Daug hters of Char ity Hea lth Ser vices does business under the name Seton Medical Center
. 1 Consequently , we will re fer to Daug hters of Char ity

Hea lth Services as Seton. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 5 -00 264 -CV

Da lia M ar ti ne z , A ppe lla nt

v. Daughters of Charity Health Service s d/b /a Seton Medical Cente r , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 201S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN20449 7 , HO NORAB LE GISELA D. TRIANA , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Da lia Mart ine z a

pp e a ls the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra nti ngof Da ug hte rs of

Cha ri ty He a lth Service s’s (“Seton’ s”) mot ion fo r a no -e vid e nc e su mma

ry jud g m e nt o n M a r t i n e z ’ s r e t a liatio n c la im. 1 See Te x. L a

b. Cod e Ann. § 2 1. 05 5 ( Wes t 200 6) (pr oh ibitin g e mpl oy e r f ro m r e ta liatin g a g a ins t emplo y ee who, pursuant to Tex as Commissi on on Human Rig hts Act, opposes discriminatory pr a c tic e s, make s o r f

ile s a c ha rg e , f ile s a c omp la int , o r t e sti fi e s, a ssi sts , o r p art ic ipate s in investigation, procee ding, or hear ing)
. I n three issues, Martinez contends that the di strict court e rre d by (1) overruling her objection to Seton’s untimely introduction of summary judgme nt evidence , (2) holding that her evidenc e failed to e stablish a prima fac ie case of reta liation, a nd (3) holding that she fa ile d to de mon str a te a

genui ne iss ue of

mate ri a l f

a c t r e g ard ingwh e the r s he wa s c on str uc tiv e ly2

discharg ed by

Seton. Be ca u s e we hold that Martinez did not present any competent summary judgme n t evidence that ra ised a g enuine issue of materia l fac t as to whether she eng ag ed in a pr ote c te d a c tiv ity , a

n e sse nti a l e le me nt o f a re ta liatio n cla im, we a ff ir m the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt.
BACK GR OUND Martinez beg an working at Seton a s an admissions c ounselor in 1996. In J uly 2001, Eliz abeth Ga

rcia -Salce do beca

me Martinez’s dire ct supervisor. At that time, Martinez was working as a f inancial c ounselor. Over the next seve ral months, Martinez complained to Robert Ree d, the Direc tor of Admissions at Seton, and to Seton’ s human resour ces depar tment that Garc ia-Salce do
and L ind a Yt ua rt e , G arc ia -S a lc e do ’s su

pe rv iso r, ha d c re a te d a ho sti le wo rk e nv ir on me nt, re pe a te dly hara ssed M ar t inez and other e mploy ees, a nd threatened Ma

rtinez’s employ

ment. On Fe bruar

y 8, 2002, Martinez resig ned.

I n D e c e mbe r 2 002, Mart ine z sue d Se ton a lle g ingthat sh e wa s c on str uc tiv e ly discharg ed fr om her position as a fina ncial counse lor as a r esult of illeg al re taliation by Gar ciaSal ce d o and Ytuar

te. I n her a

mended pe tition, M artinez claimed, “ The dire ct ca use of the constructive te rmin a

ti o n w a s th e e xtr e me ly

hostile and, in fac t, illega l employ ment prac tices eng ag ed in by supervisors L inda Ytuar te and Elizabeth Ga

rcia -Salce do.” Du ri ng her Aug ust 26, 2003 deposition, Martinez testified that th e h ar as s m ent bega n in Aug ust 2001 and descr ibed seve ral inc ide nts tha

t sh e c on sid e re d to be “ ill e g a l” a c ts o f hara ssm e nt. Th e fi rs t in c ide nt i nv olv e d Y tua rt e calling Martinez into he r off ice a nd questioning he r about why she appe are d “slug g ish” and “ lax.” Mart ine z ad

mitte d that sh e ha d be e n su ff e ri ng fr om so me me dic a l pr ob le ms that c a us e d he r to w a lk slowly , but stated t hat her pain had not impaired her ability to perfor m at work. Mar

