatory motive.”

De La Cruz v. Coastal Bend Reg’l Court Residential Treatment Ctr., 2:12-CV-355, 2013 WL 5744796 at *5 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2013) (Hinojosa, J.).

“As discussed previously, the evidence suggests that although the memorandum articulated safety as a justification for limiting Spanish use, Anderson nevertheless prohibited the use of Spanish in the kitchen at all times.  Thus, there also exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Anderson effectively instituted a ‘blanket policy’ prohibiting the use of Spanish, without regard to safety issues.”

Garcia v. Garland Ind. Sch. Dist., No 3:11-cv-502-N-BK, 2013 WL 5299264 at *9 (N.D. Tex Sept. 20, 2013) (Godbey, J.).

“Thus, Koopman is the only person who definitely denies that the statements were ever made…. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have present sufficient evidence to create a fact issue….”

Smith v. Tower Automotive Operations USA I, LLC, 2013 WL 6240247 at *8-9 (S.D. Miss. December 3, 2013) (Reeves, J.).

“However, whether Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of such remedial measures by declining to take the transfer due to the distance is disputed, and properly left to determination by the trier of fact. Thus, summary judgment is not appropriate on this point.”

Garcia v. Garland Ind. Sch. Dist., No 3:11-cv-502-N-BK, 2013 WL 5299264 at *8 (N.D. Tex Sept. 20, 2013) (Godbey, J.).

“In response to Defendants’ claim that De La Cruz was only temporarily filling the fulltime position, De La Cruz insists that Diaz actually hired her for the full-time position.  De La Cruz next asserts that, although Defendants admitted that notes should have been taken during her job interview and kept in her employee file, no notes were produced during discovery.  The notes may have been lost or misplaced, but, together with De La Cruz’s claim that she was hired for the full-time position and then unlawfully demoted, the lack of interview notes may support a finding in her favor that she was in fact hired for the full-time position.”

De La Cruz v. Coastal Bend Reg’l Court Residential Treatment Ctr., 2:12-CV-355, 2013 WL 5744796 at *4 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2013) (Hinojosa, J.).

“[Plaintiff’s manager] commented that Plaintiff should relocate to the Hammon property because ‘she is black and the residents are black’ … the Fifth Circuit set forth the criteria for direct evidence of discrimination…. [and] the comments cited by Plaintiff meet the criteria.”

Zeno v. Livingston Management, Inc., 2013 WL 4520532 at *2-3 (M.D. La. August 23, 2013) (Jackson, J.).

“Indeed, the interviewed employees’ responses that the Spanish-speaking employees were trying to ‘cause trouble,’ and that they felt uncomfortable when the Hispanic employees spoke Spanish, might have suggested the need to investigate further.  However, there is no evidence that Defendant took additional steps after the cursory investigation to remedy the situation about which Plaintiff complained. Taken as a whole, there is at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant took sufficient prompt, remedial action in addressing Plaintiff’s complaints about Anderson and coworkers.”

Garcia v. Garland Ind. Sch. Dist., No 3:11-cv-502-N-BK, 2013 WL 5299264 at *8 (N.D. Tex Sept. 20, 2013) (Godbey, J.).

“Close timing between an employee’s protected activity and an adverse action against her may provide a sufficient causal connection necessary for a showing of retaliation.”

A&L Industrial Services Inc. v. Oatis, 2013 WL 5970933 at *14 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.], no pet.  November 7, 2013) (Huddle, Jennings, and Massengale, JJ.).