Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Norma Parra, 503 S.W.3d 646

Background

Parra, a TDFPS case worker assistant, was injured in a work-related car accident in January 2008; her supervisor failed to timely report the injury to HR/SORM, delaying a workers’ compensation election and benefits.
Because the election form was delayed, Parra exhausted accrued leave, was placed on FMLA then unpaid workers’ compensation leave, and sought extended sick leave (ESL/SLP); requests were mishandled/denied in part for lack of documentation.
Supervisors began seeking Parra’s termination in June–July 2008 while a second ESL/SLP request was pending and after learning Parra had retained counsel; termination memos omitted material facts about the late reporting and pending requests.
Parra was terminated July 15, 2008; she alleged the termination was retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim and hiring an attorney, sued under Tex. Labor Code ch. 451, and a jury awarded damages later reduced to the Tort Claims Act cap.
TDFPS argued sovereign immunity barred the suit, that damages/instructions were improper, and that evidence was insufficient; the court addressed waiver, scope of recoverable damages, jury charge objections, and legal sufficiency.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Sovereign-immunity waiver for ch. 451 claims	Parra: Legislature/Statutory scheme (SAA) waived immunity so state agencies can be sued under ch. 451	TDFPS: Section 311.034 and narrow drafting mean no clear waiver post-Fernandez	Court: Fernandez controls; SAA effectually waives immunity for ch. 451 suits against state agencies; decline to overturn precedent
2) Scope of damages and applicability of Tort Claims Act limits	Parra: ch. 451 entitles "reasonable damages" (lost wages/benefits, mental anguish) subject only to TTC A caps	TDFPS: §501.002(d) limits claims/damages to those authorized by Tort Claims Act (bodily-injury focus)	Court: Recovery includes actual economic and noneconomic damages under ch. 451, limited only by Tort Claims Act caps and punitive-damages prohibition
3) Jury charge: undefined terms ("employee benefits", "compensatory damages")	Parra: charge adequate; jury instructed not to double-count and damages elements were explained	TDFPS: undefined terms could mislead jury and permit double recovery or awards without evidence	Court: Error waived because TDFPS failed to tender alternative definitions per Rule 278; no reversible error proven
4) Sufficiency of evidence for retaliatory termination under ch. 451	Parra: circumstantial proof (knowledge, timing, policy violations, misleading memos, negative statements) shows causation	TDFPS: termination followed absence/FMLA policy; no causal link to claim or counsel	Court: Evidence (knowledge by decisionmakers, timing, policy deviations, false/misleading reasons, statement "you were on Workers’ Comp") legally and factually sufficient to support jury verdict

Key Cases Cited

Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez, 28 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2000) (state agencies may be liable under anti-retaliation statute because statutory scheme would be meaningless absent waiver)
City of LaPorte v. Barfield, 898 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. 1995) (interpretation of PSL and Tort Claims Act limits; courts may read Tort Claims Act caps into anti-retaliation remedies)
Kuhl v. City of Garland, 910 S.W.2d 929 (Tex. 1995) (rejected literal incorporation of Tort Claims Act elements into anti-retaliation claims; affirmed availability of actual damages)
Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. 2003) (discussed rare waivers and cited Fernandez in sovereign-immunity context)
Kingsaire, Inc. v. Melendez, 477 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. 2015) (employee must show employer's adverse action would not have occurred but for protected conduct; absence-control policy defense applies only when termination was required by uniform policy)
Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1995) (mental anguish damages do not require physical manifestation)