 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Delaney v. Alamo Workforce Development Council3/22/2000
Opinion by:Alma L. López, Justice
AFFIRMED
This appeal arises from an employment discrimination lawsuit. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Because we find the trial court's judgments are proper, we affirm.
Background
Previously, the appellant, Donald Delaney, worked for Alamo Workforce Development Council, Inc. (AWD), one of the appellees in this case. Appellee, Nickie Valdez, served as president of AWD. Valdez fired Delaney on June 7, 1997. Delaney, convinced that he was the victim of gender and race discrimination, sued AWD and Valdez. In his pleading, Delaney alleged three causes of action: (1) AWD and Nickie Valdez violated section 21.051 of the Texas Labor Code by discriminating against him on the basis of gender and national origin (Delaney is a white male), and by discriminating against black AWD employees; (2) AWD and Valdez violated section 451.001 of the labor code by firing him for filing a worker's compensation claim; and (3) AWD and Nickie Valdez violated 29 USC, section 2615, by retaliating against him because he pursued his rights under the Family Leave and Medical Act (FMLA).
In response, the appellees/defendants moved for summary judgment on each of Delaney's claims. Delaney, in turn, moved for partial summary judgment on his allegation that the defendants violated the FMLA, and he filed objections to the defendants' summary judgment evidence. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, overruled Delaney's objections to the defendants' summary judgment evidence, and denied Delaney's motion for partial summary judgment. Delaney appeals the summary judgment orders. On appeal, Delaney raises three issues: (1) the trial court erred in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment, (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for partial summary judgment, and (3) the trial court erred by denying his motion to strike the defendants' summary judgment evidence.
Standard of Review
When reviewing an order granting summary judgment, the court of appeals must determine whether the summary judgment evidence establishes as a matter of law that no genuine issue of fact exists as to one or more of the essential elements of the plaintiff's cause of action. See Gibbs v. General Motors Corp.,450 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Tex. 1970). The movant for summary judgment has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985). In deciding whether a disputed material fact issue exists, the court of appeals will view evidence favorable to the non-movant as true. See Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49. The reviewing court must indulge every reasonable inference in favor of the non-movant and resolve any doubts in the non-movant's favor. Id.
Delaney's Employment Discrimination Claim
Delaney alleged that AWD and Nickie Valdez violated section 21.051 of the Texas Labor Code by discriminating against him because of his gender and his national origin, and by discriminating against black AWD employees. In relevant part, section 21.051 provides that an employer commits an unlawful employment practice if, because of race or national origin, the employer "discharges an individual, or discriminates in any other manner against an individual in connection with compensation or the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment." Tex. Lab. Code § 21.051 (Vernon 1996). To prevail on an allegation of employment discrimination, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. A plaintiff can establis
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|