 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Delaney v. Alamo Workforce Development Council3/22/2000
lth condition exists. The summary judgment evidence indicates that Delaney hurt his back on March 26, 1997, but that he did not seek treatment for his back until April 11, 1997. The treating physician asked that he be released from duty for that day and then released him for regular duty. Because Delaney was clearly able to perform the functions of his position, the injury could not have been a serious health condition as a matter of law. As for Delaney's wife, the evidence indicates that she had a baby, not that she suffered any serious health condition. No evidence exists that Delaney ever availed himself of a protected right under the FMLA. As a result, both an order granting summary judgment for the defendants on Delaney's FMLA claim, and an order denying Delaney's motion for partial summary judgment on this issue, would have been proper.
Delaney's Objections to Defendants' Summary Judgment Evidence
Included within the defendants' summary judgment evidence were several affidavits that Delaney moved to strike. Specifically, Delaney objected to Valdez's affidavit wherein she described employment actions regarding other white male AWD employees as irrelevant because some of the employees had been hired after he (Delaney) was fired. Relevant evidence means "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Tex. R. Evid. 401. Although some of the employment actions described in Valdez's affidavit occurred subsequent to Delaney's termination, AWD's employment actions in regards to white males would tend to make it more probable or less probable that Delaney was discriminated against because he was a white male. Consequently, denying Delaney's motion to strike Valdez's affidavit was proper.
Delaney also objected to statements in affidavits by Belinda Gomez, Michael de la Garza, and Jerry Perez about the affiants having never seen Valdez discriminate against anyone. As a defendant, statements about Valdez's conduct as an employee and president of AWD would tend to make it more probable or less probable that Delaney was fired because he was a white male. Consequently, denying Delaney's motion to strike affidavits by Gomez, de la Garza, and Perez was proper. Because the trial court's ruling was proper, we overrule Delaney's issue challenging the trial court's ruling on his motion to strike.
Conclusion
Summary judgment in favor of the defendants was proper on all three of Delaney's causes of action. As a result, we overrule Delaney's issues concerning the trial court's ruling on the defendants' motion for summary judgment and on his motion for partial summary judgment. Having overruled each of Delaney's issues, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
DO NOT PUBLISH
|