### NUM BER 13-07- 132- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
CIN GUL A R WIR EL ESS, L.L .C., A pp ellan t,

v . KEN NET H D. LE E, JR ., A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 4 04t h Dist rict C ou rt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas
. 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la This i s an appeal f ro m a judg ment enter ed i n fav or of appel lee , Ke nneth D. Lee Jr ., and ag ain st appel lan t C ing ula r W irele ss , L. L.C . ( “C ing ula r” ), i n a n on j ur y tr ial co ncer nin g the a ll eg ed w ro ng ful ter minat ion of Lee’ s e mploy ment. The tr ial co urt i ss u e d f ind ing s o f fact and conc lus ion of

law i n s uppor

t of i ts jud g ment of $1.6 mil li on dol lars. C ing ula r urg esC i ngul ar cont ends t hat Lee was ne v er asked t o l i e i n hi s deposi t i on. H owev er , t he t r i al cour t f ound 1 t hat he was. Ci ngul ar ’ s pr i m ar y ar gum ent und er i t s f i r st i ssue i s t hat ev en i f he was asked t o l i e, i t was no t t he so l e cause ofhi s depar t ur e f r om C i ngul ar and , pur suant t o Sabine Pi l ot v. H auck , 687 S. W

. 2d 7 33 ( T ex. 1 9 8 5 ), i t h a d to b e th e s o l e c a u s e o f h i s fi rin g i n o rd e r fo r h i m to re c o v e r. 2 sev en i ss ues on appe al, i ncl udi ng ch all eng es to t he l eg al and f a ct u a l suf fici ency of the evidence, v arious errors in the dam age aw ard, error in allow in g t h e a d m is sion of Lee ’s expert w itness, and error i n ref using to allow app ella n t a j u ry trial or an em ergency cont inu ance. W e rev erse and render

. I. B A CK GRO UND A. Th e Z -P age Li ti gat io n and t he A lleg ed Req uestt o Li e Ken Le e’s empl oyme n t w it h C ing ula r ended o n N ov ember 15, 2002. Lee arg ues that he w as fire d from C ing ula r becau se he refused to l ie in a depos it ion thatoc cur re d about ele v en month s e ar li er , on Janua ry 31, 2002, in re lat ed l it ig ati on i nv olv ing C ing ula r
a n d Z- P a ge W ir e le s s Co m m u n ic a t io n (“ Z -P a ge ”) , a fo r m e r Ci n gu la r a ge n t

. Co n ve rs e ly, Cingular arg ues th at Le e w as no t f ired solely for ref using to lie in a d epo sition; rathe r, Lee’s posi ti on w as eli minat ed as a re sul t of a major nati onal reorg ani z ati on hav ing noth ing to do
w it h hi s c onduc t ata depos it ion and, thereafter , he w as eit her not sel ect ed for, or

fail ed to appl y for, other

av ail abl e p o sit io ns. C ing ula r als o not es that Lee recei v ed poor 1
ev alu ati ons before h is depar ture for mis si ng meet in gs, sl eepi ng at meeti ng s, and ot her
unsa tisfacto ry

cond uct. T hese allegations were contest ed b y Lee and dete rmine d in Lee ’s fav or i n the tr ial co urt’ s fin din g s o f fact

. L e e w o r k e d fo r C i n g u l a r fro m J u l y 1 1 , 1 9 8 8 t o N o v e mb e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 2

. I n i t i a l l y , he
w or ked for Sou thw est er n Bel l, Ci ng ula r’ s pr edece ss or , as a di re cto r of opera ti ons for th e Ri o Grande V all ey
. In t hat p osi ti on, h e w as re spons ibl e for all operati ons in the reg ion andI n fac t , the re w as evi de nc e t ha t i n N ove m be r 200 1, A l l en prop os ed t he el i m i na t i on of Le e’ s di rec t or- 2 l e v e l p o s i ti o n b a s e d o n b u d g e t c o n s tra i n ts a n d th e fa c t t h a t L e e ’ s m a i n c u s to m e r h a d l e ft. 3 supervise d ov er

