 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Garcia v. Allen6/8/2000
ind that if we were to hold that the failure to adequately supervise management-level employees resulting in the termination of an employee without adequate investigation were actionable under this doctrine, we would be again abrogating the traditional at-will employment relationship. A contested firing can virtually always be re-cast as a "failure, on the part of the employer, to adequately supervise the personnel in charge of hiring and firing."
The rule regarding adequate supervision and hiring of employees typically has been applied in situations that either involve physical danger or where the alleged inadequate supervision caused harm to third persons rather than co-workers. See Sibley v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of Tex., 998 S.W.2d 399, 403-04 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1999, no pet.) (holding that the doctrine extends only to prevent the employee or independent contractor from causing physical harm to a third party); Verinakis, 987 S.W.2d at 97-98 (duty under theory of negligent supervision only extends to prevent the employee or independent contractor from causing physical harm to a third party); cf Hendrix v. Bexar County Hosp. Dist., No. 04-98-00833-CV, 2000 WL 36098, (Tex. App.-San Antonio December 30, 1999, no pet. hist.) (involving sexual assault upon patient by hospital employee); Duran v. Furr's Supermarkets, Inc., 921 S.W.2d 778, 789-90 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1996, no writ) (involving assault and battery of a customer). Under that theory, Garcia's claim would fail because he has not alleged physical injury in this case.
The San Antonio court of appeals took a different tack in holding that an employer cannot be held liable for the negligent hiring, retaining, training, or supervising of its employee unless the employee committed an actionable tort. See Gonzales v. Willis, 995 S.W.2d 729, 739 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.) (where employee made sexual advances on job applicant, but where employee's conduct did not rise to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress, or any other recognized tort). That court stated:
This rule comports with the fundamental tort principle that a person is not liable for negligence, no matter how egregious, unless the negligence causes a legally compensable injury . See W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts ยง 30, at 165 (5th ed.1984). In the context of negligent hiring claims, if the employee did not commit an actionable tort, the plaintiff has not been injured in the eyes of the law; therefore, the employer's negligence has not caused a legally compensable injury.
We have already held that failing to investigate the ability of an employee to perform his job duties before terminating him is not an actionable tort. Thus, under the San Antonio court's rationale, Garcia's claim would also fail.
This court would be, effectively, creating a new common law tort which has until now been expressly rejected if we interpret the negligent supervision doctrine as encompassing a duty that employers supervise their employees in a manner that prevents the "wrongful termination" of other employees. We hold that employers do not have a duty to supervise their employees in a manner that prevents other employees from being terminated without sufficient justification for the termination. Accordingly, no cause of action for negligence will lie in that scenario. To hold otherwise would encroach into the employer's absolute right to terminate an at-will employee.
We affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Celanese on Garcia's negligence cause of action.
II. Defamation Claims
Next, Garcia claims the trial court erred in granting summa
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.
|
|