i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 55 0- CV Guada lupe YZ AG UIRRE , Appellant
v. UN IV ER SITYOF TEX AS H EA LTH SC IEN CE CE NT ER AT SAN AN TON IO , Appellee Fr om the 166th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2004-CI -17261 Honora ble Martha T anner , J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: April 7, 2010 AFF I RMED Appellant Gua dalupe Yzaguirre sued appellee University of Tex as Health Science Center at San Anton io u n d e r

th e T e xa s L a

b o r Co d e f o r a g e d is c r im in a ti o n , g e n d e r d is c r im in a ti o n , and reta liation. After a jury trial on the merits, the jury answe red “ No” to ea ch theor y of liability , and the trial cour

t rende red judg ment in favor of appellee . On appe al, appe llant asserts the tria l court
err ed in deny

ing his re quested jury

instruction pertaining to his opposition to “ unlawful e mploy ment pr a c tic e s. ” We a ff

ir m.04
- 09
- 00 55 0- CV

- 2- DI SCU SSIO N I n his sole issue on appea l, appellant ar g ues his proposed jury instruction should have bee n included in the jury

char g e bec ause, a ccor ding to a ppellant, he submitted a wr itten propos ed jury ins tr uc tio n a nd fo rm a lly ob je c te d o n th e re c or d to the tr ia l c ourt ’s den ial of th e ins tr uc tio n. Hi s
wr itt e n pr op os e d ins tr

uc tio n, ho we ve r, do e s no t a pp e ar any wh e re in the re c or d. I n an y event , appellant asser

ts that the lang uag e of the proposed jury instruction c an be asce rtained withi n the
c on te xt of

his fo rm a l ob

je cti on s on th e re c or d— that is , h is o ra l ob

je c tio ns to t

he tr ia l c ourt . Te xas R ule of Civ il Pr oc e dure 27 8 re qu ir e s a pa rt y to re qu e st and

te nd e r t o th e tr ia l c ourt

a substantially

corr ect instruction in w riting when the trial court omits a r equeste d instruction from the jury char g e. T EX . R. C IV . P. 27 8; Medistar Corp. v. Schmidt , 267 S.W .3d 150, 159 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 20 0 8 , p e t. d e n ie d )
. M e r e ly d ic tati n g a

r e qu e s te d

in s tr u c ti o nto th e c o u rt r e p o rte r is n ot sufficie nt to support an appea l based on the tria l court’s re fusal to submit the instruction. Ha rtn e tt v. Hampton I

nns, Inc. , 8 70 S.W. 2d

16 2, 16 5 ( Te x. Ap p. —Sa n An ton io 19 93 , wr it de nie d)
. I f a pa rt y fails to tender

a substantially

corr ect instruction in writing , any err or b y t h e t ri al cour

t in not submitt ing the instruction to the jury is waived. Medistar Corp. , 2 67 S.W. 3d a t 15 9; Ha rtn e tt , 870 S.W .2d at 166. He re , e ve n if

we a ssume a

pp e lla nt t e nd e re d to the tr ia l c ourt a pr op os e d ju

ry ins tr uc tio n in
wr iti ng , w e are un a

ble to d e te rm ine wh e the r t he pr op os e d ins tr

uc tio n amou

nts to a su bs tanti a lly
corr ect instruction: the re quested instruction is not contained in the c lerk’s r ecor d, nor is it attached to appellant’s motion for ne w trial. Second, if dictating to the court repor ter a reque sted instruction is insufficient to prese rve e rror , se e Ha rtn e tt , 870 S.W .2d at 165, then attemptin g t o as ce rt ain the lang uag e of the proposed instruction based on a rea ding of

the transc ript of appe llant’s objections04
- 09
- 00 55 0- CV

- 3- to the trial court is also insuffic ient to preser ve er ror. I n s u m , the re cord doe s not refle ct that appella n t s u b mi tt e d to th e c o u rt in w r it in g a s u b s ta n ti a ll y c o r

r e c t ju r y in s tr u c ti o n . T h e r e f

o r e , we conclude appellant ha s waived a ny err or re g ardinghis requeste d instruction. CO NC LU SION We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice