 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Castro v. Hyatt Corp.6/26/1996
Maria Castro appeals a summary judgement granted in favor of Hyatt Corporation d/b/a Hyatt Regency Dallas and Patrice A. Flaherty (collectively Hyatt). In two points of error, Castro contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgement on her causes of action for retaliatory discharge in violation of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
FACTS
On October 20, 1990, Castro sustained an on-the-job injury while employed as a housekeeper by Hyatt. Castro filed a claim for and received workers' compensation benefits based on that injury. Castro worked very little thereafter until September 4, 1991, when she was granted her third medical leave. That leave was extended allowing leave for sixty consecutive days from September 16, 1991 through November 16, 1991 "or until released to light duty." Castro never requested another extension of this leave of absence.
By letter dated April 15, 1992, Flaherty, the Hyatt's former Assistant Director of Human Relations, advised Castro that she had failed to submit a request for an extension of her leave of absence and Hyatt considered her lack of interest "a voluntary quit." Further, Flaherty explained that Castro was considered removed pursuant to an administrative termination because she remained on leave for more than 180 days. On April 24, 1992, Castro provided Flaherty with a physician's note releasing her to return to work with no restrictions, effective April 23, 1992. Flaherty again advised Castro that she had been removed from Hyatt's payroll. Although Castro was eligible to reapply for a position, she refused.
Castro filed suit against Hyatt and Flaherty, asserting causes of action for retaliatory discharge in violation of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hyatt filed a motion for summary judgement asserting entitlement to judgement on the retaliatory discharge claim on the ground that, as a matter of law, there is no causal link between Castro's claim for workers' compensation benefits and her discharge. Hyatt asserted entitlement to judgement on Castro's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the ground that Hyatt's conduct was not extreme and outrageous as a matter of law. The trial court granted Hyatt's summary judgement motion.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews a summary judgement de novo to determine whether a party's right to prevail is established as a matter of law. See Capitan Enters., Inc. v. Jackson, 903 S.W.2d 772, 775 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1994, writ denied). An appellate court follows well-established procedures when reviewing a summary judgment:
"1. The movant for summary judgement has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to summary judgement as a matter of law;
2. In deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant will be taken as true; and
3. Every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the non-movant and any doubts resolved in its favor." Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985).
Summary judgement for a defendant is proper when the summary judgement evidence negates an essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action as a matter of law or conclusively establishes all elements of an affirmative defense as a matter of law. See Black v. Victoria Lloyds Ins. Co., 797 S.W.2d 20, 27 (Tex. 1990). Once the defendant produces sufficient evidence to establish the right to summary judg
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.
|
|