Fields v. Teamsters Local No. 988

Citation23 S.W.3d 517
Parties<!--23 S.W.3d 517 (Tex.App.-Houston 2000) MARIA E. FIELDS, Appellant v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 988 AND TERRY LOVAN, Appellees NO. 01-99-00304-CV In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Decision Date08 June 2000
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Panel consists of Justices Mirabal, Taft, and Price.*

MAJORITY OPINION

Tim Taft, Justice

Appellant, Maria E. Fields, challenges a no-evidence summary judgment rendered in favor of appellees, Teamsters Local Union 988 (the Union) and Terry Lovan, against her claims for gender discrimination, retaliation, and sexual harassment, under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. We address whether (1) the Union is a proper defendant under the TCHRA and whether there is any evidence showing (2) a causal connection exists between Fields' complaints and her discharge from employment, (3) the Union's reason for firing Fields was a pretext, (4) Lovan's conduct was extreme and outrageous, and (5) Fields' emotional distress was severe. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Facts

The summary judgment evidence submitted by Fields shows that Fields began work for the Union in January, 1996. While the Union was under a trusteeship, Lovan was appointed trustee in January 1997. Fields served as his secretary. Fields claims that Lovan became obsessed with her within weeks of her becoming his secretary.

Fields denies any sexual relationship with Lovan. Fields first felt threatened by Lovan in early February, 1997, when, on introducing him to her sister, he said, "Oh, so now you are dumping me off on your sister." A week later, Lovan asked Fields out for a drink, saying "You owe me one." Later that evening, Fields met some friends after work at a club where Lovan was also in attendance. While at the club, Lovan repeatedly asked Fields to dance with him and she consistently refused. Later in the evening, Lovan caught Fields returning from the restroom and grabbed her by the arm and said, "Let's go dance." In pulling her toward the dance floor, he pulled her purse off her shoulder. Fields continued to tell Lovan that she did not want to dance as he continued to pull her toward the dance floor. She eventually became embarrassed at the spectacle they were causing and stopped resisting to dance briefly with Lovan. While dancing, Fields reasserted that she did not want to dance and eventually left Lovan to return to her friends. The following day, Lovan left a message on Fields' answering machine asking her to come to his apartment for "pizza, beer, and a hot tub." Fields did not return Lovan's telephone call.

On the following day, which was a Sunday, Fields received a three-way call from Lovan and Gina, a co-worker of Fields. Lovan insisted that they all meet that day to discuss Fields's work performance. When Fields inquired further, Lovan answered that he did not want to discuss it on the phone. Fields asked if the discussion would be good or bad, and Lovan replied that it all depended on her answers. Lovan stated that "all this" came about because he had been thinking about her over the past two days. The past two days encompassed the incidents when Lovan forced Fields to dance with him and asked her over for "pizza, beer, and a hot tub." Fields told Lovan she would have to call him and Gina back because she had to take her daughter out for lunch. Lovan suggested they all get together for lunch. Fields suggested they meet at a restaurant so she could take her daughter, but Lovan refused to allow the daughter to attend. Lovan decided they would meet at the Daiquiri Factory. Fields had to arrange for someone to watch her daughter so she could meet Gina and Lovan. When she arrived at the Daiquiri Factory, Gina and Lovan were not there. She called Gina who said the meeting had been moved to Lovan's apartment. After several attempts to get Lovan to explain what the meeting was about, Fields hung up.

The following workday, Lovan called Fields into his office and started berating her about personal phone calls, doctor visits, and vacation scheduling. Lovan proceeded to tell Fields that her loyalty should be with him because he was the trustee and he would be the one to recommend her and decide whether she would stay or go. At that point, Lovan's speech turned to personal matters as he began to discuss their dancing together. Lovan admitted that he had forced her to dance but claimed that he did not need to force himself on anyone because he has had three or four women. Fields did not know whether to interpret this remark as meaning he had been with three or four women at the same time or had dated three or four women at the same time. Lovan continued to reassert that Fields's insurance and job security depended on his recommending her. Fields told Lovan she was confused what all this meant and thought he was mixing personal matters with work. Lovan did not respond, but kept on reinforcing that he would to decide whether she stayed or not. Fields interpreted the meeting as a threat to coerce her to "go along with his advances."

At some point after this meeting with Lovan, Fields spoke with some co-workers to complain about Lovan's conduct, after which Lovan called Fields into his office for another meeting. Lovan wanted to know why Fields was going over his head. After asking to whom Fields had spoken, Lovan asserted that whatever decision he made, the persons she identified would back him up. Lovan went on to state that his feelings had been hurt because Fields had demonstrated a lack of loyalty when she refused to meet with him at his apartment over the weekend. At this point, Lovan apologized to Fields for his behavior and stated he hoped they could just be friends. But when Fields responded that she hoped Lovan would not hold the incidents against her, Lovan answered, "The only thing I want to hold against you is me." Fields repeated her request, because she felt Lovan was not getting the message, but Lovan responded with the same comment about wanting to hold himself against her. Then Lovan got up and put his arms around Fields, at which point she disengaged herself and left.

On another occasion, Lovan asked Fields if she had kissed another co-worker. When Fields denied having kissed the co-worker, Lovan asked Fields if she knew what "liplock" was. After Fields answered "no," Lovan responded saying, "Well, why don't you come over here and I'll show you." A co-worker witnessed this exchange between Lovan and Fields.

On another occasion, Lovan told another co-worker, in the presence of Fields, that he needed to get another secretary who would rub his back because "I cannot get nothing out of this one." Lovan followed up this statement by asking Fields if she knew how to massage. Lovan concluded by stating that he might have to change Fields's job description to include giving back rubs. During a separate incident at work, Lovan told Fields she would be a good nurse and asked her to sit down and hold his hand so he would feel better. Lovan also asked Fields out for drinks on two separate occasions. On one of these occasions, Lovan asked if she wanted to go out for some "Jack and Coke." Fields said "no" and repeated her answer as Lovan continued to ask her out. Finally, Lovan asked, "Well, do you want to go somewhere and get drunk, then we can forget about daylight." Again, Fields answered "no." Fields also recalled that Lovan left a gift of perfume on her desk.

Fields finally complained about Lovan's conduct to Robert Alvarez, a union business agent, who suggested she contact Roland Bell. Roland Bell told Fields to contact "Joe," who told her he would talk to someone in the Union legal department. When Fields heard nothing back, she approached the legal department on her own. Fields described how she thought she was being sexually harassed to Mary Connelly and then Bruce Fickman in The Union's legal department. Connelly and Fickman told Fields they would investigate the allegations, but never contacted her again.

After Lovan learned that Fields had complained about his conduct, he embarked on a series of transactions Fields perceived as directly related to her complaint. First, Lovan left a note on her desk stating that she should call and ask him out because he could not call her. Lovan changed the locks in the office but did not give a key to Fields because, he said, she did not need one. Lovan had these locks changed when Fields was out meeting with Fickman about her complaint. Around the same time, Lovan implemented a new time clock requirement. Fields perceived the new procedure as aimed at retaliating against and intimidating her because it happened shortly after she lodged her complaint, and Lovan discussed the change with each member of the staff except Fields in his own office. Lovan stopped giving work to Fields and she was the only office worker who was not told to stay and help count the ballots for the March union presidential election. Finally, Lovan displayed a doll with a see-through dress in his office. He had received the doll on a birthday cake given to him by a female co-worker.

In April 1997, after the union election, Crawley, the new president, fired four persons. Each fired person supported the losing presidential candidate, Nelson. Of the four, Fields was the only office staff person fired.

Fields claims that the harassment she suffered was severe, pervasive, and involved her job. The harassment interfered with her job performance because Fields had to worry about her job and Lovan. Fields felt threatened at the outset by Lovan's harassing conduct. She was embarrassed when Lovan pulled her onto the dance floor, and she was embarrassed when she heard the phone message in front of her daughter and boyfriend that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • C.D.A. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • March 28, 2023
    ...E.A.Q.A. was a minor, a factfinder may determine that the Government knew that the two were “peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress.” Id. [29] If anything, Mr. A. and factual allegations are even more likely to fall within the realm of extreme and outrageous because the ICE employees ......
  • Lottinger v. Shell Oil Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • May 16, 2001
    ...265 (5th Cir.1999); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lane, 31 S.W.3d 282, 295 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.); Fields v. Teamsters Local Union No. 988, 23 S.W.3d 517, 524 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). The statute specifically states that one of its purposes is to "provid......
  • Cavazos v. Edgewood Independent School Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • August 3, 2005
    ...harassment, intimidation, humiliation, daily use of vulgarities, and obscene behavior); Fields v. Teamsters Local Union No. 988, 23 S.W.3d 517, 531-33 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (noting that over a three-month period, employer repeatedly threatened to fire employee i......
  • Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice v. Flores, 08-16-00317-CV
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • June 22, 2018
    ..., 410 S.W.3d at 496-97 (five-year time gap failed to support causal connection); see also Fields v. Teamsters Local Union No. 988 , 23 S.W.3d 517, 529 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (noting proximity may establish causal connection when protected activity and adverse emplo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter § 4-3 § 21.002. Definitions
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Maslanka's Texas Field Guide to Employment Law Title Chapter 4 Texas Commission on Human Rights
    • Invalid date
    ...for the laundry list of protected classifications? If retaliation, the employee threshold arguably does not apply. • Fields v. Teamsters, 23 S.W.3d 517 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist] 2000) (language of TCHRA provisions on retaliation negates fifteen-employee threshold). 4-3:1.8 Aggregating E......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT