Feb. 2, 2012), Donnicia Venters, a mother represented by the EEOC, claimed that she was fired from Houston Funding due to her request to be allowed to pump breastmilk upon her return to work after giving birth.

[6] Citing several previous District Court opinions which had already ruled on the issue, Judge Hughes explained that breastfeeding is not covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

[7] In the ruling, Hughes writes, "Even if the company's claim that she was fired for abandonment is meant to hide the real reason – she wanted to pump breast milk – lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition.

"[7][8] Hughes was overruled by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which held that Venters had established a prima facie case of sex discrimination under Title VII.

[9] Critically, the Fifth Circuit found Hughes to be so biased that it took the unusual step of reassigning the case to a district court judge on remand.

The court summarily denied Miller’s subsequent motion for reconsideration, denied Miller’s repeated requests for leave to take discovery (including depositions of material witnesses), and eventually granted summary judgment in favor of SHSU and UHD, dismissing all claims.

Mindful of the fundamental right to fairness in every proceeding—both in fact, and in appearance, we REVERSE, REMAND, and direct that these cases be REASSIGNED to a new district judge for further proceedings.

In support of her position, Miller refers us to McCoy v. Energy XXI GOM, LLC, 695 F. App’x 750 (5th Cir.

On appeal, we reversed and remanded the case on summary judgment grounds, finding genuine issues of material fact existed, even with the limited discovery that had been permitted.

But we also noted that “[t]he district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow [the plaintiff] to conduct sufficient discovery .

[11] In U.S. v. Khan, the Fifth Circuit took what it self-described as the "rare" move of reassigning a criminal case on appeal, doing so despite the absence of a request from either party, given the bias displayed by Judge Hughes in the trial court proceedings.

Because Hughes had supervised the trial court proceedings for more than four years, the Fifth Circuit lamented that "reassignment is regrettable," but concluded that "it is nonetheless necessary for the reasons we have stated.

[15] He dismissed the case by rejecting the arguments of the plaintiffs because Texas law only permits employees to sue for wrongful termination if they were required by their employer to engage in illegal conduct, while receiving the COVID-19 vaccine is legal.

He found that the vaccine has been authorized for emergency use by the FDA, and that the plaintiffs were not clinical trial participants, and were therefore not being utilized as test subjects.

[17] Hughes was also reprimanded for explicitly attacking a female attorney representing the United States of America in open court.

While on the record, Hughes stated that "It was a lot simpler when you guys wore dark suits, white shirts and navy ties...We didn't let girls do it in the old days.