No. 14-0006
Click for Official Page
Oral argument was held on September 3, 2015. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on December 4, 2015. File Closed
Tracking 2 articles about this case.
August 31, 2015
from SCOTXblog
This article also mentions 6 other cases.
May 1, 2015
from SCOTXblog
The article also mentions:| Appellate District: | 8th Court of Appeals |
| Outcome Below: | Affirmed |
| COA Docket No.: | 08-11-00372-CV |
| Opinion Author: | Honorable Yvonne Rodriguez |
| Trial Court: | 327th District Court |
| County: | El Paso |
| Trial Judge: | Honorable Linda Chew |
| Trial Docket: | 2009-4709 |
| Date | Event | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-01-15 | Mandate issued | ||
| 2015-12-04 | Concurring Opinion issued. | Issued | |
| 2015-12-04 | Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record | Issued | |
| 2015-12-04 | Opinion issued | Court of Appeals' judgment reversed & judgment rendered | |
| This case was awaiting the Court's decision after oral argument between September 3, 2015 and December 4, 2015. | |||
| 2015-09-03 | Oral argument | ||
| This case was waiting for oral argument between July 7, 2015 and September 3, 2015. | |||
| 2015-07-07 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| 2015-07-07 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| 2015-07-03 | Case set for oral argument | Case set for oral argument | |
| This case was waiting for oral argument between May 1, 2015 and July 3, 2015. | |||
| 2015-05-01 | Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2015-05-01 | Petition for Review granted | ||
| This case was pending on merits briefs between January 9, 2015 and May 1, 2015. | |||
| 2015-01-09 | Reply Brief | ||
| 2015-01-02 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 2015-01-02 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2014-12-04 | Brief on the Merits (Respondent) | ||
| 2014-11-12 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2014-11-10 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 2014-10-13 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2014-10-13 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 2014-09-19 | Brief on the Merits (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-09-10 | Case Record Filed | ||
| 2014-08-25 | Record Requested in Petition for Review | ||
| 2014-08-22 | Brief on the Merits Requested | ||
| 2014-07-29 | Reply to Response (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-07-14 | Response to Petition (Respondent) | ||
| 2014-06-13 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Response disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2014-06-12 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Response | ||
| 2014-05-16 | Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response | ||
| 2014-04-15 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
| 2014-03-10 | Petition for Review (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-02-05 | Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed | ||
| 2014-02-05 | Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2014-01-06 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2014-01-03 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed |
| Party | Counsel | Role | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Melendez, Jorge |
|
Respondent | |||
| Kingsaire, Inc. |
|
Petitioner |
An injured employee, absent from work, was classified by his employer as being on FMLA leave. According to the employer’s company policy, that type of family and medical leave cannot last longer than 12 weeks. When the employee did not return at the end of that period, the employer immediately fired them.
When the employee sued for retaliatory discharge under Chapter 451 of the workers’ compensation law, the employer argued that its company leave-of-absence policy was uniformly applied and, thus, legally barred a claim for retaliatory discharge. Alternatively, the employer argued that the jury hearing that retaliation claim should have been asked about this defense or given an instruction about the legal effect of its leave-of-absence policy.
The trial court sided with the employee. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the company’s leave-of-absence policy did not create a legal presumption. The Supreme Court has granted the employer’s petition and will consider the issue.
