Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Needham
| Decision Date | 29 March 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-00-00466-CV.,03-00-00466-CV. |
| Citation | 76 S.W.3d 15 |
| Parties | TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant, v. Eddie W. NEEDHAM, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Katherine E. Kasten, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, for appellant.
Mark W. Robinett, Brim, Arnett & Robinett, John Judge, Judge & Brim, P.C., Austin, for appellee.
Before Chief Justice ABOUSSIE, Justices YEAKEL and PATTERSON.
Appellee Eddie Needham sued appellant Texas Department of Transportation ("TxDOT"), alleging that TxDOT engaged in retaliatory discrimination against Needham in violation of the Texas Whistleblower Act. See Tex.Gov't Code Ann §§ 554.001.010 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). The trial court rendered judgment on a jury verdict, awarding Needham damages for back pay, employment benefits, medical expenses, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees. TxDOT appeals, asserting that Needham adduced no evidence or insufficient evidence that TxDOT violated the Whistleblower Act. We will affirm the trial court's judgment.
In 1996, Eddie Needham was employed by the information systems division of TxDOT, along with Bill Holt, Sam Garnett, Stephen Schmidt, Frank Howard, Leah Coffman, Barry Six, and Judy Skeen. Needham was a crew chief in the Geodetic Control Section of TxDOT. He traveled around the state with other TxDOT employees to perform global positioning surveys. Needham, Holt, Garnett, and Schmidt were members of the same crew; Garnett worked at the same level as Needham; Howard was Needham's immediate supervisor; Coffman was Howard's supervisor; and Skeen, as division head, was Coffman's supervisor. Six was a TxDOT supervisor who dealt with human resource matters.
On January 10, 1996, Needham and Stephen Schmidt were traveling to Austin from Orange, where they had been working on a project. The two stopped to spend the night in College Station. Upon arriving at their motel, Needham and Schmidt encountered another TxDOT crew consisting of William Holt, Jesse Pospisil, and Sam Garnett, who was supervising that crew. The two crews decided to eat dinner together. Schmidt and Needham drove together to the restaurant, as did Garnett and Pospisil. Holt, driving a separate, radio-equipped TxDOT vehicle, made radio contact and asked for directions to the restaurant. Needham testified at trial that Holt's voice was slurred and that Holt was weaving as he walked into the restaurant. Needham also testified that, at dinner, Holt's breath smelled of alcohol. From these observations, Needham concluded that Holt was intoxicated. After the meal, Needham instructed Schmidt to drive Holt's vehicle back to the motel for Holt because Needham believed Holt was too drunk to drive.
Needham testified that he did not immediately report Holt's conduct because he believed that the situation was the responsibility of Garnett, Holt's immediate supervisor, and because he feared retaliation. Needham first reported Holt's conduct to Lewis Keller, a supervisor at the same organizational level as Frank Howard, on February 23, 1996. That morning, Needham met with Keller to discuss the feasibility of transferring to Keller's section. During the meeting, Needham also sought Keller's advice about Holt's conduct in College Station. Keller consulted the State Human Resources Manual and informed Needham that the manual required him to report the incident to his immediate supervisor.
That afternoon, Needham met with Frank Howard, discussed the possibility of transferring to Lewis Keller's department, and told Howard about the incident involving Holt. After their meeting concluded, Needham testified that he observed Howard go to Leah Coffman's office.
On March 1, 1996, Needham talked to Leah Coffman and expressed concerns he had about Holt's lack of productivity, about the possibility of a transfer, about Stephen Schmidt's slow work pace, and about Frank Howard's supervisory practices. Needham testified that he did not mention Holt's alleged drinking and driving incident at that time because he had already told Lewis Keller and Howard about the incident. That same day, Needham testified that Schmidt came into Needham's office and told Needham that he was being discussed in Coffman's office. Needham revisited the issue of Holt's drinking and driving incident with Keller that day because of his perception that nothing was being done about the situation. This time, Keller advised Needham to talk to Barry Six, who dealt with human resource issues. Keller called Six and scheduled an appointment; Needham met with Six later that afternoon.
Needham testified that when he met with Six, he started to tell him about Holt's conduct but Six responded that he already had information about the incident and that management was deciding what to do about it. Needham testified that he asked Six if there was anything else he should do and that Six answered that Needham had done everything correctly.
