 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stevens v. Dallas Market Center Company5/1/1997
Joseph Edward Stevens appeals a summary judgement granted in favor of the Dallas Market Center Company, Ltd. d/b/a Infomart and IFM Partnership. In five points of error, Stevens contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgement against him on his claim for retaliatory discharge because the Market Center failed to show as a matter of law that: (1) the after-acquired evidence doctrine barred his claims; (2) there was no causal connection between his workers' compensation claim and his discharge; or (3) he suffered no damages as a result of his discharge. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgement and remand the cause for further proceedings.
Factual Background
Stevens was hired by the Market Center in September 1986 to work as a painter. According to Stevens, he was hired without submitting an employment application. When he arrived for his first day of work, his supervisor told him to fill out an application, but "not to worry about it." In filling out the application, Stevens falsely stated that he had not been convicted of a crime.
In November 1989, Stevens began to suffer health problems caused by exposure to paint fumes. Stevens had developed an allergy to oil-based paints. Due to his health problems, including facial nerve damage, Stevens missed several days of work. According to Stevens, his supervisor ordered him to return to work and told him if he filed a workers' compensation claim, he would be fired. Stevens returned to work, but continued to suffer problems with paint fumes. It is undisputed that Stevens eventually filed a workers' compensation claim and was not terminated at that time. There is no evidence in the record, however, indicating when his workers' compensation claim was filed.
Stevens testified that, due to his condition, he was restricted by his doctors from working around oil-based paints. When Stevens informed his supervisor of this restriction, he was told this was fine. Stevens continued to work using only latex paints.
In October 1991, Stevens received a negative "write up" for not painting some doors with oil-based paint. When Stevens reminded his supervisor of his work restriction, the supervisor allegedly stated that if Stevens would not do the job, "there were a lot of other people who would do it." Stevens testified that, because of this comment, he tried to work with oil-based paints again, but his allergy continued to be a problem.
Throughout Stevens's term of employment, he received warnings and poor performance reviews regarding such problems as tardiness, inefficiency, and working on personal projects while on the job. These warnings and reviews occurred both before and after Stevens's on-the-job injury. Although Stevens's performance improved for periods of time and his performance reviews reflected this improvement, Stevens would eventually begin incurring reprimands again. Stevens testified he had a problem with tardiness because of personal problems. Stevens further testified, however, that he was never more than five minutes late without calling in.
On December 20, 1991, Stevens informed the Market Center's director of security that, due to his allergy, he would probably have to seek an employment position away from paint. Approximately an hour later, Stevens reported a fallen telephone pole to the security department. A security officer asked Stevens to show him where the pole had fallen. Afterward Stevens, the security officer, and several other co-workers gathered in a shop area to talk about an up-coming Christmas party and pick numbers for a football pool.While Stevens and the others were sitting in the shop area, Stevens's supervisor and
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.
|
|