Garcia v. Allen
Decision Date | 08 June 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 13-99-032-CV,13-99-032-CV |
Parties | (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000) ROEL GARCIA, Appellant, v. WILLIAM STUART ALLEN, ET AL., Appellees |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On appeal from the 105th District Court of Kleberg County, Texas. [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Before Justices Dorsey, Chavez, and Rodriguez.
Roel Garcia was hired to work as an analyzer technician by Hoechst Celanese Corporation in 1991. When he was hired, he was without a kneecap in his left knee. It had been removed as a result of a previous job-related injury he sustained in 1986 while working for a different employer. Hoechst Celanese knew at the time it hired Garcia that he did not have the kneecap.
In 1997, Garcia had another surgery on his knee. His doctor placed him on permanent restrictions that prohibited him from climbing, squatting, kneeling and crawling. Celanese terminated him after that surgery.1 Garcia contends that he was terminated not because of his diminished ability to perform the essential functions of his job, but rather, he was terminated as a part of a vendetta propagated against him by his two supervisors. After his termination, Garcia brought suit against the corporation and the two supervisors (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Celanese") for disability discrimination, negligence, fraud, defamation, and workers' compensation retaliation.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Celanese on all causes of action.2 Garcia moved for new trial, in part on the basis of newly discovered evidence. The trial court denied his motion for new trial, and Garcia timely perfected this appeal. He brings five points of error, challenging the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the negligence, defamation, discrimination and retaliation causes of action, and for its denial of his motion for new trial.
First, Garcia argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment against him on his common law negligence cause of action. We disagree.
Garcia contends that he was injured by Celanese as a result of the negligent conduct of its supervisors in "dishonestly reporting Garcia's job performance." The gist of his cause of action is that although he was able to adequately perform his job functions despite his knee injury, his supervisors falsely reported that he was unable to perform them. He contends that the corporation was thereby negligent in its supervision and hiring of its employees. He argues that Celanese owes a duty to its employees to hire and retain supervisors who will not cause harm or injury to its other employees. Also, he argues that the two supervisors owed him a duty to truthfully report his job performance and capability when the corporation requested them to make a report. Finally, he contends that the corporation had a duty to adequately investigate the supervisor's reports regarding his job performance or capability.
We hold that the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment against Garcia on his common law negligence cause of action because Celanese did not owe to Garcia the duties he alleges. The existence of a duty is an essential element of a negligence cause of action. See Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler, 899 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. 1995). Thus, the mere failure to exercise reasonable care does not ipso facto give rise to a cause of action for negligence. Cf. Praesel v. Johnson, 967 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Tex. 1998) ( ). The nonexistence of a duty ends the inquiry into whether negligence liability may be imposed. Van Horn v. Chambers, 970 S.W.2d 542, 544 (Tex. 1998). The existence of a duty is a threshold question of law. Id.; St. John v. Pope, 901 S.W.2d 420, 424 (Tex.1995); Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767, 769 (Tex.1994).
We hold that an employer has no duty to investigate information about an at-will employee prior to terminating that employee. To impose upon employers a previously unrecognized duty runs the risk of abrogating the traditional at-will employment relationship, which is the norm in Texas. Cf. City of Midland v. O'Bryant, 18 S.W.3d 209, 216 (Tex. 2000). Absent a contract, the relationship between worker and employer is "at will," except for a few very narrow exceptions, with each party being able to end it at any time without reason or justification. See Winters v. Houston Chronicle Pub. Co., 795 S.W.2d 723, 726 (Tex. 1990); East Line & R.R.R. Co. v. Scott, 72 Tex. 70, 10 S.W. 99, 102 (1888); see also Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. 1985) ( ). The Texas Supreme Court has refused to impose a general duty of good faith and fair dealing upon employers under an at-will employment agreement, stating:
A court-created duty of good faith and fair dealing would completely alter the nature of the at-will employment relationship which generally can be terminated by either party for any reason or no reason at all, and we accordingly decline to change the at-will nature of employment in Texas.
City of Midland v. O'Bryant, at 216.
This court has already held that an employer owes no duty to investigate allegations against an employee before terminating the employee. Rios v. Texas Commerce Bancshares, Inc., 930 S.W.2d 809, 816 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1996, writ denied); see also Palmer v. Miller Brewing Co., 852 S.W.2d 57, 63 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1993, writ denied) ( ). An employer does not have to justify the reasons it terminated an employee under an at-will employment contract. We hold that Celanese had no duty to investigate Garcia's physical ability to perform his job functions prior to terminating his employment.
Next, Garcia urges that the well-established common law doctrine regarding negligent hiring and supervision of employees imposed a duty upon Celanese corporation to exercise reasonable care in supervising Garcia's supervisors so that they did not cause injury to Garcia. Under that doctrine,
an employer has a duty to adequately hire, train, and supervise employees. The negligent performance of those duties may impose liability on an employer if the complainant's injuries result from the employer's failure to take reasonable precautions to protect the complainant from the misconduct of its employees.
