Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACT: The appellant, Velma Courtney, appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nibco Inc. in her suit for worker’s compensation-related retaliatory discharge. In two issues, Courtney claims her summary judgment evidence established that a causal link existed between her workers’ compensation claim and her termination and that Nibco had no legitimate reason to terminate her. HOLDING:Affirmed. When an employee alleges that she was terminated in retaliation for filing a worker’s compensation claim, she must show that 1. she filed a worker’s compensation claim in good faith; and that 2. a causal link exists between the termination and the filing of the claim. Tex. Lab. Code 451.001. Circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish a causal link between termination and filing a worker’s compensation claim includes 1. knowledge of the compensation claim by those making the decision on termination; 2. expression of a negative attitude toward the employee’s injured condition; 3. failure to adhere to established company policies; 4. discriminatory treatment in comparison to similarly situated employees; and 5. evidence that the stated reason for the discharge was false. Courtney asserts that she produced circumstantial evidence to establish each of these five factors. Larry Duncan, Nibco’s personnel director, admitted he knew of the claim at the time he terminated Courtney, but stated that the sole reason for her termination was her 30 hours of sub-par performance. Courtney failed to identify any actions expressing a negative attitude that were directed toward her by any specific Nibco manager. Therefore, her statements asserting expression of negative attitude can only be characterized as her subjective belief. Courtney alleges that she was terminated for failing to meet a production quota for the valve assembly line and points out the production quota for the valve assembly line was not in writing. However, she did not produce any summary judgment evidence to show that written production quotas were required for employees working on the valve assembly line. Courtney produced no summary judgment evidence to support her allegation of discriminatory treatment. Courtney stated in her summary judgment evidence that she had been told by Larry Burg, who had been told by Nibco supervisor Ronnie Johnson, that the company had been unfair in terminating her because management knew she was hurting and they had not given her time to learn the valve assembly process. Nibco maintains that this is hearsay and is therefore improper summary judgment evidence. Burg’s statement to Courtney about what the Nibco supervisor allegedly said was hearsay and therefore not competent summary judgment evidence. OPINION:Worthen, C.J.; Worthen, C.J., Griffith and DeVasto, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.