Kingsaire, Inc., Dba Kings Aire, Inc. v. Jorge Melendez
37 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 269
Tex. App.2013Background
- Melendez, an HVAC electrician, injured his wrist at work on July 2, 2009, filed a workers’ compensation claim, and was treated and restricted from work by physicians.
- Kings Aire’s employee manual provided indefinite workers’ compensation leave, up to 12 weeks of FMLA leave, and a provision stating a medical certification must be presented within 15 days after the conclusion of leave or the employee will be terminated.
- Kings Aire placed Melendez on FMLA leave (company-initiated according to Melendez), demoted him while on leave, and asked him to return his uniform shortly after his injury.
- Melendez’s 12 weeks of FMLA expired September 24, 2009; Kings Aire sent a termination letter dated September 28, 2009 (effective Sept. 25, 2009).
- Melendez sued for wrongful termination in violation of the Texas Anti‑Retaliation Law and breach of contract; the jury found for Melendez and awarded lost earnings and benefits.
- On appeal Kings Aire argued (1) insufficient evidence of retaliation because it followed a cause‑neutral absence policy, (2) insufficiency of damages, and (3) charge error for not submitting a special instruction about compliance with an absence control policy. The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was retaliatory under Texas Anti‑Retaliation Law | Melendez: Kings Aire switched him to FMLA, demoted him, and terminated him during a 15‑day certification window contrary to policy — showing retaliatory intent tied to his workers’ comp claim | Kings Aire: Termination resulted from uniformly enforced, cause‑neutral absence control/FMLA policy; thus presumption that termination was for policy, not retaliation | Court held evidence was legally and factually sufficient for retaliation verdict; jury could find Kings Aire did not uniformly apply policy and could infer retaliation |
| Sufficiency of damages award for wrongful termination | Melendez: Presented lost earnings/benefits projections; requested substantial future damages | Kings Aire: Jury award unsupported by the evidence; should be zero | Court held jury’s award fell within permissible range supported by evidence and was legally and factually sufficient |
| Whether trial court erred by not giving a special jury question on compliance with an absence control policy | Melendez: (implicit) standard PJC question adequately covered issues | Kings Aire: Requested supplemental instruction/question that uniform enforcement of leave policy precludes retaliation finding | Court held no abuse of discretion; PJC 107.5 adequately instructed jury and supplemental instruction would have been surplus |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal sufficiency review and drawing inferences in favor of verdict)
- Continental Coffee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. 1996) (cause‑neutral absence policies create presumption that termination was for policy compliance, not retaliation)
- Texas Div.–Tranter, Inc. v. Carrozza, 876 S.W.2d 312 (Tex. 1994) (recognizing presumption when employer strictly follows uniformly enforced attendance policy)
- Echostar Satellite, L.L.C. v. Aguilar, 394 S.W.3d 276 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2012) (burden‑shifting framework and sufficiency of evidence to support jury’s ultimate finding)
- Haggar Clothing Co. v. Hernandez, 164 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. 2005) (definition of "more than a scintilla" for factual sufficiency)
- Meritor Automotive, Inc. v. Ruan Leasing Co., 44 S.W.3d 86 (Tex. 2001) (principle that construction should give effect to all text)
- Porterfield v. Galen Hosp. Corp., Inc., 948 S.W.2d 916 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1997) (temporal proximity as circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive)