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:Daniel Loa worked for Union Pacific Railroad Co. since 1976 and began working at the company’s locomotive facility in El Paso in 1989. In 1998, Kevin Goewey was hired as Loa’s supervisor. From the start, Goewey repeatedly referred to Loa and other Mexican-American workers with derogatory names and insults. Loa said he was physically afraid of Goewey, who also threatened to write Loa up if he complained. Other Union Pacific employees confirmed that Goewey’s derision was a daily occurrence. One employee, Jose Madrid, said he complained on an almost weekly basis to Goewey’s supervisor, Stephen Slaught. Despite Slaught’s assurances that he would talk to Goewey and take care of things, nothing changed. Loa’s union representative also experienced problems with Goewey. R.C. De La Torre and the Coalition of Union Chairmans met with Slaught to discuss Goewey’s treatment of Mexican-American workers, but, again, nothing happened. The union chairs all signed a letter to Slaught on Dec. 10, 1998, protesting Goewey’s use of racial and ethnic slurs, and referring to the group’s prior complaints about Goewey. Slaught maintained that the Dec. 10 letter was his first notice of the problems with Goewey. When he Slaught met with Goewey to discuss the letter, Goewey denied the allegations. Slaught did not interview any employees and did not immediately initiate a formal investigation. Goewey was instead directed to write a letter of apology. He also received a reprimand for “poor communication skills.” Goewey’s letter of apology focused on “poor supervisory skills,” and said he had been “overzealous,” but that being overzealous was “a good thing.” Unsatisfied with Slaught’s response, the coalition again attempted to meet with Slaught, but Slaught did not attend the meeting. Thus in February 1999, five employees filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Union Pacific responded to each complaint, and while the EEOC reviewed the complaints, the employees, including Loa, said they experienced retaliation in the form of increased scrutiny from Goewey and Slaught. Another complaint was filed in November 1999 by a Puerto Rican worker for comments Goewey made to him. This worker said he was denied a foreman’s position because Goewey didn’t like him. Goewey was subsequently promoted, though he still had some attenuated supervisory control over Loa and other employees who had complained. Loa and other employees sued Union Pacific and Goewey in December 1999. They raised claims under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. A jury found Loa had been subject to national-origin harassment and that Union Pacific had not exercised reasonable care to prevent or promptly correct the harassing behavior. The jury also found Goewey intentionally inflicted emotional distress during the scope of his employment, actions that were ratified by Union Pacific. The jury awarded Loa $800,000 in compensatory damages, $6 million in punitive damages against Union Pacific, and $460,000 in attorneys’ fees for trial and in the event of appeal. The trial court reduced the punitive damages award to $750,000, but entered judgment on the other amounts. The trial court also entered injunctive and equitable relief against Union Pacific and Goewey. Goewey subsequently filed for bankruptcy, and his claims were severed from those against Union Pacific. HOLDING:Affirmed in part; reformed in part; reversed and remanded in part. The court first reviews the sufficiency of the evidence regarding whether Loa was subjected to national-origin harassment by Union Pacific that altered the terms of Loa’s employment by creating an abusive working environment. The first jury question asked if Union Pacific Railroad Company knew or should have known of the harassment and yet failed to take prompt, remedial action to eliminate the harassment. The second question asked whether the conduct was committed by a supervisor who had authority over hiring, advancement, dismissals, discipline or other employment decisions affecting Daniel Loa. The court finds the evidence sufficient to support both of the jury’s “yes” answers. The court then reviews the finding of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Such a finding requires proof of extreme and outrageous conduct, or, in the case of abuse by a person in a position of authority, ongoing conduct that has the cumulative quality of being extreme and outrageous. Comparing the facts of this case to a Texas Supreme Court case on a similar issue, the court finds the workplace at issue here to be a “far cry” from the “den of terror” described in GTE Southwest Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1999). “While it is clear from the record that Goewey’s conduct was certainly rude and obnoxious, it does not rise to the level of creating stress that is so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure. “While one may assume that Loa suffered some degree of emotional distress as a result of his being subjected to the boorish behavior of Goewey, he did not present any evidence establishing the severity of his distress.” Noting that the TCHRA limits compensatory and punitive damages to $300,000, the court reforms the judgment to comport with this cap. The court adds that the trial court was wrong to look to the general punitive damages statute, even though the trial court did reduce the original $6 million award. Finally, the court agrees with Union Pacific that the trial court, not the jury should have decided the appropriate amount of attorneys’ fees due to Loa and others. OPINION:Barajas, C.J.; Barajas, C.J., Larsen and Chew, 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.