 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Robinson v. Devereux Foundation6/6/2002
This is an appeal from a summary judgment dismissing Joyce Robinson's claims for wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In three points of error, Robinson claims the trial court erred in granting summary judgment and in denying her motion for new trial. We affirm.
I. Background and Procedural History
Joyce Robinson brought suit against The Devereux Foundation ("Devereux"), claiming wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Devereux operates a psychiatric treatment facility for children and adults in League City, Texas. The facility offers emergency psychiatric care, long-term hospital care and long-term residential care to patients with illnesses ranging from behavioral problems to homicidal, suicidal or psychotic tendencies. Robinson worked for Devereux as a Mental Health Technician; she looked after patients, monitored their behavior and activities, and assisted in care deemed appropriate by Devereux's doctors, therapists and nursing staff. Robinson, an at-will employee, worked from November 2, 1992, until her employment was terminated December 23, 1997.
On December 2, 1997, Devereux's representatives met with Robinson to discuss allegations that she had violated policies relative to Devereux's Employee Fraud and Patient Funds and that she had engaged in other serious misconduct. Robinson's documented response to those allegations was "will add statement tomorrow ... not clear headed right now." Devereaux suspended Robinson for ten days. While Robinson was suspended, Devereux received more client complaints against Robinson and scheduled a meeting with her for December 18, 1997, to discuss the complaints. Robinson did not attend. Devereux rescheduled the meeting for December 23, 1997, and informed Robinson by certified mail that her failure to attend this meeting would be considered job adandonment. Robinson acknowledged receipt of this letter but again failed to attend. Devereux terminated her employment on December 23, 1997.
Robinson filed this suit May 15, 1998. Devereux moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted on October 12, 2000. This appeal followed.
II. Summary Judgment
We first address Robinson's contention in point of error one that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on her claims of wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
A. Standards of Review
Devereux filed both a traditional motion for summary judgment and a no-evidence motion. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c), (i). Where, as here, the summary judgment does not specify or state the grounds relied on, it will be affirmed on appeal if any of the grounds presented in the motion are meritorious. Carr v. Brasher, 776 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tex. 1989).
The standard of review for a traditional motion for summary judgment "is whether the successful movant at the trial level carried its burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that judgment should be granted as a matter of law." KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tex. 1999). Under this traditional standard, this court must take as true all evidence favorable to the non-movant and must make all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. See id.
We review a no-evidence summary judgment de novo by construing the record in the light most favorable to the non-movant and disregarding all contrary evidence and inferences. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1997). A no-evidence summary judgment is improperly granted when the respondent brings forth more than
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Texas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|