Continental Coffee Products Co. v. Cazarez

• Decision Date: 21 February 1997
• Docket Number: No. 95-0827,95-0827
• Citation: 937 S.W.2d 444
• Parties: 12 IER Cases 744, 40 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 172 CONTINENTAL COFFEE PRODUCTS CO. and Allen D. Duff, Petitioners, v. Juanita CAZAREZ, Respondent.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 444

937 S.W.2d 444

12 IER Cases 744, 40 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 172

CONTINENTAL COFFEE PRODUCTS CO. and Allen D. Duff, Petitioners, v. Juanita CAZAREZ, Respondent.

No. 95-0827.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Argued Feb. 14, 1996.

Decided Dec. 13, 1996.

Rehearing Overruled Feb. 21, 1997.

A. Martin Wickliff, Jr., Barbara L. Johnson, Paul E. Hash, Houston, for Respondent.

Thomas N. Thurlow, Houston, Donna Roth, Spring, Jose Luis Garriga, Janine G. Howard, Richard P. Hogan, Jr., Houston, for Petitioners.

PHILLIPS, Chief Justice, delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

The principal question for our decision is what evidence is required for a court to find malice in order to award punitive damages for a violation of a statute creating an intentional tort. Juanita Cazarez sued her employer, Continental Coffee Products Company, and its employment manager, Alan D. Duff, for allegedly discharging her in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim in violation of TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 8307c (repealed) (codified without substantive changes at TEX.LAB.CODE § 451.001-.003). The trial court, after a bench trial, rendered judgment awarding Cazarez actual damages of $150,000 and punitive damages of $500,000. The court of appeals, with one justice dissenting, affirmed, holding that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction and that factually and legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court's findings that Continental violated the statute intentionally and with malice. 903 S.W.2d 70. We agree with the court of appeals that the trial court had jurisdiction. We also agree that there is some evidence that Continental and Duff violated section 451.001 in terminating Cazarez's employment. ¹ However, in deciding that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient, the court of appeals relied in part on evidence that we hold is not probative. Moreover, we hold that the evidence is not legally sufficient to support a finding of actual malice, which is required to assess punitive damages for a retaliatory discharge. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the court of appeals and render judgment that Cazarez take nothing on her claim for punitive damages.

I

Cazarez was employed from 1976 to 1991 by Continental, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Quaker Oats, as a production assistant performing primarily janitorial and maintenance duties. In April 1991, Cazarez suffered an on-the-job injury to her right ankle. She filed a workers' compensation claim in connection with the injury, missing seven months of work while on workers' compensation leave.

While Cazarez was out, Quaker Oats transferred Duff to Continental to be the new Employee Relations Manager. One of Duff's duties was monitoring the progress of those employees out while receiving workers' compensation benefits. Another of his duties was enforcing Continental's "three day no call/no show rule." Under this rule, an employee who is not absent on workers' compensation leave loses all seniority and other rights if he or she misses three days of work without properly notifying management. According to plant work rules, termination under the three-day rule is considered a "voluntary quit." The three-day rule applies to employees receiving workers' compensation benefits as soon as they are released to return to work by their treating physician.

The exact date that Cazarez was released to come back to work, and Duff's knowledge of that release, are both highly disputed. The record contains three "Specific and Subsequent Medical Reports," each signed by Cazarez's treating physician, Dr. Brian Parsley. The first, dated September 30, 1991, states only that the anticipated date of Cazarez's return to full-time work is October 28, 1991. Duff testified that this was the only document he saw before he fired Cazarez on November 8, 1991. The second document, dated October 30, 1991, states that Cazarez was released to return to work on October 28, 1991, and was anticipated to return to work on that date. The third document, dated December 17, 1991, revises the release date to November 18, 1991.

Between June 1991 and October 28, 1991, Duff had continuing contact by telephone with Cazarez, Dr. Parsley, and the workers' compensation carrier handling Cazarez's claim. On October 28, 1991, Cazarez called Continental and informed Maize Villareal, Duff's assistant, that she was still awaiting "molded shoe" ankle supports she needed to return to work and that she was suffering from the flu. Duff's handwritten notes indicate that when he called Cazarez on Wednesday, October 30, 1991, to "check status," she told him that while her flu was better, she still had not received the ankle supports, so that she "probably" would return to work that Friday or the following Monday. The trial court found that Duff knew on October 30, 1991, that Cazarez could not return to work until she had received her ankle supports, which she did not in fact receive until after Continental fired her.

Duff's notes indicate that on that Monday, November 4, 1991, he "tried calling Juanita Cazarez at 1 p.m. to see why she wasn't at work," but there was no answer. Cazarez did not report to work or call Continental on that day or any day that week. On Tuesday, November 5, however, Duff's assistant, Villareal, visited Cazarez's home and was informed by her son that Cazarez was still sick. Later that week, Duff called and wrote to Cazarez to inform her that she was fired for violating the three-day rule. Although Duff presented evidence that this occurred on Friday, November 8, Cazarez testified that Duff called and fired her on November 7.

Cazarez claims, and the trial court found, that she was actually fired because she in good faith filed a workers' compensation claim. Based on this finding, the trial court concluded that Continental and Duff had violated the so-called Texas Anti-Retaliation Law.

II

Continental and Duff first argue that the County Civil Court at Law No. 3 of Harris County lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Cazarez's claims. Cazarez brought her suit under article 8307c, which stated that "[t]he district courts of the State of Texas shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, to restrain violations of this Act." TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 8307c, § 3 (repealed 1993). As codified, this portion of the statute now states that "[a] district court may restrain, for cause shown, a violation of Section 451.001." TEX.LAB.CODE § 451.003. Continental and Duff argue that the statute confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the district courts to hear retaliatory discharge cases under the statute, relying on Azar Nut Co. v. Caille, 734 S.W.2d 667, 669 (Tex.1987); Mingus v. Wadley, 115 Tex. 551, 285 S.W. 1084, 1087 (1926); and McGregor v. Clawson, 506 S.W.2d 922, 928 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1974, no writ). We disagree.

The statute before us states that district courts "shall" (old version) or "may" (codified version) "restrain violations of the Act." That language might indicate the Legislature's intent to allow injunctive relief under the statute. However, its plain meaning does not express an intention to grant exclusive jurisdiction to district courts to grant certain relief or, in general, to decide cases under the statute. Stated another way, to the extent that statutory courts share concurrent jurisdiction with district courts, nothing in this statute limits or excludes that concurrent jurisdiction.

In Sandy International, Inc. v. Hansel & Gretel Children's Shop, Inc., 775 S.W.2d 802 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1989, no writ), a similar jurisdictional issue arose under section 16.26(b) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, which allows a trademark registrant to sue to enjoin a trademark infringement. This statutory provision formerly provided that the "District Court shall grant injunctions," see TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 851-C (Vernon 1964) (repealed 1967), and at the time of the opinion provided that registrants "may sue for damages and to enjoin an infringement ... in a district court having venue." See TEX.BUS. & COM.CODE § 16.26(b). The court refused to construe the statutory language as indicating legislative intent to limit jurisdiction to district courts, concluding instead that the intent of the statute was to provide registrants with the statutory means of enforcing their right to the exclusive use of their trademarks. See Sandy Int'l, 775 S.W.2d at 805-06. Finding nothing in the statutory language to indicate an intent to expressly limit jurisdiction to district courts, the court concluded that the county court at law had subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 806. We approve of this reasoning and believe a similar approach is appropriate in this case. To construe the workers' compensation retaliation statute as limiting jurisdiction to district courts in the absence of an express indication of legislative intent would not further the Legislature's overall purpose in enacting article 8307c, "to protect persons who are entitled to benefits under the Worker's Compensation Law and to prevent them from being discharged by reason of taking steps to collect such benefits." Carnation Co. v. Borner, 610 S.W.2d 450, 453 (Tex.1980).

Sections 25.0003 and 25.1032 of the Texas Government Code are, respectively, the general grant of jurisdictional authority to statutory county courts and the specific grant of jurisdictional authority to Harris County civil courts at law. Section 25.0003(c) states:

(c) In addition to other jurisdiction provided by law, a statutory county court exercising civil jurisdiction concurrent with the constitutional jurisdiction of the county court has concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in:

(1) civil cases in which the matter in controversy exceeds $500 but does not exceed $100,000, excluding interest, statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney's fees and costs, as alleged on the face of the petition; and

(2) appeals of final...