Hernandez v. Grey Wolf Drilling, L.P.
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 4714
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Hernandez, age 53, was terminated by Grey Wolf on Sept. 17, 2007 while employed at Grey Wolf’s Alice, Texas location.
- Hernandez alleged age discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA).
- He claimed supervisor John Jansen referred to him with age-based terms (“old man,” “old fart”).
- Hernandez told Jansen in Oct. 2006 and again in mid-2007 that these comments offended him, but the conduct continued through termination.
- Grey Wolf moved for no-evidence summary judgment on both claims; the trial court granted the motion.
- The issue on appeal is whether the summary judgment was proper and how the claims should be evaluated under applicable law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Framework for analysis of age discrimination | Hernandez argues for McDonnell Douglas-Burdine framework; age motive shown. | Grey Wolf urges Gross but-for test under ADEA as adopted in Gross. | McDonnell Douglas-Burdine framework governs; Gross not adopted for TCHRA here. |
| Prima facie age-discrimination evidence | Affidavit shows age, termination, and younger replacement; sufficient prima facie. | No-evidence motion challenges lack of evidence on all four elements. | Evidence raises more than a scintilla on prima facie elements; no-evidence judgment improper. |
| Burden-shifting and pretext analysis | Grey Wolf failed to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason; burden never shifted. | Grey Wolf argued absence of pretext and lack of discrimination evidence. | Burden never shifted; pretext evidence exists in Hernandez’s affidavit. |
| Retaliation claim sufficiency | Hernandez complained about age-related comments; termination followed, showing causality. | No evidence of protected activity or causal link. | Hernandez demonstrated more than a scintilla of evidence of protected activity and causal link. |
| Judicial disposition | No-evidence judgment improperly decided without addressing prima facie elements. | No-evidence order affirmed if meritorious theory exists. | Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quantum Chem. Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2001) (applies McDonnell Douglas-Burdine to pretext/motive framework)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1963) (establishes framework for discrimination proof and burden shifting)
- Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (prima facie case and pretext framework guidance)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (but-for causation in ADEA; relevance debated for TCHRA here)
- Shackelford v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 190 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 1999) (discusses McDonnell Douglas-Burdine framework deficiencies/usage)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (no-evidence summary judgment framework in multi-ground rulings)