200 employ ees. H e repor ted t o a reg ion al direct or and v ic e presi dent. From May 2000 to Octob er 200 0, Le e w as the Directo r of E xterna l Di stributio n for Cingular. In O cto ber

2000, Lee w as ask ed to f o cu s p rim ar il y on Z -P ag e, t he l arg estag ent for Cingular in the Rio Grande Valley. In th is position , Lee reporte d to Jud y Allen, w ho, like Lee, hel d a d irect or-l ev el posi ti on. At t his ti me, Judy All en became the Direct or of Sal es Ope ration s for the T ropical T exas market . Th ere w as no e v iden ce of any other inciden ce at Cingular w here a director repo rted to ano the r director. From Octo b e r 20 00 u ntil 2 September

2002, Al len repor

ted t o R ob F orsyth, the v ic e presi dent and gene ra l manag er of the Greater

Tex as/ South Tex as Reg ion

. Lee di d notdi re ctl y repor t t o F orsyth. Beginnin g in April 2001 , Lee ’s sole respon s ib il ity w as to m ana ge the relatio nship with Z-P a ge. He n o lo n ger ha d an y em p lo yee s dire ct ly re p o rt in g to h im . A lt h o u gh Z -P a ge
w as Ci ng ula r’ s big g est ag ent in the Ri o Grande Val ley , there w as troubl e br ew ing betw een the tw o c ompani es based upon a c hang e i n the compens ati on str uct ur e for ag ents

. Lee noti fied bot h Al len and Forsyth i n J uly 2001 that Mi ll er , an ow ner and pr inc ipa l of Z- Pag e, had g iv en hi m a draft cont ra ct for th e pro p o se d s a le of Z- Pag e to a c ompany ca ll ed Sol Telec ommunic ati ons. D ur ing a conferenc e c all among F orsyth, Al len and Lee, w hic h w as
sec re tl y tape d by Lee, the three spec ula ted that Sol Telec ommunic ati ons mig ht be rela ted to Vo iceStrea m, a com pet itor co mp any. T his w as notgoo d ne w s for Cingular because it had inv este d large amo unt s of mon ey in Z-Page. Th e severity of , and reason s for, the ir
conc er n a t t h i s p o i n t w a s d e b a t e d a t t r i a l a n d s e r i o u s l y c o n t e s t e d

. Th e t r i a l c o u rt found that the t hr ee w er e v er y co ncer ned abo ut Z -P ag e bei ng so ld to a compet it or
.Z-Page l at er sued C i ngul ar f or t or t i ous i nt er f er ence wi t h busi ness r el at i ons. T hi s wi l l be di scussed 3 l a te r i n th e fa c tu a l s ta te m e n t. 4 Shor tl y after thi s c onv ersat ion , Forsyth cont act ed Greg H og ue, a former co ll eag ue,
w ho w as w or ki ng for

Voice Stream at the time. Forsyth’ s c onv ersat ion w it h H og ue i s a t t he
cr ux of the is sues that later

arose
. The ev ide nce is undi sput ed th at H og ue to ld Forsyth t hat he had not h eard of any pending p ur chas e of Z- Pag e. This co nv ersat ion w oul d l ater be imp ortan t in ensu ing litig ation involv ing Z-Page and Cingular, becau se the re w as con cern tha t it could be construe d as interf eren ce w ith a com pet itor. Forsyth and t he o the rs w ere 3
conc er ned abo ut a po ss ibl e s ale bec ause Ci ng ula r had i nv est ed more tha n one mil li on dol lars i nto Z -P ag e’s bus ine ss
. Forsyth, Al len and Lee w er e al so conc er ned bec ause no one coul d locat e a w ri tten cont ra ct betw een Ci ng ula r and Z -P ag e tha t t hey bel iev ed had been prev iou sl y

si g ned by

the par ti es. W it hout noti ce to C ing ula r, Z -P ag e c onv erted i ts sto re s from C ing ula r to Ve ri z on over the w eeke nd of