Needham became sick with the flu from March 4 through March 6, 1996, when he returned to work and again spoke to Barry Six about Holt's conduct in College Station. Needham subsequently had a relapse of the flu and stayed home until March 11.
On March 11, 1996, Needham returned to work and was escorted by Leah Coffman into Barry Six's office for questioning about his travel and work assignment practices. A week later, on March 18, 1996, Howard entered Needham's office and told Needham he needed to go to Judy Skeen's office. Howard accompanied Needham to Skeen's office, where Teri Bomberger and Leah Coffman were waiting. Six also entered the room. Howard gave Needham a progressive disciplinary action document, in which Needham was charged with thirteen violations of TxDOT policies and procedures. The specific allegations were as follows:
(1) Purchasing gasoline at commercial gas stations rather than TxDOT facilities and encouraging other employees to do so.
(2) Claiming full per diem for meals when actual amount spent was less and encouraging other employees to do so.
(3) Abandoning ISD and District employees while occupying points in isolated areas with no transportation shelter, food/water, or restroom facilities.
(4) Requiring employees to work hours other than 8:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m. when not necessitated by high traffic volumes, satellite window, etc.
(5) Asking employees to do "personal favors" (rebuilding carburetor, repairing Roto-Tiller, etc.) during work hours.
(6) Failure to stamp monuments, write descriptions, and survey in newly placed monuments.
(7) Failure to ensure correctness of hours reported on employees' Time Sheets.
(8) Failure to file work schedule forms for yourself and employees with ISD Personnel Office.
(9) Failure to report employee's suspected substance abuse to ISD Substance Control Officer.
(10) Failure to inform employee suspected of substance abuse of EAP benefits.
(11) Traveling unnecessarily from Beaumont/Orange to College Station with no TxDOT business to conduct and securing lodging on January 10, 1996 instead of returning to Austin headquarters and encouraging other employee to do so.
(12) Angry outburst on March 1, 1996 with two coworkers in the office regarding their ability to process data.
(13) Failure to notify supervisor of absence from office on March 5, 6, and 7, 1996.
Based on theses allegations, Needham was demoted a salary group and placed on probation for twelve months. Needham testified that he was shocked and devastated upon receiving these charges because he had never received any kind of reprimand in twenty-three years of work.
Needham sued TxDOT, alleging violations of the Texas Whistleblower Act, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The case went to trial before a jury and the jury found in favor of Needham. TxDOT subsequently filed a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto ("JNOV"). The trial court denied TxDOT's motion, granted Needham's motion for judgment on the verdict, and on April 18, 2000, signed the judgment in favor of Needham. TxDOT thereafter filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled by operation of law. In response to TxDOT's request, the trial court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. TxDOT filed a request for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law; the court, however, did not provide any additional findings of fact or conclusions of law. TxDOT now appeals the final judgment of the trial court as well as the court's failure to submit additional findings of fact or conclusions of law.
TxDOT asserts that the trial court erred in denying TxDOT's motion for JNOV because there is no legally or factually sufficient evidence to support a judgment that TxDOT violated the Whistleblower Act. Because a court may render JNOV if a directed verdict would have been proper, Fort Bend County Drainage Dist. v. Sbrusch, 818 S.W.2d 392, 394 (Tex.1991), we review the trial court's ruling under the same standard we use to review a request for a directed verdict.
A judgment notwithstanding the verdict is proper only if there is no evidence to support the jury's findings and the issue is conclusively established as a matter of law. Mancorp, Inc. v. Culpepper, 802 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Tex.1990). In reviewing the denial of such a motion, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury findings, considering only the evidence and inferences that support them, and disregarding all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Navarette v. Temple Indep. Sch. Dist., 706 S.W.2d 308, 309 (Tex.1986). If there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the findings, the motion for JNOV was properly denied. Mancorp, 802 S.W.2d at 228.
To review the evidence under a legal sufficiency or no-evidence point, we look at only the evidence which tends to support the judgment, regardless of whether we apply the standard of review for a directed verdict, the standard for a JNOV, the standard for a motion for new trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Needham
...because he reported a co-worker's alleged unlawful conduct to TxDOT supervisors. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. 76 S.W.3d 15. We conclude, under the circumstances in this case, that TxDOT was not an appropriate law enforcement authority as the Whistleblower Act de......