Willrich v. M.D. Anderson Hosp.

• Decision Date: 31 August 1999
• Docket Number: No. 13-97-814-CV,13-97-814-CV
• Citation: 1 S.W.3d 831
• Parties: (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999) HAROLD GENE WILLRICH, Appellant, v. M. D. ANDERSON HOSPITAL AND TUMOR INSTITUTE, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM CANCER CENTER, Appellees
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 831

1 S.W.3d 831 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999)

HAROLD GENE WILLRICH, Appellant, v. M. D. ANDERSON HOSPITAL AND TUMOR INSTITUTE, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM CANCER CENTER, Appellees.

No. 13-97-814-CV

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

August 31,1999.

On appeal from the 190th District Court of Harris County, Texas.

Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa, and Chavez

O P I N I O N

Opinion by Justice Chavez

Harold Gene Willrich appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of his former employer, M.D. Anderson Hospital, on his claim that he was terminated from his employment due to racial discrimination. Willrich contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant him an extension of time to respond to the motion for summary judgment and in ruling that M.D. Anderson had shown as a matter of law that Willrich was terminated for a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. We hold that material fact issues exist concerning the reason for Willrich's termination, and, therefore, reverse the summary judgment.

The first issue raised by Willrich is whether the trial court erred in failing to grant an extension of time for him to respond to M.D. Anderson's motion for summary judgment. The granting or denial of a motion for extension of time is a matter reserved to the discretion of the trial court. See Manges v. Astra Bar, Inc., 596 S.W.2d 605, 612 (Tex. Civ. App.--Corpus Christi 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (request for continuance under summary judgment rule is matter within trial court's discretion). M.D. Anderson's motion for summary judgment was filed May 15, 1997. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166(a)(c), a hearing could not be conducted until at least twenty-one days after the motion was filed, and Willrich's response was due seven days before the hearing. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166(a)(c). In accordance with the rule, a hearing on the motion was set for June 9, 1997, and Willrich's response was due June 2, 1997.

The sole basis for Willrich's motion for extension of time was that he had not received a copy of Willrich's deposition until May 29, 1997. However, a complete copy of Willrich's deposition was attached to M. D. Anderson's motion for summary judgment, which was filed and served on May 15. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant Willrich's motion for extension of time.

We next consider whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in M.D. Anderson's favor. A defendant who moves for summary judgment has the burden of either establishing a defense as a matter of law or disproving as a matter of law at least one element of each of the plaintiff's causes of action. Rosas v. Buddie's Food Store, 518 S.W.2d 534, 537 (Tex. 1975). When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court takes the non-movant's evidence as true, indulges every reasonable inference in favor of the non-movant, and resolves all doubts in favor of the non-movant. Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985).

Willrich sued under the Texas Commission of Human Rights Act, which provides for the execution of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. 21.001 (Vernon 1996). These laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e-2a (West 1994); TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. 21.051 (Vernon 1996).¹ The plaintiff in a racial discrimination case must carry the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination by showing that he belongs to a racial minority and that his employer took adverse action against him. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 805, 792, 803, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824 (1973). The burden then shifts to the employer to produce evidence of some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employee's rejection. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2747 (1993). The plaintiff then has the burden of proving that the non-discriminatory reason is a pre-text, and that race is the true reason for the adverse employment decision. Id.

Although Willrich failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment, his version of the facts of the case is apparent from his deposition and responses to interrogatories attached to M.D. Anderson's motion for summary judgment. Willrich had worked as a utility station operator for M.D. Anderson since June 1981. He testified in his deposition that "the 'n' word" (nigger) was "a very common phrase." At some point in 1981 Willrich complained about the use of this slur by a coworker named Renstead. As a result of his complaint Willrich was considered a "troublemaker," "taboo," and someone with "a chip on his shoulder."

In 1982 an employee was needed for the night shift, and Willrich was selected against his will. Willrich was the only African-American among those who could do the night shift job, and he believed he was selected because of his race. Willrich testified that the man he replaced was classified as a "Maintenance Worker II," while Willrich had the higher classification of "Utility Station Operator III." Willrich explained that other maintenance workers could have filled the night shift position, and that it had previously been the custom for the utility station operator to work the day shift, but, nevertheless, he was the one put on the night shift. He complained about his change in shifts to people "outside the department," which angered his supervisor and caused Willrich to be placed on ninety days "probation."²

In 1983 Willrich was transferred from M.D. Anderson's hospital facility to its rehabilitation facility. Willrich recounted an incident at the rehabilitation facility where his supervisor, Ernest Landgrebe, told a joke that had the word "nigger" in the punch line. Willrich did not complain, however, because Landgrebe was his boss and he didn't want to repeat the troubles he had earlier when he had complained. In 1990 Landgrebe referred to poor workmanship as "nigger-rigging" and Willrich did file a grievance. Landgrebe apologized, but Willrich did not feel that Landgrebe's apology was sincere because, soon after this incident, Landgrebe gave Willrich an oral evaluation that his work was unsatisfactory and Landgrebe's attitude toward Willrich became hostile. Pressed to recall other incidents where racial slurs had been used, Willrich recalled being the butt of a joke involving the word "nigger" told by a coworker named Lu Pen Lu; coworker John Goodman discussing rap music in a manner that included theword "nigger;" and one other incident where Lu had called him a "nigger."³ Willrich said that Lu was directed to apologize to him, but he did not consider the apology sincere because Lu had a "catty grin" while apologizing.

Attached to M.D. Anderson's motion for summary judgment were materials that it argued demonstrated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Willrich's termination. Howard Stanford, director of M.D. Anderson's research and education facilities, swore an affidavit stating that Willrich was terminated because his former position was eliminated under the reorganization, and because Willrich was not the best qualified for the jobs he specified on his preference sheet. He added that the only jobs Willrich listed on his preference sheet were night jobs, which were the least available.

M.D. Anderson also attached its "Reduction in Force Policy" which specified that the criteria for determining terminations were past job performance, the ability to perform work required in the future, and when all else was equal, seniority.

The preference form employees were given had spaces for three preferences, and left blanks for employees to specify "department," "section," "position," and "shift." A memorandum sent to M.D. Anderson employees explaining the "facilities management restructuring" and the accompanying "reduction in force" told employees that they could specify a position which would constitute a promotion, but that they must specify at least one position in their current classification. The memorandum also explained: "while we will try to comply with your preference, we cannot guarantee we will be able to do so. If everyone applies for certain positions, and not for others, then we may have to assign you to a position that you didn't indicate on your form." Instructions accompanying the form also told employees:

Your preferences will be carefully considered and weighed against departmental needs. However, it is possible that you will be selected for a position other than your preferences. It is also possible that you may not be selected for any position. If you fail to return the preference form, you may be assigned to any position which needs to be filled.

Statistics pertaining to the reduction in force indicated that 24% of African-American employees lost their jobs, compared to 15% of white employees.

M.D. Anderson's motion for summary judgment argued that it had produced evidence of legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Willrich's termination, and Willrich failed to raise an issue of material fact concerning whether the alleged non-discriminatory reasons were a pretext for illegal racial discrimination. We hold that a fact issue does exist regarding whether Willrich was terminated for racial reasons.

Willrich's testimony showed that several people at M.D. Anderson, including a supervisor, used racial slurs. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Willrich and indulging all reasonable inferences in his favor, it could be inferred that many individuals at M.D. Anderson, including supervisory personnel, held racist beliefs and were capable of racial discrimination. Willrich's testimony that complaining about the racial slurs led to him being ostracized and labeled a troublemaker by many of his coworkers supports an inference that racist attitudes extended beyond the small group of individuals Willrich recalled...