“When it is alleged that bigoted remarks are laughed at by fellow employees and managers, even when those remarks are not directed at the plaintiff, it becomes more likely the plaintiff will show pretext.”

Rideout v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2013 WL 6061330 at *6 (N.D. Miss. November 18, 2013) (Mills, J.).

 

 

“So long as a plaintiff meets the ‘minimal’ initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, she is entitled to a presumption of discrimination….  Although the precise elements of this showing will vary depending on the circumstances, the plaintiff’s burden at this stage of the case is not onerous.”

Hall v. RDSL Enterprises, LLC, 2014 WL 656843 at *4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth, no pet.  February 20, 2014) (Gardner, Meier, and Gabriel, JJ.).

“Plaintiffs’ allegations that they were nonexempt, regularly worked more than forty hours per week, and were not paid time-and-a-half to be factual allegations and not legal conclusions.”

Rodriguez v. Gold & Silver Buyers, Inc., Civ. A. No. 4:12–CV–1831, 2013 WL 5372529 at *3 (S.D.Tex. Sept.24, 2013) (Harmon, J.).

“Here, Ion has offered an e-mail written by General Manager Melcher, in which Melcher references Ion’s attempt to exercise his FMLA rights and asks Ion’s supervisor, Ogborn, for ‘options.’  The temporal proximity between when the e-mail was sent, when Peel came forward with Ion’s alleged statements, when Ion was asked to come to the clinic to sign a medical records release, and when Ion was terminated is noteworthy and raises serious questions about Chevron’s motives for terminating Ion.”

Ion v. Chevron USA, Inc., 731 F.3d 379, 394 (5th Cir. September 26, 2013) (Guirola, Jr., J.).

“Because the ADEA prohibits discrimination on the basis of age and not class membership, the fact that a replacement is substantially younger than the plaintiff is a far more reliable indicator of age discrimination than is the fact that the plaintiff was replaced by someone outside the protected class.”

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

“Plaintiff has presented evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact in support of her claim…. Plaintiff has presented evidence that after execution of the Settlement Agreement, all managerial responsibilities included in her job description were removed.”

Nguyen v. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, 2013 WL 4506001 at *3 (S.D. Tex. August 22, 2013) (Atlas, J.).

“While it is true that Chevron disciplined Ion for his absences and poor performance prior to his application for FMLA leave, it is also true that Chevron’s disciplinary response for these actions had already been determined. Chevron’s claim that it would have fired him based on his absences and poor performance is disingenuous and contradicted by the evidence.”

Ion v. Chevron USA, Inc., 731 F.3d 379, 392 (5th Cir. September 26, 2013) (Guirola, Jr., J.).

“Mr. Obasogie claims that, when he asked his supervisor, Frank Baldwin, why he had not been promoted, Mr. Baldwin told him that he was ‘too old’ and that he was ‘not comfortable’ as Mr. Obasogie’s manager because Mr. Obasogie was ‘too much older than him…. The Court believes that the comments could constitute direct evidence of discrimination, if Mr. Baldwin did, in fact, make them.  If Mr. Obasogie’s account is true, no inference or presumption is required to prove discriminatory animus or motivation.…”

Obasogie v. Harris County Hospital District, CA No. 4:12-cv-3172, 2013 WL 69162446 at *5 (S.D. Tex. December 31, 2013) (Ellison, J.).

“Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Ion, this e-mail serves as evidence that General Manager Chris Melcher was upset that Ion was seeking FMLA-qualified time off. Further, a jury could reasonably conclude that Melcher was attempting to stop Ion from taking FMLA leave or punish him for taking FMLA leave. Therefore, this evidence is sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether Ion’s FMLA-protected leave was a motivating factor in Chevron’s decision to terminate him.”

Ion v. Chevron USA, Inc., 731 F.3d 379, 392 (5th Cir. September 26, 2013) (Guirola, Jr., J.).

“Police Commissioner Ford learned of an allegation of sexual harassment by officer Kingdom and admittedly did not report the incident to the board, … Kingdom was fairly notorious.  Mayor Willis stated that he learned of some of Kingdom’s actions through ‘street-talk….” Kingdom’s continued work as a police officer provided an outlet to harass various women.  Certainly, if city officials ignored Kingdom’s behavior and intentionally failed to present allegations to the board to create plausible deniability, their actions resulted in Kingdom’s continued employment as a police officer.  There is a factual dispute for a jury to decide whether a custom of not holding Kingdom accountable for his actions was the moving force behind his alleged continued harassment.”

Cosey v. Kingdom, 4:12CV15-B-S, 2013 WL 5873352 at *5-6 (N.D. Miss. Oct. 30, 2013) (Biggers, Jr., J.).