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:Oscar Garza, 51 years old, worked at Claymex Brick and File Inc. as a warehouseman. Garza reported to Rosalia Garza, Javier Bermea and Gerardo Ramos. His job included making an inventory of materials in the work yard by the first of each month, though there was some dispute over whether the inventory had to be completed before any other work could be finished or as soon as practicable. On April 1, 2002, Rosalia Garza interrupted Oscar’s inventory count and told him to unload and load recently arrived trailers. It took Oscar the rest of the day to complete the loading and unloading of the existing truck, though another truck came into the yard that Oscar could not get to. The next morning, after going to the post office as was required of him, Oscar returned to work and began unloading the trailer that arrived the day before. After that, he returned to his inventory count, which he completed and turned in. Rosalie admitted that sometimes in the past the inventory had been turned in as late as the second day of the month. The same day that he turned in the inventory, Oscar ran into Bermea, who yelled at Oscar for being late with the inventory. The two argued heatedly, and Bermea told him that he should leave if he didn’t like the way things ran, and, “what’s more, you’re fired.” Bermea told Rosalia that they would need a replacement for Garza. Oscar nonetheless returned to the yard the next day but was told by Ramos that he was fired. Oscar sued Claymex for age discrimination. Pointing to a job description for his position that had once described the position as being one for a 20-to-40-year-old man, Oscar claimed age was a motivating factor in his firing. A jury agreed, awarding him $74,838 in back pay, $60,000 in compensatory damages, and $90,000 in future damages. HOLDING:Reversed and rendered. The court uses the standard burden-shifting analysis for discrimination cases brought under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. After first establishing that there was enough evidence to support a finding that Oscar was indeed fired (not that he quit), the court then considers whether age was a motivating factor in his dismissal. Referring to the job profile Oscar referred to at trial, which was later changed to eliminate reference to age or gender, the court says it provides only suspicion, not evidence: “[A]ny conclusion that age was a motivating factor in Garza’s termination based on the previous job profile or on the change that took place two months prior to the incident would be nothing more than blatant speculation,” the court writes. Oscar does not provide any other evidence that Claymex’s decision to fire Oscar was in any way motivated by age discrimination. OPINION:Rebecca Simmons, J.; L�pez, C.J., Marion and Simmons, J.J.

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.