Williams-Pyro, Inc. v. Barbour

• Decision Date: 20 March 2013
• Docket Number: No. 08–11–00355–CV.,08–11–00355–CV.
• Citation: 408 S.W.3d 467
• Parties: WILLIAMS–PYRO, INC., Appellant and Cross–Appellee, v. Rhonda BARBOUR, Appellee and Cross–Appellant.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

408 S.W.3d 467

WILLIAMS–PYRO, INC., Appellant and Cross–Appellee,

v.Rhonda BARBOUR, Appellee and Cross–Appellant.

No. 08–11–00355–CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas,

El Paso.

March 20, 2013.

B. Dan Berryman, Kirkley & Berryman, LLP, Fort Worth, TX, for Appellant.

Jason C.N. Smith, Law Office of Art Brender, Fort Worth, TX, for Appellee.

Before McCLURE, C.J., RIVERA, and ANTCLIFF, JJ.

OPINION

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice.

Rhonda Barbour sued her former employer Williams–Pyro, Inc. (WPI) for age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. A jury found in favor of Barbour and awarded her $40,000 in damages for back pay, $10,000 in lost employment benefits, $100,000 in past compensatory damages, and $100,000 in future compensatory damages. The trial court determined that the statutory caps required under Texas Labor Code Section 21.2585(d)(1) should be applied to the jury's award of damages and rendered judgment for Barbour in the amount of $120,714, exclusive of attorney's fees and costs. Based on a prior agreement between the parties, the trial court then addressed Barbour's claim for attorney's fees. In her claim for attorney's fees, Barbour asked the court to apply a multiplier to enhance her fee award. After the hearing, the trial court determined that Barbour was entitled to attorney's fees in the amount of $154,335, but concluded that it did not possess the authority under Section 21.259 of the Texas Labor Code to apply a multiplier. The court specifically ruled that if did have such authority, a 1.5 multiplier was appropriate.

WPI then filed the instant appeal. It challenges the trial court's judgment, complaining that: (1) the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's verdict that age was a motivating factor in WPI's decision to terminate Barbour, and (2) that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Barbour's discrimination case because she failed to fully exhaust her administrative remedies before filing suit. Barbour also appeals, contending that the trial court erred by not applying a multiplier to her attorney's fee award. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment in its entirety.

FACTUAL SUMMARY

WPI develops and manufactures products for various industries involved in oil and gas development, fire suppression, aeronautics, and national defense. In 1988, Bob Williams hired twenty-six year old Rhonda Barbour to work at WPI. Mr. Williams was the co-founder of WPI and, at the time he hired Barbour, he was also WPI's president and CEO. When Mr. Williams hired Barbour he was looking to expand WPI's business to include a new line of fire extinguishers or fire suppression devices. He personally trained Barbourto assemble the products on the new fire extinguisher/suppression line. More specifically, Mr. Williams taught Barbour to assemble the “charge caps” for WPI's fire-suppression product known as the “StoveTop FireStop.” The assembly of the charge caps involved the use of a dangerous and explosive chemical called lead styphnate. The government considers lead styphnate to be an explosive and therefore heavily regulates its use. Accordingly, because of the dangers involved, the charge caps were assembled in a specific room, separated from the rest of WPI's business. Dealing with these explosives also required Barbour to possess a special set of skills.

About a year after Barbour was hired, WPI established a specific assembly line for the sole purpose of manufacturing the fire suppression devices. The line was referred to as the “pyro line.” Barbour was the supervisor of the pyro-line and she was responsible for training the new employees.¹

In 1996, Mr. Williams passed away and his wife, Delia Williams, took over as President and CEO of WPI.² According to Mrs. Williams, handling the lead styphnate was the most dangerous aspect of WPI's operation. She also acknowledged that the very existence of the pyro line depended upon Barbour building the charge caps.

Barbour continued her work assembling charge caps for the fire suppression devices for her first seventeen years as a WPI employee. James Craig Walters supervised Barbour from 1998 to 2004. He testified that Barbour:

[C]could use some improvement because she is quick to talk about people behind their back and stir up criticism pools with other employees. I addressed this problem with her and she said it was from being frustrated but in the end she agreed to stop.

