sasadeep.blogg.se - Tranter wichita falls

Tranter wichita falls trial#
Tranter wichita falls free#

After he recovered, Carrozza did not report to work the day he was scheduled to return or the next several days. Mark Carrozza, an employee of Texas Division-Tranter, Inc., was injured on the job and received compensation benefits and medical leave.Absent such controverting evidence, summary judgment based upon Tranter's affidavits was proper. Carrozza, however, offered no evidence challenging Tranter's explanation that he was terminated solely for violating the three-day rule. They could also have been readily controverted, as that rule also requires, by evidence of facts and circumstances belying Tranter's neutral explanation and thereby raising a material issue of fact.

Tranter wichita falls free#

Tranter's affidavits, although from interested witnesses, were clear, positive and direct, otherwise credible and free from contradictions and inconsistencies, as required by TEX.R.CIV.P. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 968 F.2d 559 (5th Cir. Fort Worth 1993, writ denied) Parham v. Uniform enforcement of a reasonable absence-control provision, like the three-day rule in this case, does not constitute retaliatory discharge. Tranter's summary judgment evidence included affidavits of supervisory and administrative personnel to the effect that Carrozza's termination was unrelated to his compensation claim, and that he was terminated solely for violating the three-day rule.

Tranter wichita falls trial#

The trial court granted summary judgment, and the court of appeals reversed.

The question presented in this case is whether an employer is entitled to summary judgment in a retaliatory discharge action brought under the Workers' Compensation Law when a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the discharge is established and the employee fails to produce any evidence of retaliatory motive.

Under these circumstances, the trial court properly found that Tranter established its right to summary judgment. Carrozza offered no evidence, either circumstantial or direct, which would call into question Tranter's explanation that the termination was the result of non-discriminatory application of the three-day rule. Carrozza's assertion that other employees were wrongfully terminated, if relevant, is also conclusory and fails to indicate the basis of Carrozza's knowledge.

Carrozza's subjective beliefs are no more than conclusions and are not competent summary judgment evidence.