tinez e-mailed3

Reed to complain t hat Ytuarte was inappr opriately labeling her a

nd that she fe are d Ytuarte may be
wr iti nghe r u

p. Mart ine z al so no te d s e ve ra l oc c asio ns on wh ic h e ith e r G arc ia -S a lc e do or Yt ua rt e y elled at he r, threw

files at her , and re minded her that they had the authority to fire a ny employ ee at any time. Finally , Martinez testified that she was repr imanded for comforting a co-wo rk er who had just been f

ired. On Dec ember

12, 2001, Martinez e-ma iled her huma n resour ces r epre sentative a nd the human resource s site direc tor to complain about what she descr ibed as a “ma jor problem in the leade rship of the Admissions De partment at Seton Me dical Center of which upper manag ement has d e c i d e d t o i g n o r e an d l o o k t h e o t h e r w ay , a s l o n g a s t h e y g e tt h e r e s u l t s t h e y h o p e t o a c h i e v e . ” In this e-mail Martinez also addre ssed a number of incidents that she c hara ct er ized as “illeg al employ ment prac tices,” one of which oc curr ed shortly afte r Thanksgiving 2001. Ytuarte had bee n informed that some of

the employ ees ha d clo s ed down Seton’s main admissions area ear ly on the day a f te r T h an k s g iv in g . Y tu arte c a ll e d a me e ti n g a t wh ic h s h e r e p r im an d e d M arti n e z a

n d o th er employ ees. Martinez considere d this to be unprofe ssional a nd abusive beca

use the employ ees w ere not g iv e nth e o p p o rtu

n it y to d e f e n d th e ms e lv e s . Si mi la

r ly , M arti n e z d is c u s s e d

a me e ti n g d

u r ing which Ga rcia -Salce do held her

hand in front of

an employ ee’ s fac e to ke ep them from talking dur ing the meeting . Martinez stated that this ty pe of humiliating behavior was c ommonplace. I n J anuar y 2002, Martinez beca

me ill af ter an argument wi t h Ga rc ia-Salce do. Martinez testified that, “When I went to [my

phy sician], and Iwas sick, Iwas throwingup, and I was
v ery n erv o u s . It o l d

h er Ico u l dn ’t s l ee p . Iwa s cr

yi n g a l o t
. Yo ukn o w, I wa s t h er e wi t h h er , cry i n g, and she told me that day , y ou need to quit that job. I t’s making y ou very ill, and y ou need to quit.”4

Martinez’s doctor a lso informed her that she wa s preg nant. Shortly there afte r, Mar

tinez resigne d fr om Se ton
. Mart ine z te sti fi e d fu rt he r that sh e and

he r h us ba nd “ c ou ldn ’t tr us t th a t E liza

be th w ou ld stop harassingme, and we didn’t want to risk that child being lost, so I quit.” I n addition, Martinez
e -m a ile d s e ve ra l of

he r co -w or

ke rs on he r la st day a t Seto n a nd state d th a t sh e wa s le a vin g be c a us e she found another job. Howeve r, Mar tinez also testified that Garc ia-Salce do was the sole sour ce of stress for he r at Seton and that she would not have lef t if Garc ia-Salce do had cha ng ed her behavior
. I n April 2002, Martinez filed a c omplaint with th e T ex as C ommissi on on Human Rights. In her c omplaint, she alleg ed:
On or abo ut Jul y

20 01 , L ind a

Yt ua rt e and El iza be th G arc ia -S a lc e do be c a me supervisors. Immediately Ib egan r eportinginstances of hostile environment and hara ssment which wer e beingforc ed on the e mploy ees w ho had f ai t h ful ly serve d Seton for dec ades wer e in tur n repor ted to their super

visor, Robert Reed. I

continued re po rt ingthe inc re a sin g ly a bu siv e tr e a tme nt o f e mpl oy e e s. Martinez’s complaint also stated:
Iwa s su bje c te d to ho sti le , r e ta liator y and a g g re ssi ve tr e a tme nt b y su pe rv iso rs , Eliz abeth Ga

rcia -Salce do and L inda Ytuar te. Human Resour ces a

nd manag ement ac ce p t edan d

ac qu i es ce d

t o t h e d i s cr i m i n at o ry

an d re t al i at o ry

ac t i ons of my

employer. Ic omp la ine d o f t

he ho sti le wo rk inge nv ir on me nt and the dama g e s it w a s c a us ingme to suffer , including me ntal anguish, phy sical dama g es and stre ss which re quired med ic a l tr e a tme nt. Iwa s c on str uc tiv e ly te rm inate d in

