 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Garcia v. Allen6/8/2000
t causal connection:
A plaintiff does not have to prove that her discharge was solely because of her workers' compensation claim. . . . She merely has to establish the "causal connection" between her discharge and the filing of a workers' compensation claim as an element of her prima facie case. . . . Circumstantial evidence, and the reasonable inferences from such evidence, can prove the causal connection. . . . Once the link is established, it is the employer's burden to rebut the alleged discrimination by showing there was a legitimate reason behind the discharge. . . .
Circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish a causal link between termination and filing a compensation claim includes: (1) knowledge of the compensation claim by those making the decision on termination; (2) expression of a negative attitude toward the employee's injured condition; (3) failure to adhere to established company policies; (4) discriminatory treatment in comparison to similarly situated employees; and (5) evidence that the stated reason for the discharge was false. . . .
Continental Coffee Products Co. v. Casarez, 937 S.W.2d 444, 450-51 (Tex. 1996) (internal citations omitted).
We hold that Garcia has failed to offer evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact with regard to the elements above. In its motion for summary judgment, Celanese articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Garcia. It offered evidence that the company has a "restricted duty policy" which states that restricted duty is only available when the employee is progressing toward unrestricted duty. While Garcia was allowed to modify his duties prior to the 1997 surgery, he was not given "light duty" once his doctor instituted permanent restrictions against him climbing, crawling, squatting or kneeling. The El Paso court of appeals heard a similar case where the employee was allowed to perform light duty at one period of employment, then not allowed later. The court stated:
[The employee] suggests that evidence of discrimination is found in the different manner in which the company treated him before and after he filed the workers' compensation claim in May of 1989. Following the laceration of his finger in 1988, [the employee] was permitted to work in a light duty job for several weeks while he recovered. When he attempted to return to work in 1990, he was informed there were no light duty jobs available. The employer presented no evidence that a light duty job existed or was available at any time after May of 1989. In the absence of any policy or practice to the contrary, the company's refusal to create a light duty job for [the employee] does not give rise to an inference of discrimination or retaliation. Further, both decisions were made pursuant to the company's light duty policy which permits a person to return to work if their recuperation is expected to take less than thirty work shifts. [The employee] was given a light duty job in 1988 because it was believed that he would recuperate from the lacerated finger in a short period of time, whereas it was apparent that his recuperation from carpal tunnel syndrome would require substantially longer. Because there is no evidence of discriminatory application or impact on workers' compensation claimants in general or on [the employee] in particular, we cannot infer a negative attitude or discrimination in violation of Section 451.001 from the existence of this otherwise lawful employment policy.
Urquidi v. Phelps Dodge Refining Corp., 973 S.W.2d 400, 405 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1998, no pet.)
The only evidence that Garcia has is that the person making the termination decision knew about his workers' co
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|