S ept em ber 15 and 1 6, 200 1. O n Sep tem ber 14, 2 001 , Z-Page also
s u e d C i n g u l a r

fo r t o rt io u s in t e rf e re n c e wit h it s b u s in e s s re la t io n s h ip s wit h a p ro s p e c t ive buy er . ( “t he Z -P ag e l it ig ati on” ). F orsyth w as ind iv idu all y named in the Z -P ag e l it ig ati on on Nov ember

15, 2001. F orsyth, Al len and Lee w er e al l depos ed i n t h e Z -P ag e l it ig ati on betw een J anuar

y 16, 2002 an d J anuar

y 31, 2002. Aft er C i ng ula r

l os t th e Z
- Pa g e ac c ou nt , Le e’ s p r i ma r y a c c ou nt , Le e be c am e
re spons ibl e for dev elo pin g new ag ents in the Ri o Grande Val ley

. He re mained in that posi ti on unt il hi s e mp lo yme n t end ed i n N ov ember 2002. The ev ide nce show ed th at he broug ht on e new

ag ent a board dur ing thi s t ime.T he draft co ntr ac t w as no t , i n fa c t , a g en ui ne offer. 4 S urp l us i s si m i l ar t o a l ay off. 5 5 In N ov ember

2001, pr ior

to Lee’ s depos it ion , Lee tes ti fied th at he had a di sc uss ion
w ith Forsyth at a Cingular pla nnin g me eting in San Anto nio. Le e test if ied th at Forsyth told him to forget t hat F orsyth ha d any kn ow led g e of the dr aft Z- Pag e/Sol C ommunic ati ons cont ra ct and als o to forg et t hat F orsyth ha d s poken w it h H og ue abou t t he c ontract

. Lee 4 further st ated Forsyth t old hi m thati f Lee r efused to “ g et t his deal done, ” h e n e e d e d to know i f Lee w as “mobi le” bec ause he mi g ht hav e to “s ur plu s” him. Forsyth t est ified that 5 he di d not hav e a dis cus si on w it h Lee about the depos it ion s that w er e g oin g to tak e pl ace. In fact , F orsyth c lai med thathe h ad notev en been i ndi v idu all y su ed atthe ti me he s aw Lee at t he C ing ula r meeti ng s in ear ly Nov ember

2001. Fur

ther , Forsyth w as not b ro ug ht i nto the Z -P ag e l it ig ati on unt il N ov ember 15, 2001, w hic h w as a fter the all eg ed c onv ersat ion betw een Lee and Forsyth occu rred. Fors yth test ified thathe d id not i nst ru ct, su g g estor
encou ra g e L e e t o l i e i n a d e p o s i t i o n
. N e v e rt h e l e s s , t h e t r i a l c o u rtfo u n d a s a fa c tthat Forsyth’s com me nt to Lee at the e arly No v em ber me eting “constitu ted a request to com mit per jur y , a cr imi nal ac t und er

the law s o f Texa s.” Lee also testif ied th at i n Janu ary 200 2, R obe rt Vitan z a, C ingular’s in-house coun sel, tol d hi m thathe w oul d notbe a ble to hel p him if he di d nottak e the co mpany pos it ion w it h
re g ard to w hether

Fors yth ha d c ontac ted a co mpeti tor

. Acc ordin g to Lee, w hen he ask ed Vi tanz a i f he w as tel li ng hi m thathe h ad to l ie in th e d e p osi ti on or he w oul d l ose his j ob, Vi tanz a tol d Lee that he k new “ex act ly w hat I mean[t].” O n the othe r hand, Vi tanz a tes ti fied that there w as no tr uth t o Lee’ s a ll eg ati ons. H e s tated t h a t h e d id n o t tell Lee to l ie.6

Acc ordin g to Vi tanz a, ev er y one knew

about Fors yth’ s c all to Hog ue, i ncl udi ng Z -P ag e. It
w as n o s e c r e t

. Th e t r i a l c o u rt fo u n d a s a fa c t t h a t V i t a n z a s p e c i fi c a l l y r e q u e s t e d Lee to commi t per

jur y . Cer tai n ev ents happened after Z -P ag e l eft Ci ng ula r that troubl ed Lee. F or i nst ance, he w as senta “s ur plu s” notic e byAll en on Febr uar y 20, 2002, shor

tl y after hi s d eposi ti on. Al len tol d hi m thati t had been sentby ac ci dent. I n fact, Lee kept hi s j ob and w as not dis charg ed at that ti me. The tr ial co urt found as a factthatAl len had int enti onal ly created the docu me nt af

ter Lee ref used t o com mit pe rjury and thatshe inte nde d tha t he ultim ate ly
w oul d be “s ur plu ss ed.” Thereafter , Lee int er v ened i n the Z -P ag e l it ig ati on on Dec ember 23, 2 003, a lle g ing thatC ing ula r dis charg ed hi m for t he s ole reason thathe refused to per form a c ri minal ac t, namely to li e i n hi s f irst Z- Pag e depos it ion at the req uestof Forsyth and Vi tanz a. B. Pro j ectA lli ance In t he lat e summer and fall of 20 02, at t he s ame ti me thatthe Z- Pag e l it ig ati on w as g oin g on, Ci ng ula r announc ed a major reorg ani z ati on plan cal led Proje ct Al li ance. I t w as ini ti ated by

C ing ula r’ s cor porate headq uar ters. As a resul t of ch ang es made pursuantto Proje ct Al li ance, 164 Tex as employ ees los t t hei r job s, inc lud ing Lee. The tr ial co urt made no findi ng thatProje ct Al li ance w as ini ti ated, des ig ned, or i mplement ed bec ause Lee
re fused to li e i n a d eposi ti on. The ev ide nce was u n contro v erted t hat t her e w as a maj or
re org ani z ati on of C ing ula r at t his par ti cul ar ti me. Project Allian ce create d an organiz ation base d on thre e sa les chan nels: Reta il Sale s, Busine ss Sales, a nd Nat iona l Di stributio n. Director position s, like Lee’s, were eli mi n a t e d a s p a rt o f P ro j e c t A l l i a n c e
. I t w a s n o t a l l e g e d , n o r d i d t h e t r i a l c o u rt fi n d , t hat7

Ci ng ula r eli minat ed th e di re cto r posi ti ons becau se Lee w as ask ed to l ie in a depos it ion , but
re fused. In fact , Lee tes ti fied th at he had no reason to bel iev e that there w er e any di re cto r posi ti ons av ail abl e i n the Proje ct Al li ance for s omeone i n hi s p osi ti on. As par t of Proje ct Al li ance, employ ees li ke Lee w er e cons ide re d for ot her pos it ion s
w it hin the org ani z ati on. The employ ees w er e pl aced in “u niv erses ,” w hic h w er e empl oy ee g ro upi ng s b ased upon c ur re nt j ob dut ies , t it le, and g eog ra phi c loc ati on. Human re sources employ ees w er e respon si ble for pla ci ng employ ees int o the cor re ct “u niv erse. ” Lee w as pla ced int o three “ uni v erses ” by the human res our ces department

