Heinsohn v. Carabin & Shaw, P.C.

832 F.3d 224 (5th Cir. 2016)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D hired P as a legal assistant and assigned her to work exclusively on Social Security Administration ('SSA') cases. Her wages were $10 an hour, and her responsibilities included (1) updating case notes in D's electronic case management system, (2) communicating with clients and with the SSA, and (3) monitoring deadlines. She was assigned to assist George Escobedo, an 'of counsel' lawyer responsible for all SSA cases, and Maria Carvajal, his legal assistant. Late in 2011, P tendered her resignation for a better-paying job. Escobedo convinced James Shaw, the managing partner of D, to raise her pay. He did so, and P's wages eventually rose to $14 an hour. P became pregnant. early in 2012. Escobedo requested Heinsohn to perform some specific tasks before she left on maternity leave. Escobedo and P provided differing descriptions of those requests and tasks. Escobedo simply requested P to complete all outstanding tasks in each of the cases that he had assigned to her. P began her maternity leave after telling Escobedo that she had completed all tasks that he had requested. Within days after P's departure, deadlines had been missed in some of P's cases and good-cause letters had been sent on Escobedo's behalf. Escobedo informed human resources, that it appeared deadlines had been missed by P. After speaking with Escobedo, Shaw decided to fire P without providing her an opportunity to explain the situation. P was terminated with no reason given. P filed a claim with EEOC, alleging 'sex and retaliation discrimination.' P sued D. P alleged sex discrimination in that D asked P to provide a guaranteed return date from her maternity leave. Email exchanges between P and human resources contradicted this testimony. The magistrate judge wrote that 'P's deposition testimony is refuted by the e-mail exchange between P and Leonard. D's assertion that Leonard wanted a guaranteed return date is STRICKEN.' The court struck P’s testimony, stating that the emails were the best evidence of the interactions between the parties. The court granted D summary judgment and P appealed.