F e br ua ry 20 02 . Si mil arl y sit uate d e mpl oy e e s w e re no t su bje c te d to the same ho sti le and a g g re ssi ve tr e a tme nt.
O nF e b r u ar y 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , S e t o nf

i l e d a n o - e v i d e n c e m o t i o nf

o r s u m m ar y j ud g me nt. Seton insist ed that Mar

tinez had presented n o evidenc e of a ny of the e ssential elements of a reta liation claim. On M arc h 17, Martinez filed a r esponse to Seton’s motion to which she attac hedT h e a f f i d a v i t w a s s i g n e d an d d a t e d o n t h e s a m e d ay t h a t M art i n e z f i l e d h e r re sp on se to 2 Seton’s no-evide nce motion for summar y judgme nt, March 17, 2005. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

ov e rr ule d Se to n’s he ars ay

ob je c tio ns and

a dmi tte d th e a ff

ida vit in i ts 3 e n t i r e t y. 5 excerpted por

tions of her August 26, 2003 deposition, a copy of her complaint filed with the Texas Com mis sio n o n H uma

n Ri g hts , a

nd an a ff ida vit
. I n her a ffidavit, Mar tinez asserted: 2 [O] no r a b o u tA u g u s t2 0 0 1 , E l i z a b e t h G ar c i a - S a l c e d o , m a d e a c o m m e n tt o me claiming “it was time for those people to lea

ve Seton. ” This statement wa s made while I was re sear ching an ac count for e rror s and was direc ted to the older e mploy ees in my depar

tment. I n September of

2001, Irepor

ted to Eliz abeth Ga

rcia -Salce do’s supervisor, Rober

t Reed, about the c omments made by E li za b e th G a r c ia

- Sa lc e d o, and that Ifelt m y supervisors Eliz abeth Garc ia-Salce do and L inda Ytuarte wer e tar g eting old e r e mpl oy ees wi th ho sti le tr e a tme nt a nd ha ra ssm e nt i n o rd e r t o g e t r id o f t he m. After which, my

supervisors Elizabeth Gar cia-S al cedo and L inda Ytuar te beg an hara ssing me.
Mart ine z a lso state d in the a ff ida vit that “ On F e br

ua ry 7, 20 02 , I re sig ne d f

ro m my job a g a ins t my wishes and in complianc e with my phy sician’s a dvice a

nd shortly there afte r, discover ed that Ihad suffe red a miscarr iag e.” Ma

rtinez argued that the attached e vidence cre ated an issue of material fa ct
on eac h element of

her r etaliation claim. Seton replied to Martinez’s response on Marc h 24. Seton maintained that Martinez had fa iled to produce any evidenc e that she had e ng ag ed in a pr otected a ctivity or had suf

fer ed an adver se employ

ment action as a

result. Additional l y , S et o n objected to por tions of Martinez’s
a f f i d a v i tb a s e d

o ni t s c o n t e n t i o n

t h a tt h e a f

f i d a v i tc o n t a i n e d

i n a dm i s s i b l e h e ar s ay. T h at d ay , the 3 district c ourt held a hear ing on the motion. At the hea ring , Seton argued that the a ffidavit wa s selfse rv ingand

c ou ld n ot c re a te a

g e nu ine iss ue of

mate ri a l f

a c t as to whe the r Mart ine z ha d en g a g e d in6

a pr ote c te d a c tiv ity wh e n vie we d a lon g sid e he r pr ior de po sit ion te sti mony . With ou t st a tin g the ba sis fo r i ts d e c isi on , th e di st ri c t c ou rt g ra nte d Se ton ’s mot ion

and e nte re d a take -n oth ingjud g me nt i n Seton’s favor . This appea l followed.
STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW We r e vie w d e no vo the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s ru lin g on a mot ion for

su mma ry jud g me nt. Pr ov ide nt L ife& Ac c ide nt I ns . Co . v . Kn ott , 128 S.W .3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2003 ). A no-evidence mot i o n fo r s u m m ary

