Trico Technologies Corp. v. Rodriguez
| Decision Date | 31 August 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 13-93-083-CV,13-93-083-CV |
| Citation | 907 S.W.2d 650 |
| Parties | 68 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1742 TRICO TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Carlos L. RODRIGUEZ, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Ronald G. Hole, McAllen, Ralph L. Halpern, Linda H. Joseph, Jaeckle, Fleischmann & Mugel, Buffalo, for appellant.
Aaron Pena, Jr., Edinburg, for appellee.
Before SEERDEN, C.J., and DORSEY and HINOJOSA, JJ.
Trico Technologies appeals from a judgment assessing damages of $9,000 and attorney's fees totalling $45,000 in favor of Carlos Rodriguez, its former employee. Rodriguez sued Trico claiming that he had been discriminated against during a reduction-in-force on the basis of his age. Rodriguez was laid off in October 1992 at age sixty-one. We reverse and remand because the burden of proof was misplaced in the charge.
Trico appeals claiming the trial court erred in admitting expert witness testimony, evidence of other wrongs, excluding evidence, and in submitting a defective charge. Appellant also claims that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees, which were not properly segregated between age discrimination and other causes of action. Appellant further challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to prove that plaintiff proved his prima facie claim of age discrimination.
First, we address Trico's no evidence complaint. To determine the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we review only the evidence that support the finding, and we reverse only if there is no evidence of probative value to support the finding. Larson v. Cook Consultants, Inc., 690 S.W.2d 567, 568 (Tex.1985); In re King's Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660, 661-62 (1951).
Trico moved for an instructed verdict both at the close of plaintiff's evidence and again before the case was submitted to the jury and properly preserved its complaint. Trico contends that appellee did not prove his prima facie case. The prima facie case in an age discrimination case requires proof that: 1) the employee was discharged; 2) he was qualified for the position; 3) he was a member of a protected class at the time of discharge; and 4) he was replaced by someone outside the protected class or otherwise show that he was discharged because of his age.
Trico does not dispute that Rodriguez was a member of a protected class, was qualified for his position, and was laid off. Trico denies that Rodriguez was laid off because of his age or that appellee's age had any effect on the decision to discharge him.
Trico contends that because Rodriguez's position was never filled by anyone else, Rodriguez could not have been discriminated against on the basis of his age. We disagree. The plaintiff attempted to show that in making decisions about who to lay off in a general downsizing, Trico targeted older employees and that the adverse employment decision was based on Rodriguez's age. The plaintiff marshalled evidence to support his theory including expert testimony by Gloria Casteneda, Ph.D., who testified that Trico did not follow its own policies in deciding to lay off Rodriguez rather than his younger subordinate, Julio Ibarra. Expert Ernesto Garza, Jr. testified that of the two men, Rodriguez was generally the more experienced and knowledgeable. Viola Guevara, the company nurse, testified that there was a plan to lay off older and injured workers. Lawrence Cohen testified that he called Trico to apply for a job as a programmer and was told that, although Trico needed a programmer, they could not hire one because of Rodriguez's age discrimination complaint. Plaintiff has produced some evidence that the adverse employment decision to lay him off was based on his age. We overrule point five.
By points six, seven, and eight, appellant contends that the jury charge improperly stated the prima facie case, improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant, and advised the jury of the effect of their answers. The challenged question read as follows:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that when Trico Technologies Corporation discharged or laid off Carlos L. Rodriguez, it discriminated against Carlos L. Rodriguez because of his age?
You are instructed that there may be more than one reason in Trico Technologies Corporation's decision to discharge or layoff Carlos Rodriguez. In order to prevail, Mr. Rodriguez is not required to establish that his age was the only reason for his discharge or layoff. If you find that his age was one reason and that in fact his age was a determining factor in his being discharged or laid off then you should find for the plaintiff and determine the amount of damages, if any, the plaintiff has sustained. On the other hand, if you find that his age was not a determining factor in his discharge or layoff, then you must find for the defendant.
You are further instructed that in answering this question, you must proceed as follows:
First, you must determine whether or not a prima facie case has been proven. A prima facie case of discrimination is proven if the following are shown:
(a) that Carlos Rodriguez was between the age of 40 and 70;
(b) that Carlos Rodriguez was discharged or laid off;
(c) that Carlos Rodriguez was performing according to the employer's legitimate expectations;
(d) that Julio Ybarra, or any employee not a member of the protected class (ages 40-70), was treated more favorably.
If you find from a preponderance of the evidence that a prima facie case of discrimination has been proved, you must determine from a preponderance of the evidence whether Trico Technologies Corporation stated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason or reasons for the employment decision.
If you find that Trico Technologies Corporation stated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision, you must then find from a preponderance of the evidence whether the legitimate reason or reasons were a pretext for discrimination.
If you follow the instructions of the preceding paragraph and find that a prima facie case of discrimination was proven, and that Trico Technologies Corporation has not stated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason or reasons for the employment decision, or that Trico Technologies Corporation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lupo v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories
...the Section 21.051. See Pina v. Texas Commerce Bank, No. EP-95-CA-120-H, 1995 WL 857214, at *2 (W.D.Tex. Nov.13, 1995); Trico Technologies, 907 S.W.2d at 652-53; Adams, 848 S.W.2d at 30. "In a disparate treatment suit [brought under the ADEA], the ultimate issue is whether the employer inte......
-
Quality Dialysis, Inc. v. Adams, No. 13-05-086-CV (Tex. App. 6/8/2006)
...[14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (citing DeMoranville v. Specialty Retailers, Inc., 933 S.W.2d 490, 492 (Tex. 1996); Trico Tech. Corp. v. Rodriguez, 907 S.W.2d 650, 652-53 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1995, no writ); Farrington v. Sysco Food Servs., Inc., 865 S.W.2d 247, 251 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st......
-
Cox & Smith Inc. v. Cook
...on the merits. See, e.g., Austin State Hosp. v. Kitchen, 903 S.W.2d 83, 90-91 (Tex.App.--Austin 1995, no writ); Trico Technologies Corp. v. Rodriguez, 907 S.W.2d 650, 652-53 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1995, no writ); Adams v. Valley Federal Credit Union, 848 S.W.2d 182, 186 (Tex.App.--Corpus......
-
Lupo v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories
...Commerce Bank, No. EP-95-CA-120-H, 1995 WL 857214, at *2 (W.D.Tex. Nov.13, 1995) (citing cases); Trico Technologies Corp. v. Rodriguez, 907 S.W.2d 650, 652-53 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1995) (no writ) (same). 17. Second, Lupo for the first time objects to the admissibility of some of the e......
-
Sexual Harassment
...419, 423 (Tex. App.—Houston 2000); Rios v. Indiana Bayer Corp ., 965 F. Supp. 919 (S.D. Tex. 1997); Trico Techs. Corp. v. Rodriguez , 907 S.W.2d 650, 652-53 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1995, no writ). Practice Note Chapter 21 was formerly known as the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TC......
-
Age Discrimination
...state law with federal law, TCHRA should be construed in a manner consistent with federal precedent); Trico Techs. Corp. v. Rodriguez , 907 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1995, no writ) (holding in accordance with Thompson ). Under the McDonnell Douglas/Burdine analysis, the plaintiff......
-
Table of cases
...Techs. Corp. v. Montiel , 949 S.W.2d 308 (Tex. 1997), §§3:13.D, 18:8.I.3, 19:7.E.2, 31:4.G, 41:12.B Trico Techs. Corp. v. Rodriguez , 907 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1995, no writ), §§20:2.B, 23:3.A.1, 23:3.A.2 Tri-County Medical Center, Inc. , 222 N.L.R.B. 1089 (1976), §16:12 Tril......
-
Sexual Harassment
...419, 423 (Tex. App.—Houston 2000); Rios v. Indiana Bayer Corp ., 965 F. Supp. 919 (S.D. Tex. 1997); Trico Techs. Corp. v. Rodriguez , 907 S.W.2d 650, 652-53 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1995, no writ). PRACTICE NOTE Chapter 21 was formerly known as the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TC......