44 Cited authorities

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,087 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden
532 U.S. 268 (2001) Cited 5,361 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the temporal proximity requirement to establish a prima facie case "between an employer's knowledge of protected activity and an adverse employment action as sufficient evidence" must be "very close"
Turner v. Baylor Rich. Med. Cent
476 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2007) Cited 2,158 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
McCoy v. Shreveport
492 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2007) Cited 1,622 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiff did not suffer a legally actionable adverse employment action necessary for her discrimination claim because the summary judgment evidence showed that she retired voluntarily, not as the result of a constructive discharge
Rachid v. Jack in the Box, Inc.
376 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2004) Cited 1,229 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, under Desert Palace, “the direct evidence requirement has been removed from mixed-motive cases,” justifying the use of an “integrated,” “modified McDonnell Douglas approach”
Weisgram v. Marley Co.
528 U.S. 440 (2000) Cited 348 times
Holding that a district court, when considering post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, may disregard "testimony erroneously admitted"
Hernandez v. Yellow Transp. Inc.
670 F.3d 644 (5th Cir. 2012) Cited 696 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff being called a racially derogatory term and seeing a poster or letter that was derogatory about Hispanics was not sufficient to support a hostile work environment claim
Byers v. Dallas Morning News
209 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2000) Cited 975 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that discrimination cannot be shown simply by a plaintiff's "subjective belief that [defendant] discriminated against him"
LeMaire v. Louisiana Dept. of Trans
480 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2007) Cited 759 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a two-day suspension without pay was an adverse employment action in the retaliation context
Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia
55 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1065 (Tex. 2012) Cited 592 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a such a claimant may not make out a prima facia case under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework
Section 1981 - Equal rights under the law
42 U.S.C. § 1981 Cited 37,865 times 236 Legal Analyses
Granting equal rights to "make and enforce contracts" without regard to race
Section 2000e-3 - Other unlawful employment practices
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 Cited 14,417 times 43 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting retaliation against employees who "oppos[e] any [unlawful] practice"
Rule 50 - Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 Cited 13,602 times 62 Legal Analyses
Allowing "renewed motion"
Section 21.001 - Purposes
Tex. Lab. Code § 21.001 Cited 738 times 4 Legal Analyses
Professing Chapter 21's purpose to "provide for the execution of the policies of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its subsequent amendments"
Section 1606.7 - Speak-English-only rules
29 C.F.R. § 1606.7 Cited 61 times 3 Legal Analyses
Observing that English-only policies may foster a sense of "inferiority, isolation and intimidation based on [an employee's] national origin"

Wei v. Southwest Research Institute

44 Cited authorities

Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"

Holding that the temporal proximity requirement to establish a prima facie case "between an employer's knowledge of protected activity and an adverse employment action as sufficient evidence" must be "very close"

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 the plaintiff did not suffer a legally actionable adverse employment action necessary for her discrimination claim because the summary judgment evidence showed that she retired voluntarily, not as the result of a constructive discharge

Holding that, under Desert Palace, “the direct evidence requirement has been removed from mixed-motive cases,” justifying the use of an “integrated,” “modified McDonnell Douglas approach”

Holding that a district court, when considering post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, may disregard "testimony erroneously admitted"

Holding that a plaintiff being called a racially derogatory term and seeing a poster or letter that was derogatory about Hispanics was not sufficient to support a hostile work environment claim

Holding that discrimination cannot be shown simply by a plaintiff's "subjective belief that [defendant] discriminated against him"

Holding that a two-day suspension without pay was an adverse employment action in the retaliation context

Holding that a such a claimant may not make out a prima facia case under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework

Granting equal rights to "make and enforce contracts" without regard to race

Prohibiting retaliation against employees who "oppos[e] any [unlawful] practice"

Allowing "renewed motion"

Professing Chapter 21's purpose to "provide for the execution of the policies of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its subsequent amendments"

Observing that English-only policies may foster a sense of "inferiority, isolation and intimidation based on [an employee's] national origin"