Martin v. Clinical Pathology Laboratories, Inc.
343 S.W.3d 885
Tex. App.2011Background
- Martin, an at-will CPL employee for three years, left work early to vote on Nov 4, 2008 after CPL refused permission; she was terminated two days later.
- She filed a March 16, 2009 wrongful-termination suit alleging she was fired for exercising her right to vote.
- She filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy on Feb 3, 2009; the plan was confirmed May 19, 2009 and the case dismissed Sept 18, 2009.
- Standing became a contested issue on appeal due to bankruptcy, with the court determining standing remained; revesting of claims under § 1327(b) was central.
- The court declined to recognize a private civil cause of action under Tex. Election Code § 276.004 or to create a new common-law exception to at-will employment, affirming dismissal.
- The disposition affirms the trial court’s dismissal and rejects plaintiff’s theory of a voting-right wrongful-termination exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there standing to sue given Chapter 13 bankruptcy? | Martin had standing at filing; bankruptcy did not strip standing. | Bankruptcy potentially deprived standing; claims may vest in the estate. | Martin had standing at filing; revesting upon plan confirmation meant dismissal did not erase standing. |
| Does § 276.004 create a private wrongful-termination action? | Election-code penalties are inadequate; private action should exist. | No private cause of action implied; penalties are criminal, not civil. | No private cause of action or implied civil remedy; no new exception to at-will. |
| Should Texas recognize a common-law at-will exception for voting rights based on constitutional/election-code policy? | Public policy supports protecting voting rights via a new exception. | Legislature weighs policy and chose penalties; no judicially created exception. | Court declines to create a new common-law exception; adheres to Sabine Pilot limitations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985) (public policy narrow exception to at-will doctrine)
- Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick, 205 S.W.3d 690 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006) (standing where bankruptcy issues affect claims)
- Douglas v. Delp, 987 S.W.2d 879 (Tex.1999) (standing requisite for jurisdiction; bankruptcy effects)
- Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex.1993) (standing may be raised for first time on appeal; general standing principles)
- City of Dallas v. Woodfield, 305 S.W.3d 412 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010) (standing and appeal considerations in municipal context)
- Winters v. Houston Chronicle Publ'g Co., 795 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.1990) (recognition of exceptions to at-will doctrine; caution against expansion)
- Smith v. Rockett, 522 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2008) (chapter 13 standing to sue in bankruptcy context)