According to Walters, on Barbour's 2003 work performance review he specifically noted that there were improvements he wanted to see. Barbour was good at “repetitive tasks,” but that she was not good at tasks that involved change. Although Walters did not recall ever giving Barbour a written warning, he testified that he spoke with her on several occasions regarding her behavior. He considered these discussions oral reprimands or warnings.

In 2005, the company completed development on a safer alternative to the charge caps, which did not involve the use of explosives. This new design no longer required Barbour's specialized skills, nor did it require the assembly to occur in an isolated environment. According to Mrs. Williams, as the new design was implemented, the old method of using lead styphnate was phased out. Likewise, Barbour's position was effectively phased out.

Barbour was then re-assigned to the “connectivity and test systems” (CaTS) assembly line.³ The CaTS assembly area included both mechanical and electrical assembly. Although Barbour had previously spent the majority of her time working on the pyro assembly line, she had worked on both the electrical and mechanical assembly lines from time to time as needed.

Employees in the CaTS assembly area each had work orders, or written instructions, at their work stations describing the device(s) being assembled. Once a work order was complete, it was reviewed by the WPI Quality Assurance Department. The Quality Assurance Department would check each work order and return any orders containing errors.

Tammy Renteria, a CaTS assembly leader, testified that an assembly leader also had a duty to go from station to station along the CaTS assembly line, double-check each assembler's work, and see whether the assemblers had any questions or otherwise needed work orders or parts for assembly.

When Barbour began working on the CaTS assembly line, her supervisor was Stacy Chapa. Chapa supervised Barbour from June 2005 to December 2005, during which Barbour received two positive performance evaluations. The first performance evaluation was signed by Paul Shiller, WPI's Operations Manager, and gave Barbour a “good” rating. The second performance evaluation, signed by Vice President Brent Williams, included the following comments regarding Barbour's performance: (1) “tracks and completes assigned work independently after initial instructions and feedback;” (2) “positive and supportive of the company's mission;” (3) “knows the status of tasks the standards for accuracy and quantity;” (4) “exhibits patience with customers/co-workers;” (5) “maintains courteous and cooperative relationships with supervisor and co-workers;” and (6) “accepts supervision, change and feedback.” Based on this evaluation, Barbour received a pay raise. Chapa testified that as of December 2005, she had worked with Barbour for seventeen years and never had any problems with her.

Jose “Joe” Montalvo began working at WPI in 2004 as a Quality Inspector. He was later promoted to supervisor of the Quality Inspection area (or Quality Assurance Department). At the time Barbour was reassigned to the CaTS assembly line in 2005, Montalvo was the supervisor in charge of the quality inspection area. In April or May 2006, Montalvo became the production manager for the CaTS assembly area.⁴ As production manager, Montalvo also became Barbour's direct supervisor.

According to Barbour, in 2005 Montalvo began making age-related comments to her. He made comments about her gray hair and told her that she was getting old and looking old. He also suggested that she color her hair, stating that if she were his wife, she would not look like she did. On occasions when she was in the inventory room and would have to bend over, Montalvo would tell her that her butt was getting big and that she was looking old. Montalvo eventually mentioned replacing Barbour with “young Mexican girls.” Barbour said these comments were made three or four times a week. She also testified that Montalvo's tone was serious and that his comments made her scared and sick.

Once Montalvo became her direct supervisor on the CaTS assembly line, he continued to make comments about her age. At that point, Barbour decided to report the comments to Paul Shiller, the Operations Manager. According to Barbour, in May or June 2006, she reported Montalvo's behavior to Shiller. She told Shiller, in detail, about all of Montalvo's age-related comments. Montalvo admitted making some comments related to the color of Barbour's hair but said he was only joking.

Shiller acknowledged that Barbour came to him regarding Montalvo's comments but she mentioned them casually and never described them with any specificity. Shiller questioned Montalvo about the comments, but that conversation was the end of the matter. Shiller acknowledged that under WPI's policy, a complaint of discrimination should have been reported to Human Resources for investigation. But admittedly, he never reported the comments to Human Resources and the claim was not investigated. Sally Espinosa, a former supervisor at WPI, testified that she heard Montalvo tell Barbour that she was getting too old and fat and that WPI needed to hire younger girls. Martha Thomas, a CaTS assembly line worker, also testified regarding Montalvo's behavior. According to Thomas, things changed when Montalvo became supervisor of the CaTS assembly line. She believed Montalvo was trying to get her to resign, which she did in ...