judgme nt must be gr anted if, a fter a n adequa te time for discove ry , (1) the
mov ingpa

rt y a sse rt s th a t th e re is n o e vid e nc e of on e or mor e e sse nti a l e le me nts of a c la im o r d e fe ns e
on wh ic h a n a dv e rs e pa

rt y wo uld have the burd e n o f p ro of at tr ial , and (2 ) t he no nmo va

nt f a ils to produce more than a

scintilla of summary

judgme nt evidence raising a g enuine issue of mater ial fac t on those eleme nts
. T ex . R
. Civ. P . 166a(i). I n revie wing a no-e vidence summary judgme nt, we “must examine the entire r ecor d in the light most favor able to the nonmovant, indulg ing e very
rea sonable infere nce and resolving any doubts a g ainst the motion” to deter mine whether more than a scintilla of evide nce w as presented on the challeng ed ele ments of the nonmovant’s c laim. City of Keller v. W

ilson , 1 68 S.W. 3d

80 2, 82 5 ( Te x. 20 05 ); see Pe rdue v. P a tten Corp. , 142 S.W .3d 596, 604 (Tex. A

pp.—Austin 2004, no pet.). Be cause the summary judgme nt order doe s not specify the g round or g rounds on which the district c ourt relied f or its ruling, w e must aff

irm the summary judgme nt if any

summary

judgme n t gro u n d is meritorious. Browning v. Prostok , 165 S.W .3d 336, 344 (Tex. 2005).Mart ine z al so argue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ou rt e rr e d b y c on sid e ri nge vid e nc e a tta c he d to 4 Seton’s reply

to Martinez’s response to the summary judgme nt motion. S eton’s re ply was filed on the day of the hear ing with e x cer pts of Martinez’s deposition attached. The district c ourt ac cepte d and c on sid e re d th is e vid e nc e in g ra nti ngSe ton ’s su mma

ry jud g me nt m oti on . We do no t nee d to decide , howeve r, whe ther the district c ourt err ed in pe rmitting this e vidence to be filed on the da y of the he aring , see Tex. R. C iv. P. 166a(c), be cause Martinez waived a ny err or on this issue. After the d i s t rict cour

t gr anted summary

judgme nt, Martinez moved for r econside ration and r equeste d leave to file additional evidenc e. The district court g rante d her le ave a nd acc epted he r additi onal evidenc e, which consisted of her entire depositi on, inclusive of t he ex cer pts that had bee n submitt ed in Seton’s reply
. Be cause Martinez asked the court to admit the same evide nce of fer ed by Seton on the day of the he aring , she ca

nno t n o w co m p l ai n that the district court e rre d by consideringsuch evidenc e. 7 DI SCU SSIO N Martinez argues that the district cour t erre d in gr anting Seton’s no-evide nce motion for summary

judgme nt beca

use her evidenc e wa s sufficient to satisfy her bur den of e stablishin g a prima fa cie c ase of

reta liation and beca

use issues of material fact exis t with reg ard to whe ther she
wa s c on str

uc tiv e ly dis c ha rg e d a nd re ta liate d a g a ins t f

or c omp la int s sh e ma de a

bo ut h e r s up e rv iso rs . 4
Ret aliation To establish a prima f acie case of re taliation, Martinez m u s t s h o w that (1) she
e ng a g e d in

a pr ote c te d a c tiv ity , ( 2) an a dv e rs e e mpl oy me nt a c tio n o c c ur

re d, and (3) the re wa s a
causa l connec tion between pa rticipation in the protec ted ac tivity and the a dverse employ ment d ec i s i o n . He rb e rt v . Ci ty of F or est H ill , 1 8 9 S. W. 3 d

3 6 9 , 3 7 6 ( T e x. A p p . —F o rt W o rth 2 006, no pet.). Sec tion 21.055 of the labor c ode states that it is “an unlawful employ ment prac tice if the
e mp lo y e r , labor union, or e mploy

ment ag ency

reta liates or discriminates a g ainst a per son who, under this chapter : ( 1) op po se s a disc ri min a tor y pr a c tic e ; (2) make s or fil e s a c ha rg e ; ( 3) fi le s a

c omp la int ; or (4) testifies, assists, or participates in any manner in an investig ation, proce eding , or hea ring .”8

