Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation v. Kyle Barousse
365 S.W.3d 46
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Barousse, Hertz employee, filed a workers’ compensation claim after a company vehicle collision.
- Hertz fired Barousse upon his medical-leave return and Barousse sued under Texas Labor Code §451.001(1) claiming retaliation.
- Bench trial awarded Barousse $665,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in exemplary damages.
- Court held evidence supported retaliation and compensatory damages but not punitive damages.
- Trial court excluded evidence of Barousse’s settlement of a personal injury suit; court upheld exclusion.
- Key factual posture: Barousse’s supervisors issued warnings after claim; Hertz identified Barousse for layoff during medical leave and eliminated his position; other region directors received alternate positions while Barousse did not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of retaliation evidence under §451.001 | Barousse showed employer acted with knowledge of claim and negative attitude. | Hertz denies causation; decisionmakers acted for legitimate restructuring. | Legally and factually sufficient to support retaliation finding. |
| Compensatory damages sufficiency | Lost wages and benefits; Barousse would have continued employment with Hertz. | Mitigation and alternative employment reduce damages; post-discharge earnings considered. | Sufficient evidence supports past damages; future lost wages awarded within evidentiary range. |
| Punitive damages sufficiency | Employer acted with malice after claim; punitive damages appropriate. | Evidence falls short of clear and convincing standard for malice. | Punitive damages reversed; no clear and convincing malice established. |
| Exclusion of personal injury settlement evidence | Settlement evidence would not overlap with retaliation claims and could be admissible. | One-satisfaction rule applies when multiple actions involve the same injury. | Exclusion not an abuse of discretion; no overlap shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cont’l Coffee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. 1996) (establishes causation standard for retaliation and punitive thresholds)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (credibility, legal sufficiency review in bench trial)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1843 (2011) (supervisor’s act proximate to adverse action can subject employer to liability)
- Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Garza, 164 S.W.3d 607 (Tex. 2004) (standard for punitive damages in employment retaliation context)
- Tope, 935 S.W.2d 915 (Tex. 1999) (mitigation of damages burden and evidence standard)