Brenda Brewer, Deanna Meador, Penny Adams and Sabra Curry v. Lowe's Home Centers Inc.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 12-14-00155-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 14, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Brenda Brewer, Deanna Meador, Penny Adams, and Sabra Curry (Claimants) appealed a directed verdict in favor of Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. after they were terminated for exceeding the allowable personal leave under the company policy following on-the-job injuries and corresponding worker’s compensation claims. The Claimants alleged that their terminations were retaliatory or discriminatory due to their worker’s compensation claims. Lowe’s contended that the terminations were based on the uniform application of its personal leave policy. The trial court found insufficient evidence from the Claimants to establish causation or to rebut Lowe’s legitimate reason for discharge, leading to the directed verdict. 

On appeal, the Claimants argued that the trial court erred by granting the directed verdict, asserting that there was sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue on causation and that the leave policy was a false pretext for their terminations. The court's standard of review required considering evidence favorably for the Claimants and determining if there was more than a mere scintilla of evidence to support their claims. A directed verdict is justified when there is insufficient evidence on essential factual elements or when the evidence conclusively establishes a defense. The Texas Labor Code prohibits discrimination against employees for filing worker’s compensation claims in good faith. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's decision.

To establish a retaliatory discharge claim, an employee must demonstrate that the employer's action would not have occurred but for the employee's filing of a workers' compensation claim. Uniform enforcement of a reasonable absence control policy does not qualify as retaliatory discharge; an employer can lawfully terminate an employee for violating such a policy if it is uniformly enforced. To prove that a policy was not uniformly enforced, an employee must provide competent evidence of being similarly situated to others who received preferential treatment. Circumstantial evidence of causation is irrelevant if terminations stem from the uniform application of the policy.

In this case, claimants alleged that after their injuries, management coerced them into violating doctors’ light-duty restrictions, aiming to force them to quit or take medical leave. They claimed that Lowe’s misclassified their leave as personal leave to trigger terminations under the policy, which states that employees exceeding 240 days of leave will be terminated unless legally prohibited. Evidence indicated that Lowe’s home office, not store management, determines leave limits, with terminations generated automatically by a computer based on the absence control policy.

The claimants failed to show that the personal leave policy was not uniformly enforced, as they did not present evidence of different treatment compared to similarly situated employees. Their assertion that the policy was not followed was unsupported, as they did not provide evidence that required documentation was missing from their files; the relevant forms were merely recommended, not mandated. Additionally, claimants did not substantiate their claim of being misclassified for leave, as they acknowledged not receiving workers' compensation benefits during their leave and did not dispute the dates or the fact that they exceeded the allowed leave days.

Claimants did not demonstrate that Lowe's personal leave policy was not applied uniformly, failing to prove the policy was a false pretext for their terminations. As a result, the trial court's decision to grant Lowe's motion for directed verdict was upheld, leading to the overruling of Claimants' second issue. Since the second issue was overruled, the court did not need to address the first issue concerning causation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ordering that all costs of the appeal be borne by the Claimants. The opinion was delivered by Justice Greg Neeley on October 14, 2015, with a panel consisting of Chief Justice Worthen, Justice Hoyle, and Justice Neeley.