352 S.W.3d 191
Tex. App.2011Background
- Dworschak was employed in Singapore as a senior project manager for Transocean; he attended a project meeting with five Transocean employees and three SSPL representatives.
- During the meeting, the dispute over project deadlines led Dworschak to become upset; witnesses described him as blocking exit or pushing an SSPL employee, causing Singh to fall.
- Dworschak gave conflicting accounts of the incident; one deposition described him pleading with Singh, another affidavit described limited room to pass and a minor contact causing Singh to trip.
- Transocean investigated, terminated Dworschak on April 18, 2008, and noted in emails that he admitted blocking the exit and pushing Singh.
- Dworschak alleged pretext, claiming retaliation for whistleblowing on billing/irregularities with a subcontractor; he sued on multiple theories on September 24, 2008.
- The trial court granted Transocean’s no-evidence summary judgment on all claims; Dworschak appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract despite at-will status | Dworschak had a formal contract | Employment was at-will per signed memos | No material fact; at-will presumption stands; no breach |
| Wrongful discharge under company policies | Policies create contractual expectations for termination | At-will status overrides policy-based claims | No evidence of violation; at-will governs; no wrongful discharge |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress | Termination and investigation were extreme and outrageous | Ordinary employment dispute; not extreme or outrageous | Insufficient evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct |
| Defamation | Transocean published defamatory statements about him | Statements are not specified and are waived on appeal | Waived on appeal; no consideration |
| Age discrimination and exhaustion of administrative remedies | Dworschak was treated differently and claims under TCHRA | Requires exhaustion; he did not exhaust remedies; no case under TCHRA | Dworschak failed to exhaust administrative remedies; no valid age-discrimination claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery County Hosp. Dist. v. Brown, 965 S.W.2d 501 (Tex. 1998) (at-will employment presumption; employer may terminate for good or bad cause)
- Walker v. Thomasson Lumber Co., 203 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (no evidence standard applies; movant need not prove all elements)
- Hamilton v. Wilson, 249 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. 2008) (no concrete evidence required for no-evidence motion; per curiam)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgments)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2004) (meaning of scintilla vs. more-than-a-scintilla evidence)
- GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1999) (employment-dispute limitations on IIED claims)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Canchola, 121 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. 2003) (IIED standards in ordinary employment disputes)
- Schroeder v. Tex. Iron Works, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 483 (Tex. 1991) (exhaustion of administrative remedies prerequisite to suit)
- Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2010) (administrative-exhaustion and burden on plaintiff under TCHRA)
- WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. 1998) (defamation elements)
- Forbes Inc. v. Granada Biosciences, Inc., 124 S.W.3d 167 (Tex. 2003) (business disparagement elements and malice standard)
- Hurlbut v. Gulf Atl. Life Ins. Co., 749 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. 1987) (malice in business disparagement)
- Texas Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sears, 84 S.W.3d 604 (Tex. 2002) (IIED standard; outrageous conduct threshold)
- O'Bryant City of Midland v., 18 S.W.3d 209 (Tex. 2000) (termination discretion in employment context)