“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.).

“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.”

Craven v. Excel Staffing Service, Inc., H-12-2860, 2014 WL 345682 at *6-7 (S.D. Tex. January 30, 2014) (Harmon, J.) (internal citations omitted).

“The Texas Labor Code’s ‘Election of Remedies’ provision states: ‘A person who has initiated an action in a court of competent jurisdiction . . . based on an act that would be an unlawful employment practice under this chapter may not file a complaint under this subchapter for the same grievance.’  The section ‘limits the ability to pursue multiple grievances in multiple forums over the same alleged conduct.’ Thus, ‘[i]n the realm of employment discrimination litigation—where federal, state, and local governments individually declare their opposition to unlawful discrimination—Section 21.211 merely means a plaintiff cannot file an administrative complaint [under the TCHRA] after having already (1) filed a lawsuit under a federal or local anti-discrimination measure covering the same conduct or (2) begun administrative proceedings with the EEOC or local enforcement entities based on the same conduct.’  But, as the TCHRA is not ‘the exclusive word on work-related discrimination and retaliation in Texas,’ ‘claimants are free to seek relief under parallel federal or local laws,’ and Section 21.211 ‘does not preclude a plaintiff from arguing in the alternative’ as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.24.”

Castro v. Tex. Dept. of Crim Justice, No. 12-20584, 2013 WL  5229972 at *8 (5th Cir. Sept. 18, 2013) (Stewart, J.).

“Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor also acknowledged that Plaintiff had never received a written reprimand due to work related issues.  Indeed, Barajas’s deposition was taken, but he could not identify specific incidents where Huske was unprofessional.  About the only seed he could throw was that Huske was rude, but he could not identify any instance where she was in fact unprofessional.  Barajas testified that she was permanently laid off. He contends that she was laid off for her behavior.  And yet, he acknowledges that Huske had a pretty good work record for her twenty-nine years of work.”

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