 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Holmes v. Head Start Of Greater Dallas12/18/2000
Appellant, Janice Homes, filed suit against appellee, Head Start of Greater Dallas, Inc. ("Head Start"), asserting wrongful termination. Specifically, Holmes alleged she was terminated in violation of section 451.001 of the labor code because she filed a worker's compensation claim. Holmes contends in a single issue that the trial court erred in granting Head Start's no-evidence summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact exists. Holmes failed to present evidence that establishes a genuine issue of material fact exists on each essential element of her claim; therefore, we affirm the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Head Start.
Factual and Procedural Background
Holmes was employed by Head Start of Greater Dallas as a cooking assistant. While working for Head Start, Holmes slipped and fell injuring her neck, back, arm and knee. Holmes sought medical treatment and filed a worker's compensation claim. Holmes received uncontested worker's compensation benefits while unable to work due to her injury. On August 29, 1995, Holmes met with the physician caring for her, who released her to return to work immediately. Holmes conveyed this information to Head Start's personnel director by telephone the same day. Immediately thereafter, Holmes went on vacation. Sometime later, Head Start received a written copy of the medical release. Upon receipt, Head Start telephoned Holmes and left a message on her answering machine informing her to report to work immediately. Holmes did not report to work for more than three days following her release and Head Start began termination procedures against her.
Head Start has a three-day absence control policy in place. The absence control policy states that if an employee does not report to work within three days of the expiration of leave, or release to work by the attending health care provider, that employee will be considered to have abandoned their position. It is undisputed Holmes' health care provider released her to return to work on August 29, 1995, nor is it in dispute that Holmes failed to return to work within three days of that date. On September 7, 1995, Head Start's personnel director wrote Holmes a letter informing her that her employment file would reflect her abandonment of her position.
Holmes filed suit alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for her filing of a worker's compensation claim. Head Start answered and affirmatively pleaded that termination was in accordance with a written absence control policy. Fourteen months after filing its answer, Head Start filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment pursuant to Texas rule of civil procedure 166a(i). Head Start alleged Holmes provided no evidence to establish a prima facie showing of worker's compensation retaliation. Specifically, Head Start complained Holmes failed to present any evidence to establish a causal connection between the filing of her worker's compensation claim and her termination. Holmes answered by attaching exhibits to her response but failed to allege any facts to support her contentions that she was fired because she filed a worker's compensation claim. The trial court granted Head Start's no-evidence motion for summary judgment. Holmes appeals claiming a genuine issue of material fact exists.
Standard of Review
A no-evidence motion for summary judgment is essentially the same as a pre-trial motion for instructed verdict; therefore, we apply the same standard of review. Vallance v. Irving C.A.R.E.S., Inc., 14 S.W.3d 833, 836 (Tex. App._Dallas 2000, no pet.). The granting of a no-evidence summary judgment is improper if the party against whom the summary judgment was granted produced mo
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.
|
|