 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stephens v. Delhi Gas Pipeline Corporation6/18/1996
Larry Stephens suffered a take-nothing summary judgement in his suit against Delhi Gas Pipeline Corporation for retaliatory discharge and defamation. He contends on appeal that summary judgement was improper because the summary judgement proof raised genuine issues of fact on all issues. Because we find that fact issues exist as to Delhi's discharge of Stephens as a result of his taking steps toward a workers' compensation claim, we reverse and remand the cause for trial.
Delhi terminated Stephens, a nineteen-year employee, in June of 1992. Delhi says it discharged Stephens because he violated the company's conflict of interest policy in that he used a company employee to install a gasket on his (Stephens') personal air compressor while on company time.
Stephens contends that Delhi terminated him because he developed a health problem from exposure to hydrogen sulfide gas on the job and was contemplating making a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Stephens says he began having blackouts at work and saw a doctor about the problem. He said the doctor told him the problem was associated with long-term exposure to hydrogen sulfide gas. Stephens says he reported the problem to company officials and that he eventually filed a safety hazard report to force the company to move his office. Stephens acknowledges that he asked Frank Lott, a company mechanic, to install the gasket for him, but that it was customary for Delhi employees to perform small tasks for other employees, and that the company had never before discharged anyone for it. He says the company really fired him because of his health problems and his potential claims against the company.
Stephens filed suit, alleging libel and slander and retaliatory discharge. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 8307c. Delhi removed the case to federal court, where the court granted Delhi's summary judgment motion as to certain Employee Retirement Security Act claims and remanded the case to state court. Delhi then filed an amended summary judgement motion. After a hearing, the court granted Delhi's motion on the defamation claim but not on the retaliatory discharge claim. Delhi sought a rehearing in light of the recently decided case of Texas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1995). On rehearing, the court granted Delhi's motion as to all claims.
A summary judgement is proper for a defendant only if the defendant establishes that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to one or more essential elements of the plaintiff's claims and that it is entitled to judgement as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); see Swilley v. Hughes, 488 S.W.2d 64, 67 (Tex. 1972). The movant has the burden of proof, and all doubts are resolved in favor of the nonmovant. Roskey v. Texas Health Facilities Comm'n, 639 S.W.2d 302, 303 (Tex. 1982). The reviewing court will take all evidence favorable to the non-movant as true, MMP, Ltd. v. Jones, 710 S.W.2d 59, 60 (Tex. 1986), and will indulge every reasonable inference and resolve any reasonable doubt in the nonmovant's favor. Continental Casing Corp. v. Samedan Oil Corp., 751 S.W.2d 499, 501 (Tex. 1988). A reviewing court cannot affirm a summary judgement on any grounds not presented in the summary judgement motion. Hall v. Harris County Water Control & Improvement Dist., 683 S.W.2d 863, 867 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). When the trial court's order does not specify the grounds it relied on for its ruling, the reviewing court will affirm the judgment if any theory advanced in the motion is meritorious. Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Security Ins. Co., 790 S.W.2d 407, 410 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ).
Stephens alleges tha
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Texas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|