Castillo v. Gared, Inc., 1 S.W.3d 781, 786 (Tex. App.--Hous. [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) ( ); accord Golden Spread Council, Inc. v. Akins, 926 S.W.2d 287, 294 (Tex. 1996); Verinakis v. Medical Profiles, Inc., 987 S.W.2d 90, (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied); Houser v. Smith, 968 S.W.2d 542, 544 (Tex. App.--Austin 1998, no pet.); Robertson v. Church of God, Intern., 978 S.W.2d 120, 124 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1997, pet. denied); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315.
At first blush, Garcia's claims do appear to be governed by this doctrine. However, we do not believe this is an appropriate application of the doctrine of negligent supervision. Garcia has cited us to no case where this doctrine was imported into a similar fact scenario. And we find that if we were to hold that the failure to adequately supervise management-level employees resulting in the termination of an employee without adequate investigation were actionable under this doctrine, we would be again abrogating the traditional at-will employment relationship. A contested firing can virtually always be re-cast as a "failure, on the part of the employer, to adequately supervise the personnel in charge of hiring and firing."
The rule regarding adequate supervision and hiring of employees typically has been applied in situations that either involve physical danger or where the alleged inadequate supervision caused harm to third persons rather than co-workers. See Sibley v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of Tex., 998 S.W.2d 399, 403 04 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1999, no pet.) (party) that the doctrine extends only to prevent the employee or independent contractor from causing physical harm to a third ; Verinakis, 987 S.W.2d at 97 98 ( ); cf Hendrix v. Bexar County Hosp. Dist., No. 04-98-00833-CV, 2000 WL 36098, ___ S.W.3d ___ ( )(involving sexual assault upon patient by hospital employee); Duran v. Furr's Supermarkets, Inc., 921 S.W.2d 778, 789-90 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1996, no writ) (involving assault and battery of a customer). Under that theory, Garcia's claim would fail because he has not alleged physical injury in this case.
The San Antonio court of appeals took a different tack in holding that an employer cannot be held liable for the negligent hiring, retaining, training, or supervising of its employee unless the employee committed an actionable tort. See Gonzales v. Willis, 995 S.W.2d 729, 739 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1999, no pet.) (where employee made sexual advances on job applicant, but where employee's conduct did not rise to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress, or any other recognized tort).3 That court stated:
This rule comports with the fundamental tort principle that a person is not liable for negligence, no matter how egregious, unless the negligence causes...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Balderrama v. Pride Indus., Inc.
...2009 WL 1856055 (S.D.Tex. June 29, 2009); Brown v. Swett & Crawford of Tex., Inc., 178 S.W.3d 373, 384 (Tex.App.2005); Garcia v. Allen, 28 S.W.3d 587, 593 (Tex.App.2000). Because of the Court's rulings above, Plaintiff's common-law claims have either been dismissed or found to require a mor......
-
Morris v. Jtm Materials, Inc.
...others. Wise v. Complete Staffing Servs., Inc., 56 S.W.3d 900, 902 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet.); Garcia v. Allen, 28 S.W.3d 587, 592 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, pet. denied). Therefore, an employer is liable for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision if it hires an incompetent......
-
El Paso Cnty. v. Vasquez
...or long-term impact of or resulting from the impairment. Union Carbide Corp., 66 S.W.3d at 360 ; Garcia v. Allen, 28 S.W.3d 587, 596 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 2000, pet. denied) ; Norwood v. Litwin Eng'rs & Constructors, Inc., 962 S.W.2d 220, 224 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. deni......
-
Autozone, Inc. v. Reyes
...by direct or circumstantial evidence. Quantum Chem. Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473, 476 (Tex.2001); Garcia v. Allen, 28 S.W.3d 587, 600 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, pet. denied). However, when, as here, a discrimination case has been fully tried on its merits a reviewing court does not ......
-
Discrimination claims under labor code chapter 451
...of claim not sufficient to raise issue of fact concerning termination for filing workers’ compensation claim); Garcia v. Allen , 28 S.W.3d 587, 601 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2000, pet. denied) (knowledge not sufficient by itself to show causal connection). • Sudden change in plaintiff’s emp......
-
Wrongful Discharge
...harassment investigation because such a claim would be inconsistent with traditional employment at-will doctrine); Garcia v. Allen , 28 S.W.3d 587, 591 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2000, pet. denied) (“We hold that an employer has no duty to investigate information about an at-will employee pr......
-
Discrimination Claims Under Labor Code Chapter 451
...(knowledge of claim not suficient to raise issue of fact concerning termination for iling workers’ compensation claim); Garcia v. Allen , 28 S.W.3d 587, 601 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2000, pet. denied) (knowledge not suficient by itself to show causal connection). Sudden change in plainti......
-
Wrongful Discharge
...harassment investigation because such a claim would be inconsistent with traditional employment at-will doctrine); Garcia v. Allen , 28 S.W.3d 587, 591 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2000, pet. denied) (“We hold that an employer has no duty to investigate information about an at-will employee pr......