431 S.W.3d 140
Tex. App.2013Background
- Henderson worked for McCrory (hired full-time 2008) and resigned in June 2011, claiming she quit due to repeated sexual harassment by Operations Manager Michael Richardson.
- Alleged misconduct included inappropriate touching, sexual comments, requests to sit on his lap, a quid pro quo-like remark during a raise request, and a June 3, 2011 incident where Richardson allegedly tried to look down her dress.
- Henderson testified she reported the harassment to owner McCrory on June 15; McCrory said he would investigate and get an apology but would not involve others; Henderson received no apology and saw no sign of an investigation, so she quit June 24.
- Two former employees (Cron and Watson) corroborated inappropriate conduct by Richardson and described similar conduct or comments; Watson testified she observed inappropriate touching and innuendo directed at Henderson.
- TWC Commissioners overturned prior disqualification, finding harassment occurred, McCrory was aware, and he failed to take timely remedial action; they awarded Henderson unemployment benefits and charged them to McCrory.
- McCrory sought judicial review; after cross-motions for summary judgment the trial court upheld the TWC decision; McCrory appealed arguing the TWC decision lacked substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports finding that harassment occurred | McCrory: evidence of harassment is insufficient and contradicted by other testimony | TWC/Henderson: testimony and corroboration by former employees support harassment findings | Held: substantial evidence supports finding that harassment occurred |
| Whether employer knew of prior misconduct | McCrory: he was not put on adequate notice; he began an investigation | TWC/Henderson: McCrory was present for at least one incident and was informed by Henderson | Held: substantial evidence supports employer awareness |
| Whether employer failed to take remedial action | McCrory: he initiated investigation and should have been given time | TWC/Henderson: McCrory promised action/apology, involved no one else, and provided no visible investigation for over a week | Held: substantial evidence supports failure to take timely remedial action |
| Whether Henderson had good cause connected to work to quit | McCrory: Henderson did not afford employer a reasonable opportunity to remedy; evidence contradicts her motive | TWC/Henderson: harassment plus employer inaction gave good cause to quit | Held: substantial evidence supports that Henderson had good cause to voluntarily leave and is entitled to benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Alford, 209 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2006) (substantial-evidence standard for administrative decisions)
- Garza v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 138 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (definition of substantial evidence and threshold not a preponderance)
- Collingsworth Gen. Hosp. v. Hunnicutt, 988 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1998) (review compares evidence existing at agency decision time)
- Blanchard v. Brazos Forest Prod., L.P., 353 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. App.—Ft. Worth 2011) (summary judgment review for substantial evidence supporting TWC decision)
- Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc. v. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d 438 (Tex. 2004) (framework distinguishing quid pro quo and hostile-work-environment sexual harassment)