Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:On a motion for rehearing in an employment discrimination case, Angelina College complains that deposition testimony given by a witness should not have been admitted, as the witness died a year later, and the trial court would not be able to observe the witness’ demeanor; the implication is that the witness was not competent to give testimony at the time of his deposition. HOLDING:Motion for rehearing overruled. At the time of the deposition, the witness had time to recall and narrate events. Though Angelina College had the witness’ medical records at the time, his competency was not raised at trial. Angelina says the best evidence of the witness’ competency at his deposition would be “the medical findings, judicial findings, and the deposition testimony in the record.” The records will be helpful to the trial court, the court states. However, the court continues, additional information, such as clarification from the reporting expert who examined and treated the witness, the witness’ colleagues’ observations, or other reliable information presumably will be available to clarify the issue his competency. Angelina argues the trial court correctly granted summary judgment even if the witness’ testimony is considered. In its motion for rehearing, Angelina says this court “concluded that the”sole issue’ arising out of the [McDonnell Douglas] procedural framework here is whether there is any evidence Angelina’s legitimate articulated reasons for its employment decision”were a pretext for discrimination based on race, sex, or age.’” Angelina takes a partial quote out of context, the court states. The partial quotation of the opinion is from a paragraph referring to Angelina’s motion for summary judgment. The “sole issue” presented in the motion for summary judgment was whether there is evidence Angelina’s stated reasons were pretextual. However, this court stated the sole issue as the Supreme Court did in Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44, 124 S.Ct. 513, 157 L.Ed.3 357 (2003). If the employer meets its burden of production, the only relevant question is whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence the employer made its decision based on race, gender, or age despite the employer’s proffered explanation. OPINION:Per curiam; McKeithen, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, 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?


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.