Defendant's trial brief: F.I., breach of contract, handbook, mitigation
NO. _______
_______________ and § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
_______________ §
§
VS. § _________ COUNTY, TEXAS
§
_______________ INC., §
formerly known as §
____________, INC. § _______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANT'S TRIAL BRIEF
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-
INTRODUCTION
-
Facts 3
-
Causes of Action and Summary of Plaintiff's Contentions 3
C. Summary of Defendant's Contentions 4
-
-
NEITHER THE LAW NOR THE UNDISPUTED FACTS IN THIS CASE SUPPORT PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT
A. Legal Standard 5
B. The Facts of this Case 5
C. Cases on Point Justify Granting Summary Judgment on this Issue 7
-
NEITHER THE LAW NOR THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THIS CASE SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT
A. Plaintiff Was an At-Will Employee 10
-
Texas Law Provides Employment Generally At-Will……....................................... 10
B. Three Defendant Documents Containing Disclaimers Negate
Any Basis for Altering Plaintiff's At-Will Status 10
-
Job Application Proves Plaintiff was At-Will Employee………………………….. 10
-
The Disclaimer in the Policy Manual Conclusively Proves it Cannot be a Contract ………………………………………………………………………………………10
-
Disclaimer in Employee Handbook Conclusively
Negates Any Change in Plaintiff's At-Will Status 12
C. Generally an Employee Manual Does Not Constitute a Contract
D. The Policy Manual Was Not Generally Distributed To Employees and Therefore Could Not Be a Contract 13
E. Even if the Policy Manual is a Contract, Defendant Complied With the Policy Manual When it Discharged Plaintiff 14
-
Policy Manual Permits Immediate Dismissal for Misconduct Without the Necessity of Progressive Discipline 14
-
Plaintiff Committed Serious Misconduct………………………………………….. 15
a. Plaintiff's Fraud Justified Immediate Dismissal 15
b. Plaintiff's Repeated and Significant Violations of Her Obligational
Authority Justified Immediate Dismissal ………………………………….. 15
c. Repeated Major Violations of Defendant's Policies and Procedures Justified Immediate Dismissal 15
d. Plaintiff's Misrepresentation of Defendant's Assets Justified Immediate Dismissal 15
e. Plaintiff's Dishonesty With Her Supervisor Justified Immediate Dismissal 15
f. Plaintiff Was Dishonest With the Employees she Supervised 15
g. Racial Comments and Disparate Treatment
Justified Immediate Dismissal………………………………………………… 15
-
-
PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS DO NOT SUPPORT THE DAMAGES REQUESTED
A. Plaintiff May Not Recover the Damages Requested
on a Breach of Contract Claim…………………………………………………………….. 15
B. All of Plaintiff's Economic Damages Were Extinguished as of the Time She Quit Her Employment With Company 16
-
CONCLUSION 17
NO. _________
______________ and § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
______________ §
§
VS. § _________ COUNTY, TEXAS
§
____________INC., §
formerly known as §
____________, INC. § ________ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANT'S TRIAL BRIEF
COMES NOW Defendant ________________, INC. and would show the Court as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Facts
[Provide detailed fact summary.]
B. Causes of Action and Summary of Plaintiff's Contentions
Plaintiff has pled two causes of action against Defendant: 1) false imprisonment, and 2) a cause of action for breach of contract. The breach of contract claim is based upon the allegation that other supervisors at Defendant allegedly told Plaintiff that employees could not be fired unless Defendant first followed its progressive discipline policy. Plaintiff claims that these statements orally modified her at-will status.
Plaintiff claims that her mistakes and improprieties occurred because that was how she was told to do her job or because she did not receive adequate training. Plaintiff maintains that her dishonesty was simply "little white lies" and that the racial comments were "taken in a way that was not meant. I've never said anything to hurt anyone on purpose."1 Thus, Plaintiff claims that she should have been put on written notice rather than terminated immediately. Plaintiff further claims that the _________ meeting in a conference room, where she was given a chance to explain her actions, constituted false imprisonment. Plaintiff claims false imprisonment because she was upset by the meeting.
