Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Employer's Motion for Summary Judgment - Workers' Compensation Retaliation Case

NO. _____________

Plaintiff

v.

Defendant

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

____________________, TEXAS

______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[NAME]

State Bar No. _____________

[ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER]

Attorney for Plaintiff

[Note: the following is a sample table of contents and authorities. After inserting case information into the form, it can be used as a template for developing case-specific tables.]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents i, ii

Table of Authorities iii, iv

Overview 1

Response to Grounds for Summary Judgment 1

Election of Remedies 1

Quasi Estoppel 2

Termination 3

Causal Link 3

Defendant’s Proffered Non Discriminatory Reason 4

Defendant’s Retaliatory Motive 5

Conclusion 5

Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Evidence 5

Disputed Material Facts 6

A Fact Issue Exists Over Whether Plaintiff Notified Defendant of a

Medical Retirement in _____________ 6

Multiple Fact Issues Exist Over Defendant’s Alleged Light Duty Program 7

A Fact Issue Exists Over Whether Plaintiff May Return to Work 8

Conclusion 9

Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts 9

Decision Makers 9

Plaintiff’s Exemplary Career 11

Plaintiff Suffered a Work Related Injury and Filed a Workers’

Compensation Claim in Good Faith 12

Defendant’s Discriminatory Post Injury Treatment of Plaintiff 12

The Discharge Decision 15

Post Termination Events 19

Argument and Authorities 20

The Texas Workers’ Compensation Act 21

Defendant’s Arguments Lack Merit 24

Election of Remedies 24

Quasi Estoppel 29

Plaintiff Has Presented Evidence that He Was Terminated 33

Plaintiff Has Presented Evidence of a Causal Link 36

Knowledge of Plaintiff’s Workers’ Compensation Claim

by Officials Who Made the Termination Decision 38

Expression of A Negative Attitude Towards Plaintiff’s

Injured Condition 38

Defendant’s Failure to Adhere to Established Policies 40

Defendant’s Disparate Treatment of Crowdis 41

Defendant’s Articulated Reason for Crowdis’ Discharge was False 43

Financial Incentives 43

Jones v. City of McKinney 44

Conclusion 45

Defendant’s Proffered Reason 45

Retaliatory Motive 48

Conclusion 50

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Bocanegra v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 605 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. 1980) 1, 25

Carnation v. Borner, 610 S.W.2d 450 (Tex. 1980) 22

Chhim v. University of Houston,

76 S.W.3d 210 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2002, pet. denied) 45, 48

City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1979) 1

City of University Park v. Van Doren,

65 S.W.3d 240 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2001, pet. denied) 23, 25, 30

Classen v. Irving Healthcare Sys., 868 S.W.2d 815 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1993 ) 23

Conex Int’l Corp. v. Cox, 18 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 2000, pet. denied) 26, 27

Continental Coffee Prods. v. Casarez, 937 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. 1996) 4, 38

Fraud-Tech, Inc. v. Choicepoint, Inc., 102 S.W.3d 366, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 2732

(Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) 25, 29, 34, 36, 46, 49

Heinsohn v. Trans-Con Adjustment Bureau,

939 S.W.2d 793 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 1997, writ denied) 3, 22, 37, 44

Huckabee v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., 19 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. 2000) 50

Jones v. City McKinney, 1996 Tex. App. LEXIS 5328

(Tex. App. – Dallas Nov. 22, 1996, writ denied) 22, 25, 44, 45

KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Hous. Fin. Corp.,

988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) 25, 30

Malone v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,

8 S.W.3d 710 (Tex. App. – Forth Worth 1999, pet. denied) 34, 36, 49

Medina v. Herrera, 927 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. 1996) 27

Mission Consol. Indep. School Dist. v. Flores,

39 S.W.3d 674 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2001) 22, 23

Quantum Chem. Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2001) 39

Ramirez v. Pecan Deluxe Candy Co.,

839 S.W.2d 101 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1992, writ denied) 28

Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. Steel, 997 S.W.2d 217 (Tex. 1999) 46

Rogers v. United Reg’l Health Care Sys., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 4175

(Tex. App. – Fort Worth, May 15, 2003, no pet.) 25

Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. 1996) 25, 30

Science Spectrum, Inc. v. Martinez, 941 S.W.2d 910 (Tex. 1997) 1

Stimpson v. Plano Indep. School Dist.,

743 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1987, writ denied) 2, 32, 33

Steubner Realty 19, Ltd. v. Cravens Road 88, Ltd.,

817 S.W.2d 160 (Tex. App. – Houston [14^th Dist.] 1991, no writ) 30, 32

Texas Mexican Ry. v. Bouchet, 963 S.W.2d 51 (Tex. 1998) 21

Texas Steel Co. v. Douglas,

533 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. Civ. App. – Forth Worth 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.) 22

Trevino v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 850 S.W.2d 806

(Tex. App. – El Paso 1993, writ denied) 4, 37, 43, 45

Upchurch v. Albear, 5 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 1999, pet. denied) 29

Urquidi v. Phelps Dodge Ref. Co., 973 S.W.2d 400 (Tex.App. – El Paso 1998, no pet.) 44

Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Austin, 46 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 423 (Feb. 6, 2003) 26

Wyler Indus. Works v. Garcia...