A question in Kanen v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs. was whether the plaintiff presented a fact issue about a prima facie case of age discrimination; specifically, as to whether he had been “replaced by someone outside the protected class, replaced by someone younger, or was otherwise discharged because of his age.” The Fifth Court found a sufficient question to avoid summary judgment on that point, noting two matters in particular. First –

“Because Kanen presented evidence DeWolff retained and hired substantially younger market analysts after his employment was terminated, and because DeWolff considers the market analysts to be interchangeable and claimed Kanen’s accounts would be randomly assigned to other analysts and conceded that Kanen’s replacement ‘could be anyone in the office,’ a jury could determine that Kanen’s job duties were distributed to younger workers.”

And second –

“In addition, contrary to DeWolff’s assertion of how accounts are assigned, Kanen established market analysts are assigned to a specific outside salesperson and territory. A jury could conclude that DeWolff’s explanation as to how accounts are assigned is not credible and infer that the individual, or individuals, who took over his accounts were among those Kanen identified as being substantially younger than himself.”

No. 05-20-00126-CV (Jan. 18, 2022) (mem. op.).

Judge Gregg Costa memorably described the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework as “the ‘kudzu’ of employment law.” Nall v. BNSF Railway Co., 917 F. 3d 335 (5th Cir. 2019) (Costa, J., specially concurring). The painstaking majority and dissenting opinions in Addante v. Univ. of Tex. at Dallas, No. 05-20-00376-CV (Sept. 8, 2021) illustrate the amount of detail work required to evaluate a complex retaliation case and deserve study by anyone who practices in that area in state court.

Resolving an unclear area about Sabine Pilot claims for wrongful discharge, the Fifth Court held in “Sandberg did not plead or present evidence that ST[Microelectonics] ever required him to sign false tax statements or other financial documents. Instead, the gist of his claim is that he was terminated for stating he would not execute the documents ‘if there was a breach of the [Advanced Pricing Agreement] agreement and improper adjusting entries were included in the accounting figures’. Sandberg’s pleading does not allege facts showing ST forced Sandberg “to choose between illegal activity and [his] livelihood[].” Sandberg v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., No. 05-18-01360-CV (April 9, 2020).

Miskevitch, a store manager, alleged that 7-Eleven terminated her in violation of the Texas Labor Code in retaliation for opposing a discriminatory practice. Specifically, she alleged that in accordance with company policy, she had reported an employee’s complaint of harassment by another manager, and then shook her head in disgust at a meeting about the complaint. The Fifth Court, following precedent from San Antonio, found that because the report was made pursuant to company policy, it was done in support of the company rather than in opposition to it, and was not actionable under this statute. And the evidence showed that her head shake was in reaction to the report of harassment – not actions by the company. The Court denied 7-Eleven’s request for fees, however, observing: “Although [Miskevitch] lacked Texas authority for her position on protected activity, she  attempted to distinguish 7-Eleven’s cases and argued for an extension of federal law.” Miskevitch v. 7-Eleven, No. 05-17-00099-CV (July 25, 2018) (mem. op.)

Despite a contract between Texas Instruments and Volt, an employment agency, saying that Volt was an independent contractor, the Fifth Court reversed a jury verdict on the issue of whether Udell – a worker supplied by Volt – was an employee for purposes of workers compensation. Reviewing the record in detail, the Court concluded that “Udell was working on TI’s premises, in furtherance of TI’s day-to-day business, and the detail
s of Udell’s work that gave rise to his injury were directed by TI.” Texas Instruments v. Udell, No. 05-14-01042-CV (Aug. 24, 2016) (mem. op.)

Tervita LLC unsuccessfully disputed Sutterfield’s workers compensation claim in a contested hearing; afterwards, Sutterfield sued Tervita for various torts relating to its handling of his claim.  The trial court denied Tervita’s motion to dismiss under the new Texas anti-SLAPP statute.  The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed as to Sutterfield’s claims based on Tervita’s participation in the agency hearing, concluding that those claims were based on Tervita’s exercise of its right to petition.  It otherwise affirmed, concluding that Sutterfield’s claims about a hostile work environment and wrongful discharge “are based on Tervita’s actions and statements outside of the TDI-WC proceeding.”  Tervita LLC v. Sutterfield, No. 05-15-00479-CV (Dec. 18, 2015).

Last year, we reported on the Dallas Court of Appeals’ decision to affirm the trial court’s denial of the Office of Attorney General’s plea to the jurisdiction in a Whistleblower Act case. Today, the Texas Supreme Court has reversed and rendered, holding that the whistleblower’s report to her superior at OAG was not made to “an appropriate law enforcement authority,” as required by the Whistleblower Act. The plaintiff’s pleadings therefore failed to properly invoke the Act, meaning that OAG’s sovereign immunity was not waived.

Office of the Attorney Gen. v. Weatherspoon, No. 14-0582

For 15 years, Steven Anderson was a route driver for Greenville Automatic Gas Co. Anderson quit and went to work for Automatic Propane Gas & Supply, leading Greenville to invoke an employment agreement that it claimed included both a a covenant not to compete and a nonsolicit provision. Anderson and Automatic Propane sued for a declaratory judgment, alleging (after a series of amendments to the pleadings) that Anderson had only signed a shorter contract that contained neither of the terms claimed by Greenville. The jury found that Anderson has not agreed to the terms claimed by Greenville and awarded him approximately $75,000 in attorney fees. The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Anderson and Automatic Gas could not dispute the validity of Greenville’s contract because they had failed to timely file a verified pleading denying its validity, as required by TRCP 93. The Court of Appeals also affirmed summary judgment against Greenville on its tort-based counterclaims and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Greenville Automatic Gas Co. v. Automatic Propane Gas & Supply, LLC, No. 05-13-01405-CV

The Texas Citizens Participation Act is becoming a powerful tool for disposing of certain types of lawsuits at an early stage of litigation, but an opinion from the Dallas Court of Appeals recognizes two important limits to the TCPA’s scope. Travis Coleman sued his former employer, ExxonMobil Pipeline, and two former supervisors for defamation and related claims. Coleman contended that the defendants had lied about his alleged failure to measure the level of fluid in a chemical holding tank, which led to his dismissal. The trial court denied Exxon’s motion to dismiss under the TCPA, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Court of Appeals first relied on the Texas Supreme Court’s recent holding in Lippincott v. Whisenhunt (4/25/15) to reject Coleman’s argument that the TCPA did not apply because the speech was purely private. Nevertheless, the Court held that the allegedly defamatory statements did not involve a “matter of public concern” because their contents related to Coleman’s private job performance, not health, safety, the environment, or Exxon’s economic interests. The fact that the potential consequences of Coleman’s alleged failure to check the tank included health, safety, environmental, and economic concerns was not enough to transform the statements into a matter of public concern. The Court also rejected Exxon’s argument that the TCPA applied on free association grounds, holding that communications made in the context of free association had to involve some sort of public or citizens’ participation to fall under the TCPA.

ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman, No. 05-14-00188-CV

The United Food & Commercial Workers Union sought to collectively bargain on behalf of the employees of the Texoma Area Paratransit Systems, a rural transit district. TAPS sued for a declaratory judgment that, as a government subdivision, it was prohibited from collectively bargaining by Chapter 617 of the Texas Government Code. A Grayson County trial court granted summary judgment for TAPS and (more than a year later) awarded its attorney fees. The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the union’s claim that TAPS’s declaratory judgment action was preempted by federal labor law. Despite 12 years of collective bargaining between TAPS and the union, state law still prohibited collective bargaining with a government entity, and that meant that TAPS was indeed entitled to summary judgment on the issue.

United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 1000 v. Texoma Area Paratransit Sys., Inc., No. 05-12-01556-CV

The Texas Commission on Human Rights Act preempts many employment-related claims in favor of the TCHRA’s own available remedies. In this case, an employee sued her employer, Steak N Shake, for common law assault after her supervisor committed an act of sexual assault. Because the gravamen of the plaintiff’s “unwanted offensive touching” claim was for sexual harassment, the Court of Appeals followed Texas Supreme Court authority in holding that the common law assault claim was preempted by the TCHRA. The Court also rejected the employee’s claim that the claim did not sound in harassment because it involved only a single incident. The Court therefore affirmed summary judgment for the employer.

B.C. v. Steak N Shake Ops., Inc., No 05-14-00649-CV

In this age discrimination employment claim, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant.  According to the Court, there was conflicting evidence about the defendant’s reason for firing the plaintiff.  Although the defendant claimed that the downturn in the economy forced them to fire the plaintiff, the plaintiff argued that, at the time of his termination, he was working on projects that would have required another year to complete.  This conflict created a sufficient fact issue for the plaintiff to survive summary judgment.

Stillwell v. Halff Assocs., Inc.

The Texas Whistleblower Act prohibits a governmental entity from taking an adverse personnel action against an employee who in good faith reports a violation of law to an appropriate law enforcement authority. Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.002(a). Those elements are jurisdictional, and a plaintiff who fails to adequately plead facts supporting the claim can have his claim dismissed. The Court of Appeals did just that in an appeal from a $400,000 judgment against the Dallas Independent School District. The plaintiff alleged that he had been terminated for reporting that his supervisor had directed him to perform three gas tests in a single day, which he claimed was unsafe. But the plaintiff’s petition did not allege that any actual violation of law had taken place, just that he had been pressured to do something that might be unsafe. As a result, the employee failed to state a claim in his petition, and the trial court therefore had no jurisdiction over his claim.

Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Watson, No. 05-12-00254-CV

Plaintiff Shabaz Din was born in Pakistan, where he became a doctor and specialized in ophthalmology. After emigrating to the United States in the 1990s, Din took a job training medical assistants with ATI Career Training Center. When the position of Medical Assistants Program Director came open, Din applied for it. ATI chose to go with a doctor of osteopathy instead. That doctor was soon replaced by a different candidate with only a vocational degree, followed by yet another new hire who had not graudated from college. Din filed a complaint with the EEOC, and ATI fired him shortly thereafter. Din sued for national origin discrimination and retaliation, and the jury awarded him damages for back pay, emotional pain and suffering, and punitives.

The Court of Appeals took up several issues in its determination of the case. First, it dismissed Din’s cause of action for retaliation because he had not raised that issue in the underlying administrative proceeding as required by Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code (formerly, the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act). As to the damages, the Court held that there was no evidence that Din had suffered any compensible emotional pain and suffering due to the failure to promote, and it therefore vacated that portion of the judgment. The Court did find that there was evidence of back-pay damages, but nowhere near enough to sustain the jury’s award of $83,000, leading to a remand for additional proceedings on both liability and damages for the back-pay issue. Finally, the Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence supporting the jury’s finding of malice or reckless indifference and found it was legally insufficient to support an award of punitive damages. Although there was evidence that the ATI manager had intended to cause Dim “some harm” in denying his promotion, that evidence did not show an intent to cause “substantial injury or harm” because the promotion would have resulted in only a small raise in Dim’s hourly salary.

ATI Enters., Inc. v. Din, No. 05-11-01522-CV

In 2004, Crutcher filed a lawsuit against the Dallas Independent School District (“DISD”) alleging discrimination and retaliation.  The 2004 lawsuit was settled out of court.  In the summer of 2009, Crutcher interviewed for a position with the DISD, but did not get the job.  Following this adverse employment decision, Crutcher sued DISD.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of DISD, and Crutcher appealed.  The Court of Appeals held that Crutcher failed to establish a causal connection between Crutcher’s filing of the 2004 lawsuit and the adverse employment decision so as to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.  The Court further held that DISD provided substantial evidence to show legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision to not hire Crutcher.

Crutcher v. Dallas Indep.Sch. Dist., No. 05-11-01112-CV

Today’s the day for successor cases from lawsuits in 2004. Alexandrea Crutcher originally sued DISD for discrimination and retaliation in that fateful (for 2013 purposes) year.  That lawsuit was resolved by settlement. In 2009, Crutcher interviewed for a job as a basketball coach and science teacher. After some initial recommendations that she be hired, the school hired a different candidate. Crutcher filed suit under the Texas Commission for Human Rights Act, alleging retaliation for her previous retaliation and discrimination lawsuit. Under the TCHRA, employers cannot retaliate or discriminate against an employee or applicant for filing a discrimination complaint. Tex. Lab. Code § 21.055. But Crutcher failed to meet her initial burden of coming forward with either direct or circumstantial evidence that the adverse employment decision was motivated by discriminatory purpose.

The principal who initially recommended Crutcher’s hiring did so after she learned of the earlier lawsuit, and only withdrew the recommendation later on. The person in the HR department who was responsible for making the employment decision was unaware of the first lawsuit, and a paperwork error had caused a misdescription of the job that was actually available. Allegations of hanky panky with a colleague in a supply closet also make a cameo appearance in the opinion, along with a bunch of other facts that the Court of Appeals ruled had adequately negated any causal connection between the decision not to hire Crutcher with her previous lawsuit. The Court therefore concluded that Crutcher had failed to show a prima facie case of retaliation, and that DISD has negated any showing of discriminatory intent in any case. As a result, the Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the school district.

Crutcher v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 05-11-01112-CV

Mesquite ISD filed an interlocutory appeal after the district court denied a motion for summary judgment based on sovereign immunity. The school district had terminated plaintiff Tomasa Mendoza after she washed several dirty mop heads and placed them in the dryer, causing a fire. (Flaming mop heads are apparently a thing, and it was the second such fire in the school district in the same year.) Mendoza sued for gender and national-origin discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. The school district moved for summary judgment, claiming governmental immunity on the basis that Mendoza could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The court of appeals held that Mendoza had failed to meet her burden on the gender discrimination claim because she had not shown that she was replaced by someone outside of the protected class, or that she was treated less favorably than similarly situated members of another class. The school district had reassigned one woman to replace Mendoza and hired another woman to take over the open slot, facts which negated the claim she had been fired based on her gender. Mendoza also argued that she had been treated differently than the male employee who had failed to collect the dirty mop heads in the first place, as he had only been reprimanded instead of being fired. However, that employee’s duties and the nature of his misconduct were both sufficiently different from Mendoza’s that the court of appeals concluded they were not “similarly situated.” But the court of appeals sustained the trial court’s ruling on the national origin claim, concluding that a genuine issue of material fact existed because the woman hired for the open custodial position was outside Mendoza’s protected class. Thus, the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings on the claim for national-origin discrimination.

Mesquite Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Mendoza, No. 05-12-01479-CV

This appeal arises from a jury verdict in favor of three brothers who were hit by a tractor-trailer while they were changing a flat tire on the side of the freeway. Among other things, the jury awarded damages for lost wages and loss of earning capacity.

On appeal, the central issue was whether federal law preempts the ability of undocumented workers, like the plaintiffs, to recover lost wages. The defendants argued that the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act preempts the lost wages jury award because the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the “IRCA has preempted the field of regulation of employment of illegal aliens.” Arizona v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 2492 (2012). The court, however, rejected this argument, holding instead that “Congress’s power to regulate immigration cannot imply that every state law that might impact or touch on an undocumented alien is necessarily preempted.” It further held that nothing in the IRCA indicates that Congress intended this statute to supersede state law on this issue.

Grocers Supply, Inc. v. Cabello, No. 05-10-00843-CV

The court of appeals has issued a lengthy opinion in an employment non-disclosure case, partially affirming a jury verdict in favor of the former employer.  In this instance, both the plaintiff and the corporate defendant were in the business of providing in-home pediatric nursing services.  After the defendant company hired away three of the plaintiff’s employees, eleven of the plaintiff’s most profitable accounts moved over to the new company.  The court of appeals started by noting that the defendants did not challenge the jury’s finding that they had entered into a conspiracy to damage the plaintiff.  That led the court to conclude that each of the defendants was jointly and severally liable for the other defendants’ breaches of their non-disclosure agreements, which were themselves established by sufficient evidence at trial.  The court of appeals upheld the jury’s award of $250,000 in lost profits attributable to the eleven patients lost by the plaintiff, but reversed and rendered amounts that had been awarded for profits that would have been earned after the plaintiff went bankrupt and sold off its business.  According to the court, there was no evidence that he plaintiff would have had the right to continue receiving profits from customers after the business was sold, so there was no evidentiary basis for the recovery of those post-sale profits.  Finally, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of JNOV against the plaintiff on its claim for attorney fees, holding that fees were not recoverable because the plaintiff had not offered any proof of presentment to the defendants.

Helping Hands Home Care, Inc. v. Home Health of Tarrant County, Inc., No. 05-08-01657-CV

Carment Llerena, a former bookkeeper and secretary for Defendant North Texas Trucking, sued her former employer for negligence and fraud related to her termination.  The jury found North Texas liable and rendered judgment in Llerena’s favor, and the trial court overruled North Texas’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.  On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and found that Llerena should instead take nothing from North Texas on both claims.