C. Summary of Defendant's Contentions
Since she was an at-will employee, Defendants could fire Plaintiff at any time for any reason at all. Further, the three written disclaimers Defendant gave to Plaintiff defeat any basis for concluding that her at-will status was modified. Thus, Defendant was entitled to fire Plaintiff immediately. Ruling otherwise would overturn long-standing precedent on this issue. Even assuming that Defendant had to follow the procedures in its policy manual, Defendant did so. The Policy Manual -- upon which Plaintiff's entire contract claim is based -- provides that an employee can be immediately terminated for "misconduct." The definition of misconduct includes fraud, dishonesty, violation of established standards and harassment of another employee because of race. Overwhelming and undisputable evidence shows that Plaintiff committed serious misconduct, including forging documents and lying to: supervisors, employees and customers. The avalanche of evidence proves beyond any doubt that Plaintiff was guilty of misconduct.
In light of the serious nature and numerous instances of misconduct, this Court would create extremely bad public policy if it holds that the Defendant could not immediately discharge the Plaintiff. The misconduct involves issues of honesty, trustworthiness and integrity. Such issues, by definition, cannot be cured by progressive discipline.
To hold otherwise would mean that if an employee brought a gun to work, stole money, or as in this case forged documents and lied to the company and its customers, a company would have to put the individual on probation. What was Defendant supposed to do with Plaintiff? “Plaintiff, you are put on probation for being untrustworthy, but don't forge documents and lie for the next two months and you can keep your job”?
Plaintiff’s false imprisonment claim is totally without merit. The meeting was conducted in a conference room at work during working hours, while Plaintiff was being paid. Further, Plaintiff was free to leave the room at any time and when the Plaintiff requested that the meeting be adjourned so she could pick up her daughter from day care the meeting was adjourned. If the Court does not grant a directed verdict on this claim, it means that no employer can have a meeting with an employee to discuss performance problems without the threat of liability for false imprisonment. Further, failure to grant directed verdict on the false imprisonment cause of action ignores a plethora of case law and would create extremely bad public policy.
II. NEITHER THE LAW NOR THE UNDISPUTED FACTS IN THIS
CASE SUPPORT PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT
A. Legal Standard
The Texas Supreme Court recently held that the elements of false imprisonment are:
(1) a willful detention of another;
(2) without the detainee's consent; and
(3) without legal authority.
Randall's Food Markets, Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d, 640, 644 (Tex 1995).
In an employment setting, a meeting between an employer and employee directly relating to the employee's job duties conducted, while the employee is "on the clock" and being compensated, is not false imprisonment. Safeway Stores v. Amburn, 388 S.W.2d 443, 446 (Tex. Civ. App.--Fort Worth 1965, no writ). Even a confrontational meeting between the employer and employee that “scares” the employee does not constitute false imprisonment. Id. The Randall's court noted that generally “[a] detention may be accomplished by violence, by threat, or by any other means that restrains a person from moving from one place to another.” Id. However, voluntary compliance on the part of the complaining party, to “establish his or her innocence” of suspicion of wrongdoing will not support a finding of false imprisonment. Martinez v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 651 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1983, no writ).
B. The Facts of this Case
It is undisputed that Defendant employed Plaintiff. Defendant asked Plaintiff to attend a meeting on _________, ____ to discuss Plaintiff's serious misconduct and complaints of discrimination. Plaintiff's Depo, vol. 2, p. 65, lines 6-10. The meeting was conducted during Plaintiff's normal working hours, at Plaintiff's regular place of employment and Plaintiff received compensation identical to that of any other work day. Lunch was brought into the meeting and Plaintiff admitted that the meeting might have stopped for lunch. Plaintiff's Depo. vol. I, p. 121, lines 6-11.
Plaintiff claims that her mere presence in the meeting without an opportunity to respond or review her files constituted false imprisonment. Plaintiffs' Amended Petition para. IX. However, Plaintiff's deposition testimony clearly establishes that, as a matter of law, Defendant did not falsely imprison Plaintiff. The following deposition excerpts conclusively establish that: (1) Plaintiff was not detained or restrained from moving from one place to another; (2) Plaintiff had prior knowledge of the meeting, yet never expressed any desire not to attend or to leave the meeting; (3) Plaintiff fully consented to the meeting; and (4) Defendant had authority to call a meeting with one of its employees to address misconduct and racial discrimination allegations. These facts are undisputed:
1) Plaintiff never objected to the meeting.
2) Plaintiff did not say she wanted the meeting delayed.2
3) Plaintiff did not have a problem with the fact that Defendant wanted a meeting.
4) Plaintiff wanted to know what Defendant thought she did wrong.3
5) The door did not have a lock on it.
6) There was never any time when Plaintiff felt like she couldn't leave that meeting if she wanted to.4
7) Plaintiff was allowed to leave the meeting when she wanted.5
Thus, it is clear from Plaintiff's own...
To continue reading
Request your trial