 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. Maguire12/17/1999
Helen Smith sued Maguire, Inc., d/b/a Maguire Oil Co. and K.H. Flournoy (collectively, Maguire) for employment discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted Maguire's motion for summary judgment. In two points of error, Smith contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Maguire. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
BACKGROUND
In September, 1994, Maguire hired Smith as Flournoy's secretary in its Dallas, Texas office. During her first two months, Smith was a contract employee, then Maguire hired her as a regular employee. According to Maguire, Smith did not perform her job adequately. In December, 1995, Flournoy informed Smith he had decided to terminate her employment. Smith ultimately resigned before her termination date. Smith subsequently sued Maguire and Flournoy for, among other things, age and sex discrimination under the Texas Labor Code, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Maguire moved for summary judgment under rules 166a(b) and (i) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on all of Smith's claims. The trial court granted Maguire's motion. This appeal followed.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In two points of error, Smith contends the trial court erred by granting Maguire summary judgment. Specifically, she argues the evidence (1) established Maguire unlawfully discriminated against her and (2) raised fact issues regarding intentional infliction of emotional distress.
1. Standard of Review
After adequate time for discovery, a defendant without presenting summary judgment evidence may move for summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which the plaintiff would have the burden of proof at trial. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i). The motion must state the elements as to which there is no evidence. Id. The court must grant the motion unless the non-movant produces summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact. Id. A no-evidence summary judgment is essentially a pretrial directed verdict; therefore, we apply the same legal sufficiency standard when reviewing a no- evidence summary judgment as we apply in reviewing a directed verdict. Jackson v. Fiesta Mart, Inc., 979 S.W.2d 68, 70 (Tex. App._Austin 1998, no pet.). We determine whether the non-movant produced any evidence of probative force to raise a fact issue on the material questions presented. Id. We consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, disregarding all contrary evidence and inferences. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1997), cert. denied 118 S.Ct. 1799 (1998). A trial court improperly grants a no-evidence summary judgment if the non-movant presents more than a scintilla of probative evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Fiesta Mart, 979 S.W.2d at 70-71. When, as in this case, a summary judgment order does not specify the ground or grounds relied on for the ruling, we will affirm the judgment if any of the theories advanced in the motion is meritorious. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. S.S., 858 S.W.2d 374, 380-81 (Tex.1993).
2. Employment Discrimination
An employer may not refuse to hire an individual, discharge an individual, or discriminate in any other manner against an individual in connection with compensation or the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of the individual's race, color, disability, religion, sex, national origin, or age. Tex. Lab. Code Ann. ยง 21.051(1) (Vernon 1996). An employer commits an unlawful employment practice if because of race, color, disability, religi
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|