Kingsaire, Inc. D/B/A Kings Aire, Inc. v. Jorge Melendez
477 S.W.3d 309
| Tex. | 2015Background
- Jorge Melendez was injured at work in July 2009; Kings Aire assisted with a workers’ compensation claim and he had wrist surgery. The company designated his absence as FMLA leave and required biweekly status updates.
- Kings Aire’s written leave policy limited FMLA leave to 12 weeks, generally capped non-FMLA leave at three months, and stated employees failing to return after leave would be terminated; the policy also required medical certification to return and allowed different rules for non‑FMLA leave.
- Melendez’s 12 weeks of FMLA expired September 24, 2009; he had not been released to work, and Kings Aire terminated his employment effective September 25, 2009, inviting him to reapply once released.
- Melendez sued alleging retaliatory discharge for filing a workers’ compensation claim and breach of contract; a jury found for him on both claims and awarded damages; the trial court entered judgment on the verdict.
- The court of appeals affirmed the retaliation verdict; the Texas Supreme Court granted review on legal sufficiency of the retaliation finding and whether a separate jury question on the leave‑policy defense was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether legally sufficient evidence showed Melendez was terminated because he filed a workers’ compensation claim | Melendez argued Kings Aire retaliated, citing timing, the company’s direction to return uniforms, and that he was placed on FMLA without his consent (which created the 12‑week clock) | Kings Aire argued it uniformly enforced a reasonable leave policy that required termination when FMLA expired and produced evidence of other employees terminated similarly | Held: Insufficient evidence of retaliatory causation; termination was consistent with uniform enforcement of the leave policy, so verdict reversed and take‑nothing judgment rendered for Kings Aire |
| Whether Kings Aire’s FMLA designation was improper and operated to shorten an otherwise indefinite workers’ comp leave | Melendez contended the FMLA designation reduced his leave and was used to effect termination | Kings Aire relied on FMLA duties to designate qualifying leave and noted FMLA provided more job protection than non‑FMLA leave; policy also capped non‑FMLA leave | Held: Employer properly designated FMLA leave; designation did not imply retaliation and was lawful and protective of employee rights |
| Whether the return of uniforms and comments by a manager created a factual dispute that termination occurred earlier | Melendez argued return of uniforms equated to termination and supported an earlier discharge | Kings Aire showed multiple reasons for uniform return (cleaning, accounting for rented uniforms, and post‑leave practice) and no paperwork or notice indicating termination then | Held: Return of uniforms was meager circumstantial evidence and insufficient to infer earlier termination |
| Whether the trial court erred by not submitting a separate jury question/instruction on the leave‑policy defense | Melendez and court of appeals suggested a separate issue was warranted | Kings Aire argued the leave‑policy is an inferential rebuttal defense subsumed in causation and thus not a separate jury question | Held: Because no evidence supported retaliation, court did not reach charge‑error issue; concurring opinion clarified the leave‑policy defense is an inferential rebuttal (not an affirmative defense) and is to be handled within liability instructions, not as a separate question |
Key Cases Cited
- Continental Coffee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. 1996) (establishes "would not have occurred when it did" causation standard and that uniform enforcement of reasonable absentee policy precludes retaliation)
- Haggar Clothing Co. v. Hernandez, 164 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. 2005) (circumstantial evidence can show causation but is immaterial if termination followed uniform enforcement of a leave policy)
- Tex. Division–Tranter, Inc. v. Carrozza, 876 S.W.2d 312 (Tex. 1994) (uniform enforcement of absence‑control policy does not constitute retaliatory discharge)
- Kia Motors Corp. v. Ruiz, 432 S.W.3d 865 (Tex. 2014) (legal‑sufficiency/no‑evidence standard of review)
- EchoStar Satellite LLC v. Aguilar, 394 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, pet. denied) (evidence that employer did not follow unambiguous leave policy can defeat a leave‑policy defense)