Lorenzo Pineda, III v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “but - 12 - for” standard applied to retaliation claim under TCHRA
• holding that “but for” causation is the standard for retaliation under the TCHRA
• noting that plaintiff’s claims were brought under the TCHRA and stating “[t]his is a diversity action, federal civil rights law is not implicated.”
• threats of “physical violence, in violation of company policy” were “sufficient to establish an alternate, legitimate justification for Pineda’s termination that would negate causation”
• “Therefore, a plaintiff asserting a retaliation claim must establish that without his protected activity, the employer’s prohibited conduct would not have occurred when it did.” (cleaned up)
• “A motion for judgment as a matter of law should be granted if ‘there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for a party.’” (quoting FED R. CIV. P. 50(a))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).