426 S.W.3d 294
Tex. App.2014Background
- Hall worked for Jack in the Box since 1990; RDSL took over management in 2008.
- Hall alleges hours were cut and shifted to younger employees; she was terminated in November 2010 at age 81.
- Hall sued under Texas Labor Code § 21.051 for age discrimination and later sought summary judgment relief from RDSL.
- RDSL moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment, arguing lack of evidence on the fourth prima facie element.
- Hall argued a Russso-type, modified prima facie standard applies because younger workers were retained and the position was phased out.
- Trial court granted summary judgment; on appeal, the court held the modified prima facie standard applies and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Modified prima facie standard applies? | Hall asserts Russo modified standard applies. | RDSL contends no replacement evidence; not a reduction-in-force. | Yes; we apply modified prima facie standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mission Consol. Indep. School Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) (guidance on dual proof methods under TCHRA)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework)
- Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (plaintiff's burden and inference of discrimination)
- Russo v. Smith International, Inc., 93 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (modified fourth element in non-replacement contexts)
- All Metals Fabricating, Inc. v. Ramer Concrete, Inc., 338 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009) (recognizes flexible fourth element in discrimination cases)