X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Lorenzo Pineda III brought this retaliation suit under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act alleging that United Parcel Services terminated his employment in retaliation for his engaging in certain protected activity. The jury found for Pineda. The district court denied UPS’s motion for a judgment as a matter of law, but it remitted the jury’s compensatory damages award. In this appeal, UPS challenges the jury verdict and seeks further remittitur of the damage award. HOLDING:Affirmed. Relying on the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Toennies , 47 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2001), Pineda argues that for employment discrimination cases brought under the TCHRA, and in contrast to similar cases brought under Title VII, “the employer commits an unlawful employment practice if discrimination was a motivating factor for [the] employment practice, even if other factors also motivated the practice.” Thus, he argues, the applicable causation requirement under the TCHRA is the less stringent “motivating factor” test, rather than the more stringent “but for” test applicable under Title VII. Pineda incorrectly applies Quantum to this case. As �21.125(a) is inapplicable to this case, Pineda must show that “but for” UPS’s discriminatory conduct he would not have been fired. Applying the “but for” causation standard, there is sufficient evidence for the jury to have found that UPS retaliated against Pineda because he engaged in protected activity. Pineda presented sufficient evidence for the jury to determine that he was fired because he engaged in protected activity rather than because of any alleged threats of violence. There is sufficient evidence in the record for the jury to have found that Walker’s investigation and his ultimate decision to fire Pineda was a pretext allowing UPS to retaliate against Pineda for engaging in protected activity. Specifically, the jury could have found that UPS selectively fired Pineda under this policy, despite not doing so in other similar, and arguably more egregious cases, in retaliation for Pineda having engaged in protected activity. The district court’s remittitur ruling is reviewed for clear error. The TCHRA allows for recovery of compensatory damages for “emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses.” �21.2585(d). Pineda and his wife both testified that he suffered from depression, loss of sleep, and protracted stomach problems. Additionally, they each testified that the termination caused them marital distress. Although Pineda did not provide either medical records or doctor’s testimony to buttress his contentions, he is not required to do so. This court has awarded six figure verdicts in employment discrimination cases where plaintiffs have suffered from similar ailments. In at least one Texas case a jury award of almost $200,000 was upheld. See Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Davis, 979 S.W.2d 30 (Tex. App. Austin 1998, pet. denied). Because this court is not “left with the perception that the verdict is clearly excessive” there is no reason to remit the jury’s award any further. OPINION:Garza, J.; Davis, Garza and Little, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.