Legal Question in Employment Law in Texas

There is a possible remedy for your plight, but more facts are needed.

I need to know: Did you file (or attempt to file) a worker's compensation claim. Under TEX LA. CODE ANN. � 451.001, employers are prohibited from discharging an employee for filing workers' compensation claim? In such a case a plaintiff (the employee) is required to show that filing of workers' compensation claim was a reason for his discharge. And under that statute, it is not incumbent upon plaintiff to prove that filing of claim was the sole cause for his dismissal. Thomas v. LTV Corp., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1994, 39 F.3d 611; Gauthreaux v. Baylor University Medical Center, 879 F.Supp. 634 (N.D.Tex.1994); Hinerman v. Gunn Chevrolet, 877 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. App. 4 Dist. 1994), rehearing denied, error granted, reversed in part 898 S.W.2d 817; Continental Coffee Products Co. v. Cazarez, 903 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.App. 14 Dist. 1995), rehearing overruled, application for writ of error filed. Your burden would be at least demonstrating a causal link between your discharge and your filing of your workers' compensation claim. And while you can meet this burden without showing that you were fired solely because of filing of workers' compensation claim, you must show that filing of claim was at least a determining factor in the discharge. Burfield v. Brown, Moore & Flint, Inc., C.A.5 (Tex.)1995, 51 F.3d 583. Once you have established a causal link between the retaliatory action and workers' compensation claim under Texas law, your former employer must rebut by showing a legitimate reason for the discharge; and you need only prove that your claim was a determining factor in your discharge. Umphrey v. Fina Oil & Chemical Co., 921 F.Supp. 434 (E.D.Tex.1996). Moreover, pursuant to our Texas retaliatory discharge statute, evidence of causation between filing of workers' compensation claim and adverse employment action may include knowledge of claim by those making decision to terminate, a negative attitude toward employee's injured condition, failure to follow company policy when disciplining employee who made claim, and discriminatory treatment of employee when compared to treatment of other employees with same disciplinary problem. Piper v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 970 F.Supp. 566, (E.D.Tex.1997) affirmed 157 F.3d 903.

The facts you recite indicate no chance of recovery under the anti-retaliation provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act because you were not employed for 12 months by that employer.