“Plaintiff argues pretext based on the following points: (1) that defendant’s proffered reason is not supported by any documentation; (2) that Sheriff Little hired fourteen (14) new employees before plaintiff was discharged and hired fifteen (15) new employees after the alleged reduction in force due to budget constraints; and (3) that Sheriff Little explained his removal of plaintiff from his position as Judge Wiley’s bailiff as a function of his desire not to waste the value of a POST certified road deputy by only using them as a bailiff when you could hire an as-needed court bailiff for less money and without the necessity of paying benefits.”

Hollingsworth v. Sheriff’s Office of Winn Parish, CIV.A. 10-815, 2013 WL 5524868 at *8 (W.D. La. Oct. 3, 2013) (Trimble, J.).

“Plaintiff provided her own testimony and the testimony of a coworker concerning English only requirement, increased workload, and the mocking of plaintiff.  Supervisor also testified that she may have had the English only rule.”

Garcia v. Garland Ind. Sch. Dist., No 3:11-cv-502-N-BK, 2013 WL 5299264 at *5 (N.D. Tex Sept. 20, 2013) (Godbey, J.).

“Plaintiffs presented evidence showing that at least three … out of the six employees present in the break room heard Koopman say something that could have been perceived as racially offensive…  Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have presented 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.).

“Plaintiff also testified that Anderson often joined in the co-workers’ jokes about Plaintiff’s mispronunciation of English words, and daily called Plaintiff ‘crybaby.’  While Defendant is correct that such name-calling does not, in and of itself, constitute discrimination under Title VII, the fact that the names were allegedly uttered because of Plaintiff’s reaction to other harassment inflicted on account of national origin, make these incidents relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations of hostile work place under Title VII.”

Garcia v. Garland Ind. Sch. Dist., No 3:11-cv-502-N-BK, 2013 WL 5299264 at *5 (N.D. Tex Sept. 20, 2013) (Godbey, J.).

“Nonetheless, the summary judgment evidence also demonstrates that Defendant’s reasons for Plaintiff’s ‘separation’ from Tyson were inconsistent and create a fact issue as to their pretextual nature.  For example, although Defendant relies on the union campaign as a reason for termination, Huske’s immediate supervisor received a write up and reduction in his bonus as a result of the union campaign but appears to still be working at the plant.”

Huske v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 4:12CV583, 2013 WL 5832248 at *6 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2013) (Bush, J.).

“The Court finds that nearly all of Defendant’s arguments that Plaintiff was fired for performance related issues are not clearly supported by an employment records….  [E]ach of Defendant’s assertions that Plaintiff was not performing adequately in her position were only asserted after she filed her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claim.”

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

“Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff’s claims, there is evidence that throughout her tenure at LHS, the same group of co-workers and supervisor perpetrated the alleged discriminatory acts (i.e., name-calling, teasing, increasing work load, and prohibiting the use of Spanish). Thus, there is sufficient nexus between the national origin discrimination claims alleged in her November 2010 EEOC charge and the hostile work environment she alleges existed since her tenure began at LHS.”

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

“Denial of ‘administrative complaints and internal grievances,’ as well as informal criticisms, or changing an employee’s work schedule or hours are ‘merely administrative decisions’ that do not constitute an ‘ultimate employment decision’ as contemplated by Title VII.”

Williams v. Shred-It, 2013 WL 596110 at *4 (E.D. La. November 7, 2013) (Roby, J.).

 

“As for the allegation that Defendants willfully violated the FLSA, that matter contains questions of fact, and at this pleading stage prior to discovery the motion to dismiss it is premature.”

Adkins v. United Airlines, Inc., 2014 WL 803460 at *2 (N.D. Tex. February 28, 2014) (Lynn, J.).