Michael Johnson and Kennard Law P.C. v. Valero Services, Inc.

Summary

This memorandum opinion concerns an appeal by Michael Johnson from summary judgment dismissing his Texas Labor Code discrimination and retaliation claims against Valero Services, Inc., and by Kennard Law P.C. from discovery sanctions. The Ninth District Court of Appeals at Beaumont analyzes the requirements for prima facie race and disability discrimination claims, retaliation, summary-judgment evidence, and the reasonableness of sanctions. The court states that it affirms in part and reverses and remands in part.

Holdings

1. Johnson failed to establish the similarly situated-employee element of a prima facie TCHRA race-discrimination claim because his assertions that other employees received more favorable treatment were conclusory and lacked specific details or evidence.
2. Johnson failed to establish a prima facie disability-discrimination claim because he did not produce evidence that his acute stress disorder or anxiety substantially limited a major life activity or that Valero regarded him as having such an impairment.
3. Even assuming Johnson established a prima facie retaliation claim, Valero rebutted the resulting presumption with a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination, and Johnson failed to produce evidence that the reason was pretextual or that his protected activity was the but-for cause of termination.
4. The court did not address Johnson's FMLA-retaliation argument because his petition pleaded retaliation under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code but did not plead retaliation based on taking FMLA leave.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike Valero's SRTF-1008 policy and related declaration testimony because supplemental declaration testimony authenticated the policy and explained the inconsistent date as a typographical error.
6. The trial court abused its discretion by awarding $7,660 in attorney's-fee sanctions without sufficient affirmative evidence establishing the fees' reasonableness, necessity, calculation, and causal connection to the discovery abuse.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Johnson produced more than a scintilla of evidence establishing a prima facie claim of race discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act.
2. Whether Johnson produced evidence that he had a statutory disability or was regarded as having a disability for purposes of his disability-discrimination claim.
3. Whether Johnson established a TCHRA retaliation claim by showing protected activity, adverse employment action, causation, and pretext.
4. Whether Johnson could pursue an FMLA-retaliation theory when he did not plead retaliation based on FMLA leave.
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Valero's SRTF-1008 policy and related declaration testimony.
6. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing $7,660 in discovery sanctions without sufficient evidence establishing the amount of attorney's fees.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded