Haggar Clothing Co. v. Hernandez
| Decision Date | 13 May 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-0897.,03-0897. |
| Citation | 164 S.W.3d 386 |
| Parties | HAGGAR CLOTHING COMPANY a/k/a Haggar Apparel Company, Petitioner, v. Altagracia HERNANDEZ, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Jorge C. Rangel and Jon D. Brooks, The Rangel Law Firm, P.C., Corpus Christi, Neil E. Norquest and Chris A. Brisack, Norquest & Brisack, L.L.P., McAllen, TX, for Petitioners.
Aaron Pena Jr., Aaron Pana Jr. & Associates, Edinburg, John Gregory Escamilla, Watts Law Firm, L.L.P., Francisco J. Rodriguez and Ezequiel Tovar, Rodriguez Tovar & De Los Santos, LLP, McAllen, TX, for Respondent.
Altagracia Hernandez sued her former employer, Haggar Clothing Company, alleging that she was fired in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim after she was injured on the job. The jury found in favor of Hernandez on her retaliation claim, found that Haggar acted with actual malice, and awarded Hernandez compensatory and exemplary damages. The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict, and the court of appeals affirmed. 164 S.W.3d 407, 2003 WL 21982181. We hold that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury's retaliation finding, and we therefore reverse the court of appeals' judgment and render judgment for Haggar.
Hernandez worked as a seamstress at Haggar's Weslaco plant. On February 19, 1991, she was injured at work when another employee carrying a table accidentally hit her on the chin with the table, knocking her down and causing neck, knee, and back pain as well as brief loss of consciousness. According to Haggar's records, Hernandez officially went on workers' compensation leave on February 25, 1991. She was receiving medical treatment while on leave that was covered by Haggar's workers' compensation insurance, but she hired an attorney in August 1991 when the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission began investigating whether she had reached "maximum medical improvement" such that her income benefits should cease. See Act of Dec. 12, 1989, 71st Leg., 2d C.S., ch. 1, § 4.23(b), 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 1, 38, repealed by Act of May 12, 1993, 73d Leg., R.S., ch. 269, § 5(2), 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 987, 1273 ().
On February 26, 1992, Haggar's Weslaco plant manager, Angel Ritchey, sent Hernandez a letter by registered mail informing her that her employment with Haggar was being terminated because she had not returned to work after a year. Haggar had a leave-of-absence policy, distributed to its employees in both English and Spanish, which provided that the maximum amount of time an employee could remain on leave, regardless of the reason, was one year. Ritchey's letter to Hernandez, written in English, stated that Hernandez had five days from the letter's postmarked date to protest the decision. Hernandez does not speak English and testified that she took the letter to her attorney, though she could not remember if she did so right away. She did not protest the decision. Hernandez also testified that Haggar never informed her of the policy, but Haggar produced a document, written in Spanish and signed by Hernandez, stating that she had received the employee handbook that contained the policy.
Hernandez sued Haggar in 1994, alleging Haggar had unlawfully terminated her for filing a workers' compensation claim in good faith. The jury found for Hernandez on her retaliatory discharge claim and found that the harm to Hernandez resulted from actual malice, awarding Hernandez $210,000 in compensatory damages and $1.4 million in exemplary damages. The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict, and Haggar appealed.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's findings of retaliation, actual malice, and actual and punitive damages. 164 S.W.3d at 413. Haggar also raised several other points of error that the court of appeals addressed and overruled, but in this Court Haggar challenges only the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's findings of retaliation and malice.
In a legal sufficiency review, "all of the record evidence must be considered in a light most favorable to the party in whose favor the verdict has been rendered, and every reasonable inference deducible from the evidence is to be indulged in that party's favor." Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng'rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 48 (Tex.1998) (citing Harbin v. Seale, 461 S.W.2d 591, 592 (Tex.1970)). If more than a scintilla of evidence supports the challenged finding, the no-evidence challenge fails. Id."More than a scintilla of evidence exists where the evidence supporting the finding, as a whole, `rises to a level that would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusions.'" Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye, 907 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Tex.1995) (quoting Transp. Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilkerson v. Boomerang Tube, LLC
...937 S.W.2d at 450 (quoting Tex. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629, 636 (Tex. 1995)); accord Haggar Clothing Co. v. Hernandez, 164 S.W.3d 386, 388 (Tex. 2005). Nonetheless, the employee need not prove that his protected activity was the sole reason for the employer's adverse act......
-
Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc. v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP
...827. If more than a scintilla of evidence exists to support the finding, the legal-sufficiency challenge fails. Haggar Clothing Co. v. Hernandez , 164 S.W.3d 386, 388 (Tex. 2005). The evidence is legally insufficient only if (a) there is a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact; (b) t......
-
Larsen v. Santa Fe Independent School Dist.
...the uniform enforcement of a reasonable absence control provision does not violate section 451.001. See Haggar Clothing Co. v. Hernandez, 164 S.W.3d 386, 388 (Tex.2005) (per curiam); Cont'l Coffee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444, 451 (Tex.1996); Tex. Div.-Tranter, Inc. v. Carrozza, 87......
-
v.
...827. If more than a scintilla of evidence exists to support the finding, the legal-sufficiency challenge fails. Haggar Clothing Co. v. Hernandez, 164 S.W.3d 386, 388 (Tex. 2005). The evidence is legally insufficient only if (a) there is a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact; (b) th......
-
Discovery
...407, 423-24 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, review granted, judgment reversed on other grounds by Haggar Clothing Co. v. Hernandez, 164 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. 2005)); Johnson v. City of Houston, 928 S.W.2d 251, 253-54 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ), Durbin v. Dal-Briar , 871 S.W.2......
-
Discovery
...407, 423-24 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, review granted, judgment reversed on other grounds by Haggar Clothing Co. v. Hernandez, 164 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. 2005)); Johnson v. City of Houston, 928 S.W.2d 251, 253-54 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ), Durbin v. Dal-Briar , 871 S.W.2......
-
Discovery
...407, 423-24 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, review granted, judgment reversed on other grounds by Haggar Clothing Co. v. Hernandez , 164 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. 2005)); Johnson v. City of Houston , 928 S.W.2d 251, 253-54 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ), Durbin v. Dal-Briar , 871 S.W......
-
Discrimination claims under labor code chapter 451
...action would not have occurred when it did had the employee’s protected conduct … not occurred.” Haggar Clothing Co. v. Hernandez , 164 S.W.3d 386, 388 (Tex. 2005) (citing to Cazarez, 903 S.W.2d at 450); Lee v. Haynes & Boone, L.L.P . 129 S. W. 3d 192, 196-197 (Tex. App.—Dallas, pet. denied......