. Nei ther Fors yth, Al len
nor C ing ula r’ s a ttor ney s made any dec is ion s w it h reg ard to w her e Lee w oul d b e pl aced. Lee w as no t of

fered a position in any of the “un iv erses” in w hich he w as place d. Allen did hav e respon si bil it y

for rati ng Lee pursuantto t he di cta tes of Proje ct Al li ance. Sh e rated h im u n f a v or abl y

i n Aug ust2002, w hic h c ontrast ed w it h hi s more fav or abl e 2001 ra ti ng. Lee arg ued t hat t he poor 2002 ra ti ng w as the resul t of F orsyth ha v ing order ed Al len to score him low

in the ratings for the Project Allianc e p o s it io n s
. T he trial cou rt fo und as a fact th at his Au gust 200 2 rating w as v erylow solelybeca use h e ref used t o com mit pe rjury in the J anuar

y 2002 depos it ion

. It is undi sput ed th at Lee did not score w ell on the ev alu ati ons that Al len prepared solely for placem entin Project Alliance . Lee te stif ied th at Forsyth mad e A llen low er his evaluation s or that Forsyth low ered them himse lf . Both All e n a n d Forsy th vehem ent ly deni ed F orsyth’ s i nv olv ement i n l ow er ing Lee’s r ati ng
. The tr ial co urt resol v ed th is factual di s pu te i n fav or

o f Le e, fi nd i ng i t “ i nc r ed i bl e” t ha t Le e c ou l d ha v e r ec ei v ed a n ov erall
ev alu ati on of “ 3.5" i n Ma rc h 2002, y et recei v ed onl y a rati ng of “2 " w hen he w as ra ted for Proje ct Al li ance in Aug ust2002. I t w as undi sput ed th at s ome of the fact ors i ncl uded i n the8

ratings fo r Project Alliance were d if feren t f rom tho se used for regular ev alua tion p urpo ses. Throug h Proj e ct

A l l i a n c e, empl oy ees w ho w er e notse lec ted for a first- ro und pos it ion coul d appl y f o r o p e n pos it ion s o uts ide the Proje ct Al li ance framew or k. The par ti es dis puted w hether

Lee had appl ied for other pos it ion s. Lee tes ti fied th at he tol d J udy Al len he w anted to be cons ide re d for an Indi re ct Acc ount Ex ecut iv e posi ti on. Al len tes ti fied th at Lee t old her

he w as not w il li ng to “t ake a s tep b ackw ard”

. The tr ial cour t found that Al len prevente d Le e f rom a pplying for the ind irect accou n t e xecut iv e po sition by fa lsely
re pr esent ing thathe w as not i nterest ed i n tha t pos it ion

. Af t e r L e e wa s p a s s e d o ve r fo r th e s e c o n d ro u n d o f p o s it io n s , h e re c e ive d a si xt yday noti ce infor ming hi m thati f he di d notobta in another pos it ion i n the co mpany by Novembe r 15, 20 02, byapp ly ing fo r an ope n job, his emp loymentw ould end

. I t is
uncon trov erted t hat L ee w as not pr ev ented from seek ing othe r posi ti ons dur ing the si xty day per iod

. The tr ial co urt made no findi ng i n thi s re g ard. Lee’ s e mploy ment end ed on Nov ember

15, 2002. H e w as off er ed, b ut de cl ine d, a separati on pac kag e. Aft er L ee i nt er

v en ed i n th e Z
- Pag e litig ati on , th e tr i al c ou rt s ev ered L ee ’ s c l ai ms from the Z- Pag e c ase. After a be nch tr ial on L ee’ s c lai m, the tr ial co urt ent er ed a jud g ment
aw ardin g Lee $1.6 mil li on dol lars i n damag es. II. S TAND ARD OF R EVI EW By i ts firs t i ss ue, C ing ula r compl ain s t h a t th e ev ide nce is l eg all y i nsuffici ent t o suppo rtthe tr ial co urt’ s fin din g thatthe sol e reason fo r th e e n din g of Lee’ s e mploy ment
w as his purp orted ref usal to lie in his depositio n. T he trial cou rt’s f in d in gs of fact are subj ectto re v iew

for l eg al suffici ency

under the same s tandard ap p licable to a “ no
ev ide nce” chall eng e to a judg ment based on a jur y v erdic t. See C ont’

l Cof fee P ro ds. , C o.9

v. Caz ar ez , 937 S.W .2d 4 44, 4 50 ( Tex . 199 6)

