15 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 252,377 times 279 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable
Turner v. Baylor Rich. Med. Cent
476 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2007) Cited 2,157 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employee need only show that she had a "reasonable belief that the employer was engaged in unlawful employment practices" to satisfy the "opposition requirement" of a Title VII retaliation claim
Lowrey v. Texas a M University System
117 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 1997) Cited 1,337 times
Holding that “title IX affords a private right of action for retaliation against the employees of federally funded educational institutions.”
Medina v. Ramsey Steel Company Inc.
238 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 2001) Cited 651 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff can establish a causal link by showing that "the employer's decision . . . was based in part on knowledge of the employee's protected activity"
Hagan v. Echostar Satellite
529 F.3d 617 (5th Cir. 2008) Cited 203 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that voicing employee concerns is not adverse to a company's interests but is exactly what is expected of a manager; otherwise nearly every activity in the normal course of a manager's job would potentially be protected activity
Brown v. United Parcel Serv. Inc.
406 F. App'x 837 (5th Cir. 2010) Cited 99 times
Holding that an employee's complaints about unfair work distribution, unpaid overtime, and selective enforcement of a lunch policy were not protected by Title VII because such practices are not prohibited by Title VII
Tratree v. BP
277 F. App'x 390 (5th Cir. 2008) Cited 83 times
Holding that the same framework is applicable to non-direct evidence claims under the ADEA
Holt v. JTM Indus., Inc.
89 F.3d 1224 (5th Cir. 1996) Cited 114 times
Holding that a plaintiff, whose spouse filed a claim against employer and who presented no evidence that the plaintiff assisted in the filing in any way, was a passive observer and thus did not have standing to sue for retaliation
Shabazz v. Texas Youth Commission
Civil Action No. 3:02-CV-2699-M (N.D. Tex. Sep. 30, 2003) Cited 38 times
Holding that "due to the similarity in the definitions of 'employers' under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA . . . that personal capacity suits are likewise prohibited under the ADA"
Paulissen v. MEI Technologies, Inc.
942 F. Supp. 2d 658 (S.D. Tex. 2013) Cited 25 times
Holding that the plaintiff failed to state a hostile work environment claim under the ADEA because the age-based comment alleged in the complaint were "isolated incidents that were neither sufficiently severe nor sufficiently pervasive as to constitute a hostile environment"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 345,529 times 922 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 623 - Prohibition of age discrimination
29 U.S.C. § 623 Cited 10,073 times 51 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against individuals who are at least forty years of age
Section 21.055 - Retaliation
Tex. Lab. Code § 21.055 Cited 433 times 3 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting an “employer, labor union, or employment agency” from retaliating against an employee for opposing a discriminatory practice

Starkey v. The Hertz Corporation

15 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

Holding that an employee need only show that she had a "reasonable belief that the employer was engaged in unlawful employment practices" to satisfy the "opposition requirement" of a Title VII retaliation claim

Holding that “title IX affords a private right of action for retaliation against the employees of federally funded educational institutions.”

Holding that a plaintiff can establish a causal link by showing that "the employer's decision . . . was based in part on knowledge of the employee's protected activity"

Holding that voicing employee concerns is not adverse to a company's interests but is exactly what is expected of a manager; otherwise nearly every activity in the normal course of a manager's job would potentially be protected activity

Holding that an employee's complaints about unfair work distribution, unpaid overtime, and selective enforcement of a lunch policy were not protected by Title VII because such practices are not prohibited by Title VII

Holding that the same framework is applicable to non-direct evidence claims under the ADEA

Holding that a plaintiff, whose spouse filed a claim against employer and who presented no evidence that the plaintiff assisted in the filing in any way, was a passive observer and thus did not have standing to sue for retaliation

Holding that "due to the similarity in the definitions of 'employers' under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA . . . that personal capacity suits are likewise prohibited under the ADA"

Holding that the plaintiff failed to state a hostile work environment claim under the ADEA because the age-based comment alleged in the complaint were "isolated incidents that were neither sufficiently severe nor sufficiently pervasive as to constitute a hostile environment"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against individuals who are at least forty years of age

Prohibiting an “employer, labor union, or employment agency” from retaliating against an employee for opposing a discriminatory practice