Smith v. Coffee's Shop for Boys & Men, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 8646,8646 |
| Citation | 536 S.W.2d 83 |
| Parties | Norene M. SMITH, Appellant, v. COFFEE'S SHOP FOR BOYS AND MEN, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Robert E. Barfield, Amarillo, for appellant.
Culton, Morgan, Britain & White, Don L. Patterson, Amarillo, for appellee.
Our 22 March 1976 opinion is withdrawn Sua sponte and in lieu thereof, this opinion is substituted.
This summary judgment appeal presents the new question whether Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 8307c, § 1, providing that
No person may discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because the employee has in good faith filed a claim . . . under the Texas Workmen's Compensation Act . . ..
Gives an ex-employee a cause of action for the ex-employer's refusal to later re-employ the ex-employee whose discharge was for the reason prohibited by the statute. We hold that it does not and affirm the summary judgment.
The pleadings are: by oral agreement, Norene M. Smith worked as a salaried tailor for Coffee's Shop for Boys and Men, Inc., from mid-1969 until about 9 February 1972 when she suffered an ankle injury while in the course of her employment. Smith filed a claim for workmen's compensation benefits and it was compromised and settled on 26 October 1972. After Smith was advised by her physician that she was physically able to return to work, Coffee's asked her to return to work immediately, but she took a two week vacation, the time for which had accrued prior to her injury. Coffee's hired a part-time, and then a full-time, replacement. At the expiration of her vacation about 17 October 1972, Smith requested, but Coffee's refused, permission for her to return to work. Thereafter, Smith made several requests, the latest in the spring of 1974, to be permitted to return to work, but each request was refused.
On 11 March 1975, Smith filed this suit, seeking damages for Coffee's refusal to permit her to return to work because she had filed a compensation claim. Coffee's moved for summary judgment on the ground that Smith's pleadings showed her claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitation, V.A.C.S. art. 5526, § 4. The trial court, finding the pleadings show that Smith's claim is barred by limitation as a matter of law, rendered summary judgment, decreeing that Smith take nothing.
Conceding that the two-year statute of limitation bars any claim for the discriminatory discharge prohibited by the statute, Smith contends that by the use of the language 'or in any other manner discriminate against an employee,' the legislature intended to enlarge the statutory coverage to include the refusal to reemploy a former employee wrongfully discharged. To illustrate the legislature's intent, Smith relies upon cases concerning the unlawful employment practices prohibited by the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e Et seq.
Our concern, however, is the Texas statute proscribing certain discriminations against 'any employee,' and not the federal act prohibiting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanchez v. Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc.
...Antonio 1992, writ denied); Luna v. Frito-Lay, 726 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1987, no writ); see also Smith v. Coffee's Shop for Boys and Men, 536 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1976, no writ). A cause of action accrues under 8307c when facts exist authorizing the employee ......
-
Reid v. Aransas Cnty.
...at *2 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi June 27, 2002) (citing Tex. Lab.Code § 451.001) (emphasis added); see also Smith v. Coffee's Shop for Boys & Men, Inc., 536 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex.App.1976) (“[T]he acts statutorily condemned [under the Texas Labor Code] are those occurring during the employment, ......
-
Almazan v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, Inc.
...statute applies. See Luna v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 726 S.W.2d 624 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1987, no writ). The court in Smith v. Coffee's Shop For Boys and Men, Inc., 536 S.W.2d 83 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1976, no writ), said the same thing without analysis. She argues that Luna and Smith are no long......
-
Thurman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...cause of action accrues. See Luna v. Frito-Lay, 726 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1987, no writ); see also Smith v. Coffee's Shop for Boys and Men, 536 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1976, no writ). Under article 8307c, a cause of action accrues when facts exist authorizing the......
-
Wrongful Discharge
...cannot “restart” the limitations period by making subsequent requests for rehire. See Smith v. Coffee’s Shop for Boys & Men, Inc. , 536 S.W.2d 83, 84-85 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1976, no writ) (analyzing retaliatory failure to hire under Chapter 451). In Smith , the plaintiff was discharged......
-
Discrimination claims under labor code chapter 451
...courts consistently have held that Chapter 451 does not protect job applicants. See, e.g., Smith v. Coffee’s Shop for Boys & Men, Inc ., 536 S.W.2d 83, 84-85 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1976, no writ) (holding that “the acts statutorily condemned by Article 8307(c) are those occurring during e......
-
Table of cases
...§§18:7.H.2, 24:3.B Smith v. City of Salem, Ohio , 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004), §24:6.B Smith v. Coffee’s Shop for Boys & Men, Inc ., 536 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1976, no writ), §§3:13.B, 31:2.A, 31:4.A Smith v. District of Columbia , 1982 WL 31068 (D.D.C. Aug. 26, 19820, §24:4.D......
-
Wrongful Discharge
...cannot “restart” the limitations period by making subsequent requests for rehire. See Smith v. Coffee’s Shop for Boys & Men, Inc. , 536 S.W.2d 83, 84-85 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1976, no writ) (analyzing retaliatory failure to hire under Chapter 451). In Smith , the plaintiff was discharged......