Eure v. Sage Corp.

15 Citing cases

  1. Moore v. Excel Contractors, LLC

    Civil Action 21-698-JWD-RLB (M.D. La. Jun. 3, 2024)

    The Court finds that these actions might dissuade a worker from making a charge of discrimination. See Eure v. Sage Corp., 61 F.Supp.3d 651, 666 (W.D. Tex. 2014) (“Because a reduction in hours-and, consequently, the reduction in associated income-could dissuade a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination, a reduction in hours can be an adverse employment action in the retaliation context.”

  2. Lewis v. TransCanada U.S. Servs., Inc.

    Civil Action 4:20-cv-3749 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2022)

    Eure v. Sage Corp., 61 F.Supp.3d 651, 664 (W.D. Tex. 2014) (citing a string of cases).

  3. Thurston v. Sound Physicians Anesthesiology of Tex., PLLC

    4:23-cv-00158-P (N.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2024)

    The TCHRA was enacted to provide an “exclusive state-law remedy” for workplace harassment and inextricably related torts. Eure v. Sage Corp., 61 F.Supp.3d 651, 667 (W.D. Tex. 2014) (Ezra, J.); Sauceda v. Bank of Tex., N.A., No. 3:04-cv-2201-P, 2005 WL 578474, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2005) (Solis, J.), rev'd on other grounds, Stelly v. Duriso, 982 F.3d 403, 408 (5th Cir. 2020); see also Waffle House, 313 S.W.3d at 805-07 (discussing TCHRA exclusivity and its preclusive effect for tort claims “rooted in facts inseparable from those underlying the alleged harassment”).

  4. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. The Modern Grp.

    Civil Action 1:21-CV-451 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2024)

    , 405 F.Supp.3d 676, 684 (W.D. Tex. 2019) (quoting Eure v. Sage Corp., 61 F.Supp.3d 651, 658 (W.D. Tex. 2014)).

  5. Green v. Tri-Con, Inc.

    1:21-CV-00481-MJT-ZJH (E.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    A reduction in hours is an “adverse employment action” for retaliation purposes. See Eure v. Sage Corp., 61 F.Supp.3d 651, 666 (W.D. Tex. 2014).

  6. Cortes-Castillo v. One Time Constr. Tex.

    Civil Action 3:21-CV-2093-BH (N.D. Tex. Sep. 15, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Merely because there is a discrepancy between deposition testimony and the deponent's later affidavit does not require the court to disregard the affidavit. Kennett-Murray Corp. v. Bone, 622 F.2d 887, 894-95 (5th Cir. 1980); see also Eure v. Sage Corp., 61 F.Supp.3d 651, 658 (W.D. Tex. 2014) (noting that the sham affidavit doctrine “is applied sparingly and may be invoked only where there is some inherent inconsistency between an affidavit and a deposition”)

  7. Pettway v. Logistics Sols. Grp.

    Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-73-DJH-CHL (W.D. Ky. Feb. 28, 2020)   Cited 3 times
    Finding plaintiff suffered adverse employment action when his hours were reduced after engaging in protected activity

    Reducing an employee's hours to a significant degree could dissuade a reasonable worker from pursuing a charge of discrimination. See Arnold v. Cincinnati Sportservice, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-460, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99011, at *31 (S.D. Ohio July 16, 2013) (finding that a reduction in hours "caused a material decrease in [the plaintiff's] wages which constitutes an adverse employment action" in the retaliation context); see also Eure v. Sage Corp., 61 F. Supp. 3d 651, 666 (W.D. Tx. 2014) ("Because a reduction in hours—and, consequently, the reduction in associated income—could dissuade a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination, a reduction in hours can be an adverse employment action in the retaliation context."

  8. Stewart v. Lone Star Exteriors, LLC

    447 F. Supp. 3d 548 (E.D. Tex. 2019)

    After reviewing Smith's affidavit and testimony, the Court sees no reason to disregard Smith's affidavit as a sham because the Court cannot find any "inherent inconsistency between [his] affidavit and ... deposition." Eure v. Sage Corp. , 61 F. Supp. 3d 651, 658 (W.D. Tex. 2014) (quoting Axxiom Mfg., Inc. v. McCoy Invs., Inc. , 846 F. Supp. 2d 732, 749 (S.D. Tex. 2012) ).--------

  9. Cruz v. R2Sonic, LLC

    405 F. Supp. 3d 676 (W.D. Tex. 2019)   Cited 12 times
    Finding "an inference of causation" where plaintiff was terminated two and a half months after she returned from medical leave

    Indeed, the rule is " ‘applied sparingly’ and may be invoked only where there is ‘some inherent inconsistency between an affidavit and a deposition.’ " Eure v. Sage Corp. , 61 F. Supp. 3d 651, 658 (W.D. Tex. 2014) (quoting Axxiom Mfg. , 846 F. Supp. 2d at 749–50 ). In Paragraphs 18 and 20, Cruz avers that R2Sonic did not accommodate her request for help so that she would not have to work overtime.

  10. Yoakum v. Sabre GLBL, Inc.

    NO. 4:18-CV-127-A (N.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2018)

    Doc. 23 at 6-7. See Bobo v. ITT,Continental Baking Co., 662 F.2d 340, 342-45 (5th Cir. 1981); Eure v. Sage Corp., 61 F. Supp. 3d 651, 660 (W.D. Tex. 2014). Plaintiff also agrees that he cannot proceed with his claims under Chapter 21, since the EEOC failed to transmit his charge of discrimination to the Texas Workforce Commission. Doc. 23 at 7-8.