“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.).

“Pretext may be shown ‘either through evidence of disparate treatment or by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is false or unworthy of credence.”

Hoffman v. Baylor Health Care System, 2014 WL 772672 at *2 (N.D. Tex. February 27, 2014) (Lindsay, J.) (quoting Jackson v. Cal-Western Packaging Corp., 602 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir. March 26, 2010) (Miller, J.)).

“The question is whether the deposition testimony from [the supervisor] that some drivers used his personal truck for business-related purposes is sufficient to prevent summary judgment as to [the Plaintiff]’s claim … when [the supervisor] testified that he would occasionally ask some drivers to use his personal truck for business-related matters.  [The Plaintiff] testified in his deposition that his assignments changed daily.  It is entirely reasonable then, to infer that [the Plaintiff] may have been given an assignment to complete a business-related task using [his supervisor]’s personal vehicle.  While an inference is required to arrive at this conclusion, the summary judgment mechanism requires the Court to draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, which is Plaintiff’s here.”

Vanzzini v. Action Meat Distributors, Inc., H-11-4173, 2014 WL 426494 at *8 (S.D. Tex. January 31, 2014) (Ellison, J.) (internal citations omitted).

“Plaintiff averred that the ridicule and name calling occurred on a daily basis.  She stated Anderson, specifically, ridiculed her daily, calling her a ‘crybaby’ after she became upset about being ridiculed, assigned her more tasks than the other non-Hispanic employees, and made fun of her Spanish accent.  These actions, coupled with Anderson’s alleged prohibition of Spanish in the kitchen and Plaintiff’s resulting anxiety and fear, are sufficiently pervasive that there remains a serious question of material fact as to whether the alleged harassment affected a term or condition of Plaintiff’s employment.”

Garcia v. Garland Ind. Sch. Dist., No 3:11-cv-502-N-BK, 2013 WL 5299264 at *6 (N.D. Tex Sept. 20, 2013) (Godbey, J.).

 

“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.).