 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel v. Goodman Manufacturing Co.9/8/2005
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Castillo
This is an appeal from a summary judgment rendered in favor of appellee, Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P. ("Goodman"), in a workers' compensation retaliatory discharge suit brought by appellant, Kevin Daniel. In two issues, appellant contends the trial court erred in granting Goodman's motion for summary judgment because (1) there was more than a scintilla of evidence establishing a causal link between his workers' compensation claim and Goodman's decision to fire him, and (2) there was evidence of malice. We affirm.
A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Goodman is a Houston-based company that manufactures air conditioners and heaters. Daniel started working for Goodman on November 13, 1998, on the assembly line in the coil department at one of Goodman's Houston manufacturing plants.
On November 29, 2000, Daniel sustained an on-the-job injury. Daniel reported his injury to his supervisor and was transported to an emergency room for treatment. On November 30, 2000, Daniel went to see the company doctor and his own doctor, Dr. Patel. Dr. Patel gave Daniel a work excuse form, which was presented to Pat Alcorn, Goodman's workers' compensation claims supervisor. Alcorn filed a workers' compensation claim for Daniel on November 30, 2000, and Daniel was granted a leave of absence under Goodman's "Medical Leave of Absence Policy" for Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") eligible employees. Under this policy, Daniel was required "to contact the Human Resources Department no less than once a week in order to keep the Company advised of his/her progress and likely return date." On November 30, 2000,Goodman sent Daniel, via certified mail, a copy of Goodman's leave of absence policy stating the terms and conditions that had to be satisfied to continue his medical leave of absence status and to remain an employee.
Dr. Patel released Daniel to return to work on February 25, 2001, after the expiration of the twelve-week period provided in Goodman's FMLA leave policy. Daniel attempted to deliver the release form to Alcorn on either February 22 or February 23, 2001, but Alcorn was not at the Goodman office. Daniel spoke with Alcorn's assistant, Kristi Kwiatkowski, who told him to call Alcorn on Monday, February 26. After several unsuccessful attempts to contact Alcorn, Daniel received a call from Gerald Pierce, who told Daniel that he would be placed on a waiting list and that he should file for unemployment benefits. Daniel subsequently filed for and received unemployment benefits. In his deposition, Cliff Reilly, Vice President of Human Resources for Goodman, explained that when Daniel was released to return to work, Goodman did not have any open positions.
On May 14, 2001, Reilly sent Daniel a letter together with a copy of the Medical Leave of Absence Policy for employees who had exceeded their FMLA allotment. The letter referred to the November 30, 2000 letter that Goodman had previously sent to Daniel via certified mail, informing him that he had to contact Pat Alcorn each week or he would be subject to termination for non-compliance with company policy.
On June 13, 2001, Goodman sent Daniel another letter, together with another copy of the Medical Leave of Absence Policy. This letter informed Daniel that he had to contact Pat Alcorn within five business days or he would be terminated for failure to comply with company policy. On June 26, 2001, Reilly terminated Daniel because he refused to comply with Goodman's Medical Leave of Absence Policy.
Daniel filed suit against Goodman on April 30, 2001, alleging that Goodman had discharged him in retaliation for filing a w
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.
|
|