Hughes Tool Co. v. Richards
| Decision Date | 15 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. B2373,B2373 |
| Parties | HUGHES TOOL COMPANY, Appellant, v. Willie D. RICHARDS, Appellee. (14th Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Kent W. Robinson, Marcia A. Graham, Andrews, Kurth, Campbell & Jones, Houston, for appellant.
Gordon R. Cooper, Houston, for appellee.
Before MILLER, PAUL PRESSLER and COULSON, JJ.
This is a suit under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c (Vernon Supp.1978) brought by Willie D. Richards, (Richards) against his former employer, Hughes Tool Company (Hughes). Richards alleges he was discharged for making a worker's compensation claim while in Hughes' employ and on this basis he alleges art. 8307c was violated. Trial was to a jury, and in response to five special issues the jury found in Richards' favor, awarding $15,000.00 in past and future loss of earnings and $15,000.00 in exemplary damages. We reversed and rendered judgment in favor of Hughes. 610 S.W.2d 232 (Tex.Civ.App.1980). On appeal the Supreme Court, 615 S.W.2d 196 (Tex.1981), reversed our judgment and remanded the case back to us for consideration of several of Hughes' factual sufficiency points which we did not previously reach and over which the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.
We need not detail the facts of the case, as they are set forth in our previous opinion at 610 S.W.2d 232.
Hughes brings several factual sufficiency points, however we will only discuss one, as it is dispositive of the appeal.
In point of error ten Hughes asserts the trial court erred in failing to grant Hughes' motion for new trial for reason that there was insufficient evidence that Richards was discharged for "instituting proceedings" to collect worker's compensation benefits. We agree.
In considering an "insufficient evidence" point we must consider all the evidence and determine whether the jury's answer to an issue should be set aside. Garza v. Alviar, 395 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Tex.1965).
The evidence produced at trial almost exclusively involved the incident in Hughes' Medical Department in July of 1975, where Richards allegedly used obscene and abusive language. While this evidence may bear on the issue of whether Hughes was justified in discharging Richards for his conduct at the Medical Department, it does little to show that Hughes fired Richards for instituting proceedings to collect worker's compensation benefits.
There was no evidence of anything said by those involved in Richards' discharge to support he was fired because he instituted proceedings to collect worker's compensation benefits. On the contrary, all involved in the decision indicated Richards was fired because of his conduct in the Medical Services area. Richards himself, when asked what made him feel he was fired because he instituted a claim for worker's compensation benefits, stated that he took this position because Hughes never would accept the fact that he was hurt and because they denied him the right to go and see a doctor. Even were these allegations true, they are insufficient proof, in our view, to support the finding of the jury that Hughes fired Richards because he instituted proceedings to collect worker's compensation benefits.
In our view, the plaintiff in a suit under art. 8307c has the burden of establishing a causal link between the firing and the employee's claim for worker's compensation benefits. Once the link has been established the employer must rebut the alleged discrimination by showing there was a legitimate reason behind the discharge. The evidence adduced in our case simply does not establish this causal link.
In the other Texas cases dealing with the sufficiency of evidence to support recovery under 8307c, it is apparent that where the evidence was found to be sufficient, there was more evidence establishing the causal link than exists in the case at bar.
In Murray Corporation of Maryland v. Brooks, 600 S.W.2d 897, 901 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1980, no writ), there was testimony that the increased insurance premiums because of the employee's worker's compensation claims was a consideration in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Munoz v. H & M WHOLESALE, INC.
...benefits. Swearingen, 968 F.2d at 562; Roadway Express, Inc., 931 F.2d at 1090; Hughes Tool Co. v. Richards, 624 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex.Civ. App. — Houston 14th Dist. 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 991, 102 S.Ct. 2272, 73 L.Ed.2d 1286 Texas courts have held that an action un......
-
Jones v. Roadway Exp., Inc.
...has the burden of establishing a causal link between his discharge and his claim for workers' compensation. 1 Hughes Tool Co. v. Richards, 624 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex.Civ.App.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 991, 102 S.Ct. 2272, 73 L.Ed.2d 1286 (1982). Once the plaintiff has established the causa......
-
Kern v. South Baltimore General Hosp., 766
...Sandoz, Inc., 192 N.J.Super. 403, 470 A.2d 45 (1983), aff'd. 196 N.J.Super. 568, 483 A.2d 829 (1984); see also, Hughes Tool Co. v. Richards, 624 S.W.2d 598 (Tex.Civ.App.1981), reh. denied, cert. denied, 456 U.S. 991, 102 S.Ct. 2272, 73 L.Ed.2d 1286...
-
Cedillo v. Valcar Enterprises
...must rebut the alleged discrimination by showing there was a legitimate reason behind the discharge." Hughes Tool Co. v. Richards, 624 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex.App.1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 991, 102 S.Ct. 2272, 73 L.Ed.2d 1286 (1982). These are not especially novel and co......
-
Summary Judgment Practice
...claim has long been recognized as insufficient and immaterial evidence. Cazarez , 937 S.W.2d at 452; Hughes Tool Co. v. Richards , 624 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Armstrong v. Norris Cylinder Co. , 922 S.W.2d 210, 212 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1996).......
-
Table of cases
...142 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 1998), §§18:6.B.4, 20:4.C Hudson v. Reno , 130 F.3d 1193 (6th Cir. 1997), §18:8.F.3 Hughes Tool Co. v. Richards , 624 S.W.2d 598 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.), §41:10.A Hughes v. Houston Northwest Medical Center, Inc. , 680 S.W.2d 838 (Tex. ......
-
Summary Judgment Practice
...claim has long been recognized as insufficient and immaterial evidence. Cazarez , 937 S.W.2d at 452; Hughes Tool Co. v. Richards , 624 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Armstrong v. Norris Cylinder Co. , 922 S.W.2d 210, 212 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1996).......
-
Summary Judgment Practice
...claim has long been recognized as insufficient and immaterial evidence. Cazarez , 937 S.W.2d at 452; Hughes Tool Co. v. Richards , 624 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Armstrong v. Norris Cylinder Co. , 922 S.W.2d 210, 212 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1996).......