Exxon Mobil Corporation, Whm Custom Services, Inc., and Disa, Inc. v. Gilberto Rincones
520 S.W.3d 572
Tex.2017Background
- Plaintiff Gilberto Rincones, a WHM technician at Exxon’s Baytown refinery, tested positive for marijuana in a third-party HASAP-mandated test administered by DISA; DISA designated him inactive and he did not complete program rehabilitation.
- Rincones produced a private negative drug test but WHM and DISA did not credit it because it was outside the HASAP procedures; WHM could not assign him work while inactive.
- Rincones sued WHM (his employer), Exxon (refinery owner), and DISA (drug-test administrator) asserting claims including defamation/compelled self-defamation, discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, negligence, and tortious interference.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Exxon, WHM, and DISA and entered a take-nothing judgment; the court of appeals reversed in part and reinstated nine claims; the Texas Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of all defendants in relevant part, holding (inter alia) Texas does not recognize a cause of action for compelled self-defamation, no agency existed between Exxon and DISA, discrimination and retaliation claims against WHM failed for lack of proof, and DISA’s claims were time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas recognizes a claim for compelled self-defamation | Rincones: employer-induced statements foreseeably forced him to repeat defamatory reasons to others, satisfying publication | WHM: publication element not met by compelled self-disclosure; no separate tort exists | Court: decline to recognize compelled self-defamation; summary judgment for WHM affirmed |
| Whether WHM discriminated based on race/national origin (prima facie) | Rincones: non-Hispanic employees were treated preferentially (identified comparators) | WHM: comparators not "nearly identical"; Rincones failed to show similarly situated employees were treated more favorably | Court: Rincones failed to identify proper comparators; prima facie case not met; judgment for WHM rendered |
| Whether Rincones engaged in protected activity for retaliation | Rincones: complained internally about disparate treatment (pointed to Tony Davis) | WHM: remarks did not reasonably alert employer to a belief of unlawful discrimination | Court: plaintiff’s statements insufficient to constitute protected opposition; retaliation claim fails |
| Whether Exxon or DISA are liable (agency, negligence, tortious interference, and statute of limitations) | Rincones: Exxon’s contract with WHM and HASAP rules made Exxon the ultimate principal controlling DISA; DISA’s conduct interfered and was negligent; accrual occurred later (continuing tort/equitable estoppel/misnomer) | Exxon/DISA: no contract or right of control over DISA (no agency); Exxon’s letter did not interfere; DISA’s claims accrued April 14, 2008 and are time-barred; estoppel/continuing-tort/misnomer theories fail | Court: no agency or control—Exxon not liable; Exxon’s letter did not tortiously interfere; DISA’s negligence and interference claims accrued in April 2008 and are barred by limitations; estoppel/continuing-tort/misidentification rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (defamation elements and summary-judgment framework)
- WFAA–TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. 1998) (defamation elements)
- Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52 (Tex. 2013) (liability for republication of defamatory statements)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Montgomery Cnty. Hosp. Dist. v. Brown, 965 S.W.2d 501 (Tex. 1998) (at-will employment principles)
- KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cnty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (burden on movant to establish limitations defense)
- Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 826 (Tex. 1990) (when a cause of action accrues for limitations purposes)
- Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. 1989) (tortious-interference context; discussed but not read to alter accrual rule)
- Powell Indus., Inc. v. Allen, 985 S.W.2d 455 (Tex. 1998) (summary-judgment defeat of tortious-interference by disproving an element)