Tex. L ab. Code Ann. § 21.055 ( emphasis adde d). The a ctivities list ed in sec tion 21.055 are protec ted ac tiviti es for

the purp o s e o f es t abli shing a prima fa cie c ase of

reta liation. He rb e rt , 18 9 S. W.3 d at 37 6-7 7. Mar tine z mus t e sta bli shthat, a

bs e nt h e r p ro te c te d a c tiv ity , th e a dv e rs e employ ment action would not have occur red w hen it did. Id
. a t 37 7; Mc Millon v. Texas De

p’t of I ns . , 9 63 S.W. 2d 93 5, 94 0 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus tin 19 98 , n o p e t.) . T hat is , M art ine z mus t e sta bli sh a “but fo r” ca u s al nexus between he r protec ted ac tivity and Seton’s prohibited c onduct. He rb e rt , 18 9 S. W.3 d at 37 7; McM illon , 963 S.W .2d at 940. Martinez need not establish that the protec ted activity was the sole cause of Seton’s prohibited conduc t. He rb e rt , 189 S.W .3d at 377. I f Mar tinez establishes a pr ima fac ie ca se of r etaliatio n , t h e b urden shifts to Seton to articulate a nondiscriminatory

rea so n fo r t he adve rse e mploy ment action. McCoy v . Texas Instruments, Inc

. , 183 S.W .3d 548, 555 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pe t.).

Martinez argues that her

pleading s, deposi t ion testimony , complaint to the Texas Com mis sio n o n H uma

n Ri g hts , e -m a ils to Rob e rt Re e d a nd Se ton ’s human r e so ur c e s d e pa rtme nt, and Mar ch 17, 2005 af

fidavit demonstrate that she eng ag ed in a pr otected a ctivity . We disag ree . The re cord c ontains no competent summary judgme nt evidence establishing that Martinez eng ag ed in a

protec ted ac tivity . Martinez’s complaint to the Texas Commi ssion on Human Rig hts do e s n ot s pe c if

ic a lly st ate th a t sh e c omp la ine d o f a ny dis c ri min a tor

y pr a c tic e s. I t si mpl y contains vague alleg ations that she re ported a n incre asing ly

hostile workplace environment a nd hara ssment by

her supe rvisors. B eca

use these r eports do not re late to a pr actice prohibited by chapte r 21 of the la

bor code , they are not considere d protec ted ac tiviti es under section 21.055. See Tex. L ab. Code Ann. § 21.055 (prohibiting retaliation aga inst a person who, “under t his chapter ,”9

op po se s a dis c ri min a tor

y pr a c tic e , fi le s a

c ha rg e or c omp la int , o r t e sti fi e s, a ssi sts , o r p art ic ipate s in any manner in a

n investigation, pr ocee ding, or hear ing)
. L ikewise, Martinez’s e- mails to Reed and to Seton’s human resour ces de partment do not contain any alleg ation relating to discrimination of any kind. These e -mails contain Martinez’s conce rns re g ardingwhat she c onsidered ha rassment a

nd illega l actions by

her supe rvisors. E s s en t i all y , Martinez was e x pressingher f rustration with her supervisors’ “ unprofe ssional” behavior and their continuing affr onts to her personally and to her job pe rf or manc e . F ina lly , in her

Au g us t 20 03 de po sit ion , M art ine z re late d ma ny of the same inc ide nts she descr ibed in he r e-ma ils. S he did not discuss any illega l discrimination nor did she state that she had eve r complaine d to any one at Seton about a ny act pr ohibited by

chapte r 21 of the la

bor code
. Th e on ly e vid e nc e po te nti a lly

ind ic a tin g th a

t M art ine z en g a g e d in

a pr ote c te d a c tiv ity is found in her March 2005 aff idavit. I n the affidavit, Martinez claims that she complaine d to Reed that Gar cia- Salcedo a

nd Ytuarte wer e tar g et i n g older e mploy ees in orde r to “g et rid of them.” Discriminating ag ainst an employ ee ba sed on ag e i s prohibited by chapte r 21 of the la

bor code
. Tex. L ab. Code Ann. § 21.051 (West 2006)
. Consequently , complaining about ag e discrimination in one’s workplace is a protected a ctivity
. Se e id
. § 21.055. Martinez was repe atedly asked dur ing her de position to explain and discuss any complaint she made or any illega l activity

she witnessed or experienc ed duringthe re levant time per iod. She never testified about ag e di s cr i m i nation and
ne ve r m e nti on e d th a t sh e ha d c omp la ine d to any pe rs on a t Se ton that he r s up e rv iso rs we re ill e g a lly targ eting older e mploy ees. F urthermor e, she a ffirmatively asser ted that the ac ts she did describe during her de position were the on ly acts that she w ould have c hara cter ize d as i l l eg al employ ment activities.10 The stateme nts reg ardingthe alleg ed illega l a g e discrimination f ound in Martinez’s aff idavit contradic t her e arlier deposition testi m ony . A par ty cannot f ile an af fidavit to contradic t her ow n deposition testimon y without any

explanation for the cha ng e in the testimony
. See Farroux v. D enny’s R es ts., Inc. , 962 S.W .2d 108, 111 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 1997,
no pe t.) ; se e als o G oe th v . Craig , Te rri ll &Ha le

, LLP , N o . 0 3
- 0 3
- 0 0 1 2 5
- C V , 2 0 0 5 T e x . A p p . LE X IS 2 8 1 5 , a t* 8 ( T e x. A p p . — A u s t i nA p r i l 1 4 , 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t
. ) ( m e m . o p . )
. I f a p art y ’ s o w na ff

ida vit contra dicts her e arl i er t es t imony , the af fidavit must ex plain the re ason for the cha ng e. Farroux , 96 2 S. W.2 d at 11 1. With ou t su c h an e xplanatio n, we a ssume that th e so le purp os e of the a ff ida vit was to avoid summary

judgme nt. Id . A c c or din g ly , w e ho ld t hat Ma rt ine z’s a ff

ida vit pr e se nts nothing more than a “ sham” fa ct issue. Id .; se e als o G oe th , 2005 Tex. App. L EXI S 2815, at *8. Wit hout the aff

idavit, there is no evide nce that Martinez eng ag ed in protec ted ac tivity . Moreove r, there is no evidence to support the infere nce that he r other c omplaints were suf ficient to plac e Seton
o n notice that she w as either complaining about or opposing a discriminatory prac tice. See Azubuike v . Fiesta Mart, Inc. , 970 S.W .2d 60, 65 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (holding that employ ee’ s letters conta ining va rious complaints, but f

ai ling to mention any dis c ri min a tor

y a c t, w e re ins uf

fi c ie nt t o p la ce empl oy e r o n n oti c e that e mpl oy e e wa s e ng a g ingin protec te d a c ti v it y )
. Co n s e qu e n tl y , M arti n e z f a il e d to p r o d u c e mo r e th ana

s c in ti ll a o f s u mmary j u d g m e n te v i d e n c e r a i s i n g a g e nu i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t t h a t s h e e n g a g e d

i na p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i t y. See Tex. R. C iv. P. 1 6 6 a(i). B eca use Mar tinez was require d to present some e vidence that sheBe cause we hold that t h e district court prope rly g rante d Seton’s no-evide nce motion for 5 summary judgme nt based on Mar

tinez’s failure to ra ise a g enuine issue of mat er i al fac t on one of the e sse nti a l e le me nts of

a re ta li ati on

c la im, we ne e d n ot a dd

re ss whe the r s he wa s c on str uc tiv e ly terminated by

Seton. 11 eng ag ed in a protected activity to establish a prima fac ie case of reta liation, we hold that the district
c ourt did no t e rr in g ra nti ngSe ton ’s no -e vid e nc e summa ry jud g me nt. 5
CO NC LU SION We hold that the rec ord contains no competent summary judgme nt e vid en ce that
cre ates a g enuine issue of

materia l f

ac t wi t h re g ard to whe ther Mar tinez enga g ed in a pr otected activity . There fore , we affirm the district court’s judg ment g rantingSeton’s no-evide nce summar y judgme nt motion.

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Affir med Filed: Nove mber 30, 2006