Britt v. Sherman Foundry, 20428
| Decision Date | 07 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 20428,20428 |
| Parties | Don BRITT, Appellant, v. SHERMAN FOUNDRY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
James R. Fry, Jarvis, Grisham, Sanders, Hagood, Emerson & Fry, Sherman, for appellant.
Jack G. Kennedy, Kennedy, Minshew, Evans, Campbell & Cain, Sherman, for appellees.
Before GUITTARD, C. J., and ROBERTSON and STOREY, JJ.
Plaintiff Britt sued his former employer, Sherman Foundry, and others for damages under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c, because he was discharged after he was injured on the job. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on the pleadings. Plaintiff contends on appeal that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because article 8307c applies to non-subscribers such as defendant, as well as subscribers, and because a fact issue is presented as to whether plaintiff had instituted proceedings under the Worker's Compensation Act prior to his termination. We affirm because plaintiff's petition does not allege the filing of a claim or institution of proceedings under the Act and therefore plaintiff's case does not come within article 8307c.
The petition alleges that during the time he was employed by defendants he was injured on the job, that the injury was reported to plaintiff's fellow employees and to his supervisor, that defendants discharged plaintiff approximately two weeks after he was injured, and that at no time relevant to this cause did defendants carry Worker's Compensation insurance. Section 1 of article 8307c states:
No person may discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because the employee has in good faith filed a claim, hired a lawyer to represent him in a claim, instituted or caused to be instituted, in good faith, any proceeding under the Texas Workmen's Compensation Act, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding.
Defendants argue that article 8307c does not apply to plaintiff's case because plaintiff did not file a claim, hire an attorney, or institute any action under the Worker's Compensation laws until after he was discharged. Plaintiff responds by citing Texas Steel Company v. Douglas, 533 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.) for the proposition that his action in telling his fellow employees and supervisor of the injury was the institution of proceedings under the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodge v. BSB Investments, Inc.
...cases, Texas Steel Co. v. Douglas, 533 S.W.2d 111 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.), and Britt v. Sherman Foundry, 608 S.W.2d 338 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Neither case, however, renders the support that BSB Texas Steel involved an employee of a subscribing em......
-
Discrimination claims under labor code chapter 451
...of non-subscribers are protected by [Chapter 451]. One court of appeals has suggested that they are.”) with Britt v. Sherman Foundry , 608 S.W.2d 338, (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e) (does not apply to non-subscriber). The Texas Supreme Court settled the issue in Texas Mexica......
-
Table of cases
...of New Haven , 654 F.3d 200, 205-209 (2d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2741 (2012), §§18:7.H.2, 24:3.B Britt v. Sherman Foundry , 608 S.W.2d 338 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e), §31:2.B.1 Brock-Chapman v. Nat’l Care Network, L.L.C. , 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6199 (N.D.Tex......
-
Table of cases
...of New Haven , 654 F.3d 200, 205-209 (2d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2741 (2012), §§18:7.H.2, 24:3.B Britt v. Sherman Foundry , 608 S.W.2d 338 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e), §31:2.B.1 Brock-Chapman v. Nat’l Care Network, L.L.C. , 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6199 (N.D.Tex......
-
Discrimination Claims Under Labor Code Chapter 451
...of non-subscribers are protected by [Chapter 451]. One court of appeals has suggested that they are.”) with Britt v. Sherman Foundry , 608 S.W.2d 338, (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e) (does not apply to non-subscriber). The Texas Supreme Court settled the issue in Texas Mexica......