398 S.W.3d 824
Tex. App.2012Background
- Cantu was a court coordinator for Hidalgo County and his employment was terminated in 2006.
- He filed a Level 1 grievance and a discrimination charge with the Texas Workforce Commission’s Division; Level 2 grievance was withdrawn after the charge and mediation was pursued.
- Cantu sued for age and gender discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Labor Code, alleging retaliation for filing the Division charge and for exercising internal grievance rights.
- A jury trial focused only on retaliation; the jury answered no to whether the County discharged him for protected activity but yes to whether it refused to allow Level 2 grievance hearing due to his filing the charge.
- The County moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict to disregard the jury’s answer on the Level 2 grievance issue, arguing no evidence or immateriality; the trial court granted JNOV.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that the internal grievance termination did not constitute a tangible adverse employment action and that the jury’s answer was immaterial, so the JNOV was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether internal grievance termination is an adverse action | Cantu argues termination of the internal grievance is an adverse action. | County contends post-termination actions cannot be adverse actions; it was a lawful, defensive measure. | No; termination of internal grievance was not a tangible adverse action. |
| Whether the Level 2 grievance finding was material to liability | Cantu asserts the finding supports retaliation liability. | County argues the finding is immaterial to liability since no harm occurred. | No; finding was immaterial to liability. |
| Standard and scope for JNOV in retaliation claims | Cantu contends the jury’s findings should stand if supported by evidence. | County asserts immateriality and lack of evidence justify JNOV. | The trial court acted within standard to grant JNOV based on immaterial finding and lack of injury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. Supreme Court 2006) (material adversity threshold for adverse action in retaliation claims)
- Veprinsky v. Fluor Daniel, Inc., 87 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 1996) (post-termination conduct can form retaliation claim only with tangible impact)
- Spencer v. Eagle Star Ins. Co. of Am., 876 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. 1994) (immaterial jury findings can be disregarded)
- Dias v. Goodman Mfg. Co., 214 S.W.3d 672 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (prima facie retaliation under TCHRA and causal link)
- Pineda v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 360 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2004) (burden-shifting framework for retaliation beyond prima facie case)