 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Garcia v. Allen6/8/2000
r To Termination
We hold that an employer has no duty to investigate information about an at-will employee prior to terminating that employee. To impose upon employers a previously unrecognized duty runs the risk of abrogating the traditional at-will employment relationship, which is the norm in Texas. Cf. City of Midland v. O'Bryant, No. 97-0954, 2000 WL 351205 at *5 (Tex. April 6, 2000). Absent a contract, the relationship between worker and employer is "at will," except for a few very narrow exceptions, with each party being able to end it at any time without reason or justification. See Winters v. Houston Chronicle Pub. Co., 795 S.W.2d 723, 726 (Tex. 1990); East Line & R.R.R. Co. v. Scott, 72 Tex. 70, 10 S.W. 99, 102 (1888); see also Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. 1985) (recognizing a narrow exception for an employee discharged for the sole reason of refusing to perform an illegal act). The Texas Supreme Court has refused to impose a general duty of good faith and fair dealing upon employers under an at-will employment agreement, stating:
A court-created duty of good faith and fair dealing would completely alter the nature of the at-will employment relationship, which generally can be terminated by either party for any reason or no reason at all, and we accordingly decline to change the at-will nature of employment in Texas.
City of Midland v. O'Bryant, No. 97-0954, 2000 WL 351205 at *5.
This court has already held that an employer owes no duty to investigate allegations against an employee before terminating the employee. Rios v. Texas Commerce Bancshares, Inc., 930 S.W.2d 809, 816 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1996, writ denied); see also Palmer v. Miller Brewing Co., 852 S.W.2d 57, 63 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1993, writ denied) (holding that employer has no duty to investigate reasons for chronic absences prior to terminating employee). An employer does not have to justify the reasons it terminated an employee under an at-will employment contract. We hold that Celanese had no duty to investigate Garcia's physical ability to perform his job functions prior to terminating his employment.
B. Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention
Next, Garcia urges that the well-established common law doctrine regarding negligent hiring and supervision of employees imposed a duty upon Celanese corporation to exercise reasonable care in supervising Garcia's supervisors so that they did not cause injury to Garcia. Under that doctrine,
an employer has a duty to adequately hire, train, and supervise employees. The negligent performance of those duties may impose liability on an employer if the complainant's injuries result from the employer's failure to take reasonable precautions to protect the complainant from the misconduct of its employees.
Castillo v. Gared, Inc., 1 S.W.3d 781, 786 (Tex. App.-Hous. [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (citing Mackey v. U.P. Enterprises, Inc., 935 S.W.2d 446, 459 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1996, no writ)); accord Golden Spread Council, Inc. v. Akins, 926 S.W.2d 287, 294 (Tex. 1996); Verinakis v. Medical Profiles, Inc., 987 S.W.2d 90, (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied); Houser v. Smith, 968 S.W.2d 542, 544 (Tex. App.-Austin 1998, no pet.); Robertson v. Church of God, Intern., 978 S.W.2d 120, 124 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1997, pet. denied); Restatement (Second) of Torts ยง 315.
At first blush, Garcia's claims do appear to be governed by this doctrine. However, we do not believe this is an appropriate application of the doctrine of negligent supervision. Garcia has cited us to no case where this doctrine was imported into a similar fact scenario. And we f
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.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|