Donald Parker v. Valerus Compression Services, LP, 365 S.W.3d 61

Parker, a pipe welder for Valerus, injured his back on June 11, 2007 and received medical restrictions delaying return to full duties.
Dr. Shook later approved a sedentary return with several restrictions; Parker claimed light-duty “roll-outs” as his only permissible task.
Valerus assigned Parker to light-duty roll-outs, later moving him to a night-shift machine position, which Parker found incompatible with his restrictions.
Parker filed a workers’ compensation claim; after attempting the sub-arc position, he left the meeting and went on medical leave in August 2007.
In February 2008, Dr. Shook amended restrictions and gave Parker a 5% impairment rating; HR reviewed on extended leave and terminated Parker on April 15, 2008, along with seven others on leave.
Parker sued for workers’ compensation retaliation and discrimination; trial court granted summary judgment for Valerus; on appeal Parker challenged causation, cat’s paw theory, and damages, but the court affirmed with respect to the retaliation claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Causation and prima facie case for retaliation	Parker asserts a prima facie causal link between his claim and termination	Valerus contends evidence shows a neutral, uniform policy terminated employees on extended leave	No fact issue; Parker failed to show causal link under timeframes and evidence presented.
Similarly situated employees and pretext	Parker identified two allegedly similar workers treated differently	No evidence of similarly situated employees; Parker failed to prove differential treatment	No evidence of comparators; termination upheld under uniform leave policy.

Continental Coffee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. 1996) (causal standard for retaliation claims; but requires evidence of but-for or motivating factor related to protected activity)
Benners v. Blanks Color Imaging, Inc., 133 S.W.3d 364 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004) (burden-shifting framework for retaliation; evidence of pretext required)
Green v. Lowe’s Home Ctr., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 514 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (scope of retaliation proof; need for controverting evidence to defeat neutral reason)
Haggar Clothing Co. v. Hernandez, 164 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. 2005) (uniform enforcement of leave policy; evidence needed of differential treatment)
Cavender v. Houston Distrib. Co., 176 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (summary judgment proper when employee cannot show genuine issue under uniform leave enforcement)
Alonso v. Stanley Works, Inc., 111 S.W.3d 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (absence of evidence of similarly situated comparators undermines retaliation claim)
Larsen v. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist., 296 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (comparator evidence requirements for leave-related retaliation)
Turner v. Precision Surgical, L.L.C., 274 S.W.3d 245 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (causal link standard and retaliation burden shifting)