Santex, Inc. v. Cunningham, 6202
| Decision Date | 11 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 6202,6202 |
| Citation | 618 S.W.2d 557 |
| Parties | SANTEX, INC., Appellant, v. Jesse L. CUNNINGHAM, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
This is a case involving an action brought under the provisions of Article 8307c, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes. Plaintiff-Appellee Jesse L. Cunningham brought this suit against his former employer, Defendant-Appellant Santex, Inc., claiming that Santex discriminated against him (Cunningham) by discharging him because he filed a claim under the Worker's Compensation Act, and seeking damages pursuant to said statute. Trial was to a jury which found: (1) that the Defendant Santex discharged Plaintiff Cunningham because Plaintiff had in good faith filed a claim under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act; (2) that $2850.00 would fairly and reasonably compensate Plaintiff for his damages suffered as a result of his wrongful discharge; and (3) that Plaintiff Cunningham was discharged from employment by Santex because he failed to perform his work in a satisfactory manner.
After jury verdict the trial court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Cunningham against Defendant-Appellant Santex in the amount of $2850.00 from which judgment Santex appeals. We affirm.
Santex appeals on nine points of error which may be conveniently grouped into five contentions as follows, to wit: (1) the trial court erred in refusing to submit Defendant-Appellant's Requested Special Issue No. 1, which would require the jury to find whether Plaintiff was discharged "solely" because he filed a Worker's Compensation Claim; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the jury to consider loss of future wages as an element of damages, for the stated reason that loss of future wages is not a proper measure of damages in view of the fact that Plaintiff was an employee at will and had no right to be employed for any definite period of time; (3) there is no evidence to support the jury's answer to Special Issue No. 1, wherein the jury found that Plaintiff had been discharged because he had in good faith filed a Worker's Compensation Claim; (4) that the jury's answer to Special Issue No. 1 is factually insufficient; and (5) that the jury's findings in answer to the special issues are in "hopeless conflict." We overrule all of Defendant-Appellant's points and contentions and affirm the trial court's judgment.
We revert to Appellant's first contention. Defendant's Requested Special Issue No. 1 reads as follows:
"Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Jesse Cunningham was discharged from employment with (Defendant) solely because he instituted a proceeding under the Texas Workmen's Compensation Act?" (emphasis supplied).
The trial court refused to submit the foregoing requested special issue but instead submitted the following special issue as No. 1:
"Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant Santex, Inc., discharged Jesse L. Cunningham because Jesse L. Cunningham had, in good faith, filed a claim under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act?"
Appellant's argument as we understand it is that Plaintiff does not have a cause of action for damages under Article 8307c unless he can establish that he was discharged from employment "solely" because he filed a claim in good faith under the Worker's Compensation Act; that if he was discharged for any other reason (such as for unsatisfactory performance of duties, as the jury found in answer to Special Issue No. 3), that Plaintiff would not be entitled to recover any damages. In other words, Appellant says that Plaintiff-Appellee has not established a case of "discrimination" perpetrated upon him by his employer unless he establishes that he was discharged "solely" because he filed a claim under the Worker's Compensation Act. We do not agree.
Article 8307c reads as follows:
We do not agree with Defendant-Appellant that Plaintiff-Appellee has the burden of establishing that he was discharged "solely" because he took steps to collect Worker's Compensation benefits. In our opinion such a construction reads something into the statute that is not there. We believe that the clear intent of the statute is that an employer may not use the filing of a Worker's Compensation claim as a reason to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee even if there are other reasons. Appellant contends that the employee has not established the essential element of discrimination unless he establishes that he (the employee) was discharged solely because he took steps to collect Worker's Compensation benefits. We cannot see the validity of this argument because the statute says: "No person may discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee." By the use of these words the Legislature obviously meant that the "discharging" of an employee was a "manner of discrimination" against such employee. Appellant's first contention is overruled.
Appellant next...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Roadway Exp., Inc.
...was a determining factor in his discharge. Azar Nut Co. v. Caille, 720 S.W.2d 685, 687 (Tex.Civ.App.1986) (citing Santex, Inc. v. Cunningham, 618 S.W.2d 557 (Tex.Civ.App.1981)) aff'd 734 S.W.2d 667 (Tex.1987). Even if other reasons for discharge exist, the plaintiff may still recover damage......
-
Powell v. Wyoming Cablevision, Inc.
...of South Portland, 405 A.2d 222 (Me.1979); Goins v. Ford Motor Co., 131 Mich.App. 185, 347 N.W.2d 184 (1983); Santex, Inc. v. Cunningham, 618 S.W.2d 557 (Tex.Civ.App.1981). See generally 2A Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 68.36(c) (1989 & Accordingly, we hold that in order to make a pr......
-
Borden, Inc. v. Guerra
...to terminate employment. Id. (citing General Elec. Co. v. Kunze, 747 S.W.2d 826, 830 (Tex.App.--Waco 1987, writ denied); Santex, Inc. v. Cunningham, 618 S.W.2d 557, 560 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1981, no writ)). Proof of causation may be established either by direct or circumstantial evidence and......
-
Garcia v. Rainbo Baking Co. of Houston
...("Jones II") (citing Azar Nut Co. v. Caille, 720 S.W.2d 685, 687 (Tex.Civ.App.1986), aff'd, 734 S.W.2d 667 (Tex.1987); Santex, Inc. v. Cunningham, 618 S.W.2d 557 (Tex.Civ.App.1981, no writ)). If retaliation was "a factor," then interpretation of the CBA is not "inextricably intertwined" wit......
-
Discrimination Claims Under Labor Code Chapter 451
...An at-will employee is still entitled to seek damages that can be ascertained with reasonable certainty. Santex, Inc. v. Cunningham , 618 S.W.2d 557, 559 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1981, no writ). 3. Fringe Benefits Employees in many instances are entitled to pension payments from their employer ......
-
Table of cases
...Santee v. Windsor Court Hotel Ltd. , No. Civ. A. 99-3891, 2000 WL 1610775 (E.D. La. 2000), §28:9.I Santex, Inc. v. Cunningham , 618 S.W.2d 557 (Tex. Cir. App.—Waco 1981, no writ), §31:5.C.2 Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp ., 217 F.3d 46, 57 (1st Cir. 2000), §19:6.B.2 Santiag......
-
Table of cases
...Santee v. Windsor Court Hotel Ltd. , No. Civ. A. 99-3891, 2000 WL 1610775 (E.D. La. 2000), §28:9.I Santex, Inc. v. Cunningham , 618 S.W.2d 557 (Tex. Cir. App.—Waco 1981, no writ), §31:5.C.2 Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp ., 217 F.3d 46, 57 (1st Cir. 2000), §19:6.B.2 Santiag......
-
Discrimination claims under labor code chapter 451
...An at-will employee is still entitled to seek damages that can be ascertained with reasonable certainty. Santex, Inc. v. Cunningham , 618 S.W.2d 557, 559 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1981, no writ). 3. Fringe Benefits Employees in many instances are entitled to pension payments from their employer ......