WALMART - 31 S.W.3d 282(Tex.App-Corpus Christi 2000...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
31 S.W.3d 282 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000) WAL-MART STORES, INC., Appellant, v. THOMAS J. LANE, Appellee. No. 13-98-250-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, CORPUS CHRISTI. June 29, 2000 Rehearing Overruled November 9, 2000. On appeal from the 214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. * * * * * * * * * * * * III. Retaliatory Discharge The jury found that Lane reported to Wal-Mart that he had been sexually harassed by Suzanne Sparks and that Wal-Mart Page 295 retaliated against him for reporting Suzanne Sparks. By its third issue Wal-Mart asserts that Lane did not make a complaint of sexual harassment or take other protected action which would support a claim for retaliatory discharge. Wal-Mart argues that Lane cannot state a claim for retaliatory discharge, or alternatively, that there is no evidence to support this claim. Section 21.055 of the Texas Labor Code (Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA))1 provides that an employer commits unlawful retaliation if the employer discriminates against a person who: (1) opposes a discriminatory practice; (2) makes or files a charge; (3) files a complaint; or (4) testifies, assists, or participates in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing. Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 21.055 (Vernon 1996). When an employer discharges an employee in retaliation for a complaint of sexual harassment the employer commits an unlawful employment practice under section 21.055. See Southwestern Bell Mobile Sys., Inc. v. Franco, 971 S.W.2d 52, 55 (Tex. 1998). The TCHRA is modeled after federal civil rights law. One express purpose of the Act is to "provide for the execution of the policies of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its subsequent amendments." Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 21.001(1) (Vernon 1996). The Act purports to correlate "state law with federal law in the area of discrimination in employment." Schroeder v. Texas Iron Works, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 483, 485 (Tex. 1991). Thus, we look to analogous federal precedent for guidance when interpreting the Texas Act. NME
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 4

WALMART - 31 S.W.3d 282(Tex.App-Corpus Christi 2000...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online