The Court’s opinion turned on two issues.  First, the Court rejected Llerena’s fraud claim. While Llerena argued that she was fraudulently induced to accept a job with defendant based on North Texas’ representation that it had workers’ compensation insurance, the Court found that she had presented no evidence of “what she would have received had North Texas provided workers’ compensation insurance.”  Second, the Court rejected Llerena’s contention that her former employer caused her to work in unsafe conditions that led to her carpal tunnel syndrome, finding instead that she presented “no evidence that any modification of her work environment or work requirements would have prevented or lessened her injury.”

North Texas Trucking v. Carmen Llerna, NO. 05-10-01061-CV

While Bruce Adams was carrying out his duties as a senior “troubleshooter” for defendant Oncor, he fell 25 feet from a utility pole and broke his back.  Adams spent weeks in the hospital and underwent several surgeries.  While Adams recovered, he received his full salary under Oncor’s salary continuation policy, but, when it appeared that Adams would no longer be able to return to work as a troubleshooter, Oncor sent him its standard letter informing him, among other things, that if he could not return to perform the “essential job duties of [his] occupation” within several months he would be terminated.  Although Oncor worked with Adams to find a position as a dispatcher, this new position did not work out.  Adams sued, alleging that Oncor violated section 451.001 of the Texas Labor Code by wrongfully terminating his employment in retaliation for his filing a workers’ compensation claim.

The Court granted Oncor’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Adams had presented no evidence demonstrating that his termination was the result of his filing a workers’ compensation claim.  Instead, the Court held that Oncor had terminated Adams “based on the uniform application of a reasonable absence control policy.”

Adams v. Oncor Electric Delivery Co., LLC, NO05-11-00618

The court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment dismissing a plaintiff’s claims against his former employer for breach of the employment contract. Twin Lakes Golf Course hired Holloway to move from Illinois and serve as its head pro for three years. After further negotiations in July 2008, Twin Lakes and Holloway orally agreed to an employment term lasting one year with an agreement to extend for another three years based on his performance. Holloway started working on August 5, 2008, and soon after Twin Lakes presented a written contract, dated July 23, containing the terms of the agreement. Holloway signed the document but Twin Lakes never did. Holloway was fired eight weeks later and he sued for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Twin Lakes.

On appeal, the court determined that the agreement was not enforceable because, as an agreement that could not be performed within one year, it fell within the statute of frauds. The court noted that the contract was negotiated in July 2008 and the document that Holloway signed was dated July 23. Thus, the agreement was made in July 2008 and performance was to end in August 2009 – over one year. Additionally, Holloway’s employment was to last from August 5, 2008 to August 5, 2009 – one year and one day. The court also held that Holloway’s affidavit testimony stating that the agreement could be performed within one year was conclusory. Finally, his partial performance did not remove the agreement from the statute of frauds because he was compensated. Thus, the agreement was unenforceable and Holloway’s claims failed as a matter of law.

Holloway v. Dekkers and Twin Lakes Golf Course, Inc., 05-10-01132-CV

Willie Addison hurt his back at work and, after complaining about it, was fired.  He sued his employer alleging retaliatory discharge under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act.  Addison’s employer, however, was not a subscriber to the states’ worker’s compensation program.

Undeterred, Addison charged that his employer should nevertheless be held liable for retaliatory discharge because the employee handbook indicates the company maintains a workers compensation plan (though it is not governed by the Act).  The court rejected Addison’s claim, finding that “only subscribing employers can be subject to section 451.001 claims.”

Addison v. Diversified Healthcare, No 05-11-01455

The court reversed a no-summary judgment against the employees of a lawn service company. The employees alleged that the lawn service issued them worthless paychecks for two months. The employer filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment that neither referred to the facts alleged nor specified in what way the evidence failed to support the claims. The employees responded, attaching affidavit evidence and wage statements. The employers objected to the evidence as hearsay, but the court ruled that objection was waived because they failed to obtain a ruling from the trial court on their objection. The court also held that the affidavits and wage statements were sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment because they indicated at least an implied employment contract that the employer breached, damaging the employees.

Gaspar, et al., v. Lawnpro Inc., No. 05-11-00861-CV