Brenda Brewer, Deanna Meador, Penny Adams and Sabra Curry v. Lowe's Home Centers Inc.
12-14-00155-CV
Tex. App.Jul 9, 2015Background
- Four Lowe’s employees (Brewer, Meador, Adams, Curry) were terminated after making workers’ compensation claims and being placed on light‑duty restrictions.
- Appellants claim store managers forced them to work beyond restrictions, then were covertly reclassified into limited “personal leave” (rather than workers’ compensation leave), triggering automatic termination under Lowe’s leave system.
- Appellants contend Lowe’s did not follow its own leave procedures: no employee request for personal leave, no documentation or checklist in personnel files, and no written warning letters prior to termination.
- Record evidence includes alleged manager statements that injured workers ‘‘cost’’ the store, intent to make injured employees ‘‘Lowe’s next customers’’ or to move them around to make them quit, and testimony of threats/intimidation when employees protested being worked outside restrictions.
- Trial court directed a verdict for Lowe’s on the retaliation claim; appellants’ reply brief argues the directed verdict was erroneous and that more than a scintilla of evidence supported causation under Cont’l Coffee factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence suffices to show workers’ compensation claims were a contributing cause of termination | Appellants: store managers knew of claims, expressed negative attitudes, forced work beyond restrictions, covertly reclassified employees to personal leave without notice or documentation — creating a fact issue under Cont’l Coffee | Lowe’s: evidence favors Lowe’s; terminations were the result of neutral leave policy applied by corporate (non‑retaliatory) — directed verdict proper | Appellants argue the directed verdict was erroneous; there is more than a scintilla of evidence on at least three Cont’l Coffee factors and the case should be reversed and remanded for jury trial |
| Proper standard of review on directed verdict | Appellants: court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict was instructed and ask whether more than a scintilla supports each Cont’l Coffee factor | Lowe’s: relies on weighing evidence to show factors favor Lowe’s | Appellants assert the correct standard is the scintilla sufficiency test (crediting favorable evidence and reasonable inferences); under that standard reversal is required |
| Whether employer’s stated neutral reason (personal‑leave/attendance policy) is pretextual | Appellants: failure to follow policy (no documentation/notice/warnings) and manager statements show policy was a pretext for retaliation | Lowe’s: personal‑leave process and corporate decisions justify terminations | Appellants contend evidence of policy deviations and hostile manager conduct makes the stated reason suspect and creates fact issues for a jury |
| Comparability to precedent | Appellants: this case is indistinguishable from and factually stronger than Echostar and Kings Aire (both found sufficient evidence of retaliation where leave policies were misapplied) | Lowe’s: relies on other cases where neutral policies were enforced and no retaliation found | Appellants argue Echostar and Kings Aire support reversal here because similar deviations and retaliatory evidence exist |
Key Cases Cited
- Cont'l Coffee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. 1996) (sets out circumstantial Cont’l Coffee factors for proving causation in workers’ compensation retaliation claims)
- Coastal Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 136 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. 2004) (directed‑verdict/ sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to losing party and give benefit of reasonable inferences)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (clarifies standards for reviewing evidentiary sufficiency and reasonable jury inferences)
- Echostar Satellite, L.L.C. v. Aguilar, 394 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012) (employer’s deviation from leave practices and hostile conduct created fact issue of retaliatory causation)
- Kings Aire, Inc. v. Melendez, 416 S.W.3d 898 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013) (reclassifying worker’s unlimited workers’‑comp leave to limited leave without employee consent can create a fact issue on pretext/retaliation)