Vicky McKenna v. Baylor College of Medicine
01-15-00090-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 4, 2015Background
- McKenna worked as a mid-level provider (MLP) at Baylor College of Medicine and was terminated on Oct 31, 2011 for alleged performance issues; Baylor later changed the discharge reason to misconduct and then back to performance, and she was replaced by Kayé-Ann Christie.
- She filed suit in Harris County, alleging race and age discrimination, libel, and breach of contract, and the trial court granted summary judgment on some claims; after a Rule 11 agreement, McKenna dismissed the remaining trial court claims without prejudice and appealed.
- The record shows Baylor’s productivity metric (two patients per hour) was widely unmet by MLPs, including McKenna and her peers; McKenna was the oldest white female MLP, raising potential disparate-treatment concerns.
- Baylor communicated through internal emails and to the Texas Workforce Commission that McKenna was discharged for misconduct, a rationale inconsistent with the termination for performance; Baylor attempted to rely on a qualified privilege defense for those communications.
- McKenna asserted a contract formed at termination whereby Baylor offered 30 days’ salary/benefits in exchange for non-competition/contact restrictions, raising questions about consideration and meeting of the minds.
- McKenna argued the amended libel claim related back under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.068, making the libel claim timely despite a one-year limitation, and that Baylor failed to prove lack of malice or privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disparate treatment based on race/age in termination | McKenna showed prima facie case of age and race discrimination | Baylor claimed a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason | Summary judgment wrong; discrimination issue survives |
| Libel against Baylor for post-termination communications | Amended libel pleading relates back and not time-barred; malice need not be shown | Qualified privilege and lack of malice absolve Baylor | Summary judgment erroneous; libel claim viable; relation back applies; privilege not established |
| Breach of contract due to post-employment promise | There was consideration (promise-for-promise) and meeting of minds | No enforceable contract due to lack of clear mutual assent/consideration | Summary judgment erred; factual questions on formation/consideration remain |
Key Cases Cited
- FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000) (establishes de novo standard for reviewing summary judgments and evidence standards)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (burden-shifting framework in discrimination cases)
- Randall's Food Markets, Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1995) (defamation privilege requires absence of malice to invoke privilege)
- WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. 1998) (defamation standards and burden under Texas law)
- Lexington Ins. Co. v. Daybreak Exp., Inc., 393 S.W.3d 242 (Tex. 2013) (relation back and transactions/occurrences for pleading)