Gunn Chevrolet, Inc. v. Hinerman
| Decision Date | 25 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-0830,94-0830 |
| Citation | 898 S.W.2d 817 |
| Parties | 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 674 GUNN CHEVROLET, INC., Petitioner, v. Mara HINERMAN, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Jonathan Yedor, San Antonio, for petitioner.
Jeffrey S. Bernstein, San Antonio, for respondent.
Section 451.001 of the Texas Labor Code prohibits a person from, among other things, discharging an employee for filing a workers' compensation claim in good faith. The issue in this case is whether this statute imposes liability on a non-subscribing employer under the Workers' Compensation Act for discharging an employee injured on the job when the employer did not cause the injury. We hold that there is no liability as a matter of law.
Mara Hinerman, a salesperson for Gunn Chevrolet, was injured in an accident that occurred when a demonstrator car she was driving for a potential buyer was struck from behind by another vehicle. Hinerman has never claimed that Gunn caused the accident in any way. She returned to work and told a supervisor about the accident but did not seek immediate medical care. Later, she took time off from work to obtain treatment. Four months after the accident, Gunn fired Hinerman for leaving work early without permission in violation of company policies. Hinerman settled her damage claim against the other driver in the accident. She never made any claim against Gunn before her discharge.
A year after the accident and eight months after her discharge, Hinerman filed a compensation claim even though Gunn was a non-subscriber under the Workers' Compensation Act, and Hinerman had no reason to believe Gunn was a subscriber. She then sued Gunn on a number of theories, including retaliatory discharge under what is now section 451.001 of the Labor Code and was then article 8307c, TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. (Vernon Supp.1994) (). The trial court granted Gunn summary judgment on all of Hinerman's claims. Hinerman appealed only her retaliatory discharge claim. The court of appeals reversed, holding that a genuine fact issue remained as to whether Hinerman's termination was related to her claim for compensation benefits. 877 S.W.2d 806.
We conclude that there is no fact issue in this case precluding summary judgment. Hinerman had no good faith claim for compensation because Gunn was a non-subscribing employer, Hinerman had no reason to think otherwise, and she never claimed that Gunn did anything to cause her injury. Therefore as a matter of law Gunn did not discharge Hinerman for filing a compensation claim in good faith or for seeking damages for a job-related injury that Gunn caused.
We have assumed, because we need not decide in this case, that employees of non-subscribers are protected by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whole Foods Market Southwest, L.P. v. Tijerina, 14-96-00623-CV
...because we need not decide in this case, that employees of nonsubscribers are protected by section 451.001." Gunn Chevrolet, Inc. v. Hinerman, 898 S.W.2d 817, 819 (Tex.1995). 6 We agree with Tijerina. WFM, by failing to object to the trial court, waived its right to raise this complaint on ......
-
In re EAK
... ... 192 S.W.3d 141 Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897, 908 n. 5 (Tex.2004) ... ... ...
-
General Motors Corporation v. Burry, No. 2-05-216-CV (Tex. App. 9/21/2006)
... ... a traffic accident in which Stacey Burry, a passenger in a 2001 Chevrolet Suburban, was permanently brain damaged. Appellant General Motors ... Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc., 650 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. 1983). More than a scintilla of evidence exists ... ...
-
Bartosh v. Gulf Health Care Center
... ... GULF HEALTH CARE CENTER-GALVESTON and Ecolab, Inc., Appellees ... No. 14-04-00715-CV ... Court of Appeals of Texas, ... See Holeman v. Landmark Chevrolet Corp., 989 S.W.2d 395, 402 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet ... ...
-
Discrimination claims under labor code chapter 451
...BSB Investments, Inc. 783 S.W.2d 310, 312 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990, writ denied) (applied to non-subscriber); Gunn Chevrolet v. Hinerman , 898 S.W.2d 817 (Tex. 1995) (“We have assumed … that employees of non-subscribers are protected by [Chapter 451]. One court of appeals has suggested that t......
-
Table of cases
...denied), §19:5.E Gunderson v. Neiman-Marcus Group , 982 F. Supp. 1231 (N.D. Tex. 1997), §§21:5.E, 21:7.C Gunn Chevrolet v. Hinerman , 898 S.W.2d 817 (Tex. 1995), §§31:2.B.1, 31:3.A.2 Gunnell v. Utah Valley State College , 152 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 1998), §§18:6.B, 26:1.D, 20:4.D, 24:6.N.5.a ......
-
Table of cases
...denied), §19:5.E Gunderson v. Neiman-Marcus Group , 982 F. Supp. 1231 (N.D. Tex. 1997), §§21:5.E, 21:7.C Gunn Chevrolet v. Hinerman , 898 S.W.2d 817 (Tex. 1995), §§31:2.B.1, 31:3.A.2 Gunnell v. Utah Valley State College , 152 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 1998), §§18:6.B, 26:1.D, 20:4.D, 24:6.N.5.a ......
-
Discrimination Claims Under Labor Code Chapter 451
...BSB Investments, Inc. 783 S.W.2d 310, 312 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990, writ denied) (applied to non-subscriber); Gunn Chevrolet v. Hinerman , 898 S.W.2d 817 (Tex. 1995) (“We have assumed . . . that employees of non-subscribers are protected by [Chapter 451]. One court of appeals has suggested th......