employer to rebut presumption in Texas

2005See Marsaglia v. University of Tex., El Paso, 22 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1999, pet. denied); cf. Romo, 48 S.W.3d at 273 n.2 (when filing traditional motion for summary judgment, employer presented no evidence that decision to terminate was made by persons with no knowledge of employee’s protected activity).8 If the plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the burden shifts to the employer to rebut the presumption 8 See also Higgs v. Trammell Crow Co., No. 05-04-00547-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 1058 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 10, 2005, no pet.); Ibezim v. Tex. Dep’t o

2005See Marsaglia v. University of Tex., El Paso , 22 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1999, pet. denied); cf. Romo , 48 S.W.3d at 273 n.2 (when filing traditional motion for summary judgment, employer presented no evidence that decision to terminate was made by persons with no knowledge of employee's protected activity). (8) If the plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the burden shifts to the employer to rebut the presumption by setting forth through admissible evidence a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.

2005Texas Dept. of Comm. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981); McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 .

2005Texas Dept. of Comm. Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981); McDonnell Douglas , 411 U.S. at 802 .

2023Id.

2014As with claims of disparate treatment, the burden then shifts to the employer to rebut the presumption of retaliation “by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.” Thomas v. Clayton Williams Energy, Inc., 2 S.W.3d 734, 739 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. at 802 ).

2024See GOV’T § 607.058; see also In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579, 589 (Tex. 2015) (“[C]ivil cases typically apply the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, that is, a fact-finder’s determination that the plaintiff’s version of the events is more likely than not true.”).

2014As with claims of disparate treatment, the burden then shifts to the employer to rebut the presumption of retaliation “by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.” Thomas v. Clayton Williams Energy, Inc., 2 S.W.3d 734, 739 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. at 802 ).

2014Regardless of whether the employee has already filed a formal complaint, “actionable retaliation exists when an employer makes an adverse employment decision against an employee who voices opposition to conduct made unlawful under the [T]CHRA.” City of Waco v. Lopez, 259 S.W.3d 147, 152 (Tex. 2008).