Kingsaire, Inc. v. Melendez
No. 14-0006
Case Summary written by Alicia McCullar, Staff Member
JUSTICE LEHRMANN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Kings Aire, Inc. (Kings Aire), a family owned HVAC company, hired Melendez, first as a “helper tradesman” and then promoted him to “apprentice lead man” after five years of employment. While working a demolition job, Melendez suffered severe injury to his wrist, requiring surgery. An agent for Kings Aire assisted Melendez with his workers’ compensation claim, and a claim was subsequently filed on Melendez’s behalf. Further, Melendez was informed that he qualified for unpaid Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave and was placed on such leave on the first day Melendez was absent from work due to his injury. Following the allotted time of twelve weeks for FMLA leave, Melendez could not return to work and he was terminated as a result. Melendez was informed that he was invited to apply for open positions with Kings Aire as soon as a physician cleared him to return to work.
Following this action, Melendez sued Kings Aire for breach of contract and for wrongful discharge, claiming he was fired for filing a workers’ compensation claim in good faith. At trial, the jury found in favor of Melendez and awarded damages. Kings Aire appealed only the portion of the judgment related to the retaliation claim and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Describing the background for retaliation claims against employers, the Court cited Tex. Lab. Code § 451.001(1), which says in relevant part, “A person may not discharge or in any other manner discriminate against an employee because the employee has . . . filed a workers’ compensation claim in good faith.” Employers who violate this provision are subject to retaliation claims because the statute provides an exception to “employment at will.”
The evidence necessary to constitute a retaliatory finding is likened to the causation standard applied to claims brought under the Whistleblower Act. Essentially, employees must prove that the action would not have occurred when it did absent the employee’s protected conduct. Employees may rely on circumstantial causation evidence that may include an abundance of factors. Citing precedent, the Court concluded that evidence of termination for filing a workers’ compensation claim and remaining on leave is not necessarily retaliatory when the employer applies a reasonable policy and the policy is applied uniformly against all employees.
The Court applied a “more than a scintilla of evidence” standard to determine if the evidence presented by Melendez was legally sufficient to sustain a retaliation claim. Because the Court surmised that termination upon expiration of a company’s leave policy is not inherently retaliatory when reasonable and applied uniformly, the Court sought to determine if Kings Aire’s policy met these requirements. It looked first to Kings Aire’s written personnel policies, which outlined the length of time requirements for specific leaves, including FMLA leave and workers’ compensation. The written policy indicated that employees are subject to termination if they cannot return to work following twelve weeks of allowed leave, regardless of the type or reason. The Court further concluded that the leave/termination policy was applied uniformly. Namely, the Court took note that four other employees were terminated prior to Melendez under similar circumstances and in compliance with the policy. Moreover, employees who returned to work prior to the twelve-week expiration were permitted to retain employment in accordance with the company’s policy.
Melendez argued that he was not terminated in accordance with the policy because the policy is ambiguous. He argued that he should have been granted a fifteen-day grace period allowing a physician to clear him for work before Kings Aire decided to terminate Melendez. Although the court of appeals agreed that the policy provision was ambiguous and decided that Melendez rightfully relied on the fifteen-day grace period, the Court disagreed with this conclusion finding that the issue is whether the termination policy is applied uniformly. The Court found that application of the fifteen-day grace period caused “a departure from [the] uniform enforcement” of Kings Aire’s policy. Essentially, the Court found that it made no difference whether Melendez was terminated immediately following expiration of his leave or fifteen-days later.
Additionally, Melendez argued that he was terminated three-weeks into his leave when he was required to turn in his uniforms. The Court rejected this argument because the uniform turn in measure was nothing more than “meager” circumstantial evidence. Kings Aire testified that employee uniforms are rented and are turned in to account for those rentals. This practice occurred often and did not indicate termination. Lastly, Melendez argued that he was placed on FMLA leave without his consent so that Kings Aire could terminate him at the expiration of twelve weeks. The Court also rejected this argument finding that Kings Aire is federally required to place an employee on FMLA leave when they discover that the employee qualifies for that type of leave. Further, employees are afforded greater protection under FMLA and Kings Airs complied with its notice requirements. This evidence was insufficient to support a claim that Melendez was fired for filing a workers’ compensation claim in good faith.
The Court held that the presented evidence could not have supported the jury’s verdict. The Court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of Kings Aire.
JUSTICE GUZMAN, concurring.
Seeking to clarify the burden of proof relevant to this opinion, Justice Guzman wrote that the burden of persuasion compelled the result in this case. Notably, the uniform enforcement of a reasonable leave policy is an inferential rebuttal defense as opposed to an affirmative defense. A burden-shifting scheme exists because the employee initially bears the burden of proving that they were terminated for engaging in a protected activity. The inferential rebuttal defense operates to necessarily rebut an essential element of the plaintiff’s case. Proof that the leave policy was reasonable and uniformly applied provided proof contrary or inconsistent with the plaintiff’s case.