 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Manning v. Alcatel Network Systems12/14/1999
Velma Manning appeals the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Alcatel Network Systems, Inc. (Alcatel) on her employment discrimination cause of action. In her second point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on the expiration of the statute of limitations because she presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she received unequivocal notice of her termination in August 1992. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude the trial court did not err in granting Alcatel's motion for summary judgment. Therefore, we overrule appellant's four points of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
According to appellant's original petition, filed August 1, 1996, Alcatel "terminated [appellant] in retaliation based upon her filing a workers' compensation claim relating to her injuries" suffered "on the job . . . ." Alcatel thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment asserting, among other grounds, appellant's "retaliatory discharge claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations." Alcatel contended appellant's cause of action accrued on August 5, 1992 because appellant testified during her deposition she was terminated by Alcatel that day. Alcatel further argued that even if appellant was not officially terminated until she received a letter dated August 5, 1994 and appellant had merely been on a medical leave of absence since August 5, 1992, her cause of action still accrued on August 5, 1992 under the Texas Supreme Court's holding in Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. DeMoranville, 933 S.W.2d 490 (Tex. 1996). Therefore, Alcatel claimed appellant's cause of action was barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, Alcatel attached excerpts of appellant's deposition testimony. According to appellant, on August 5, 1992, "Mr. Gaddy [Alcatel's plant manager] gave . . . the order to take my badge and terminate me . . . ." Appellant further testified she considered herself "terminated" and her "badge was taken" in August 1992. Alcatel also attached excerpts of appellant's deposition testimony given during the pendency of appellant's federal court cause of action against Alcatel. In response to the question "When were you terminated from employment with Alcatel Network Systems?" appellant replied "August 5th, 1992."
The order granting Alcatel's motion for summary judgment does not specify the grounds relied on for the ruling. Appellant filed a motion for new trial and timely perfected this appeal. In her second point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in rendering summary judgment in favor of Alcatel based on the expiration of the statute of limitations because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether she received unequivocal notice of her termination in August 1992.STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews a summary judgment de novo to determine whether a party's right to prevail is established as a matter of law. See Foreness v. Hexamer, 971 S.W.2d 525, 527 (Tex. App._Dallas 1997, pet. denied), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 240 (1998). The standards for reviewing a summary judgment are well established:
(1) the movant for summary judgment has the burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; (2) in deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant will be taken as true; and (3) every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the non-movant and any doubts resolved in its fav
Page 1 2 3 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|