. Und er thi s s tandard, w e must re v iew al l of the ev iden ce an d credit the ev iden ce tha t supp orts the judgmen t if reason able jurors could and di sreg ard c ontrar

y ev ide nce unl e ss r e a so n a ble j urors c oul d not

. City of Keller v. W il son, 168 S. W .3d 8 02, 827 ( Tex . 200 5)

. In a leg al suffici ency rev iew , a cour

t s houl d l ook at all the ev id e n c e in the lig ht m ost favorable to th e f inding to de term ine w het her a
re aso n a b l e t r i e r o f fa c t c o u l d h a v e fo r me d a fi r m b e l i e f o r c o n v i c t i o n t h a t i t s fi n d i n g w as tr ue. Sw. Bel

l Tel. C o. v

. G ar za, 164 S.W .3d 6 07, 6 27 ( Tex . 200 4)

. The tr ier of f a ct is t he s ole j udg e of w it ness es' credi bil it y , and i t may ch oose to bel iev e one w it ness ov er anot her ; a re v iew ing courtm ay not impos e i ts ow n opi nio n to the cont ra ry
. City of Keller, 1 6 8 S

. W

. 3 d a t8 1 9

. H o we ve r, t h e t ri e r o f fa c tis n o tf re e t o b e li e ve testim ony that is conclu siv ely negate d by undispu ted facts. I d . at820. I f, after c onduc ti ng its le gal suf

f iciency revi ew of

the reco rd evi den ce, a cou rt dete rmine s thatno reaso nab le fact finder

co uld form a firm bel ief or co nv ic ti on th at t he matt er thatmustbe p ro v en i s t ru e, then that cour

t mus t c o n clu d e that the ev ide nce is l eg all y i nsuffici ent. Sw. Bel

l Tel., 164 S. W .3 d at62 7 (quo ti n g In re J. F. C. , 9 6 S.W .3d 2 56, 266 (Tex. 2002 )) (conside ring legalsuffici ency

rev iew of jur y findi ng –mali ce–made upon c lea r and c onv inc ing ev ide nce)

. III . T H E S ABI N E P I L O T E XCE P TI ON Tex as follo w s t he r ule of at- w il l employ ment, unde r whi ch employ ment for an ind efini te t erm m a y b e t e rminate d at w il l and w it hout caus e. Schr oeder v. T exas Ir on W orks, Inc. , 813 S.W .2d 4 83, 4 89 ( Tex . 199 1)

. A Tex as employ er may fire an employ ee at w il l for good cause, bad caus e, or no c ause at al l. Montg om ery Count y Hosp. Dist. v. Br own , 965 S.W .2d 5 0 1 , 5 02 ( Tex . 199 8)

. In Sab ine Pilot Se rvice, Inc. v. Hauck, the10

T exas Suprem e Court recognized a v erynarrow ex cept ion to the em ploymen t-at-w ill doct rine: “Th at na rrow ex cept ion covers only the d ischarge of an em ployee for the so le
re a s o n t h a tt h e e m p lo ye e re f u s e d t o p e rfo rm a n il le ga l a c t

. ” 6 8 7 S

. W

. 2 d 7 3 3 , 7 3 5 (T e x. 1985)

. The publ ic pol ic y behi nd th e Sabi ne Pi lot ex cept ion i s t o det er v iol ati ons of cr imi nal law s. Id .; Ran Ken, Inc . v . Schlapper

, 963 S.W .2d 102, 10 6 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 1998, pet. deni ed)

. Si nce Sabi

ne Pi lot , cour ts hav e cont inu ed to stress the n ar ro w ness of the e x cept ion

. Schlap per, 963 S.W .2d

. at 105. A p lai nti ff , des ir ing t o es tabl is h the Sabi ne Pi lot
e x c e p t i o n , h a s t h e b u rd e n t o p ro v e t h a t h i s d i s c h a rg e w a s fo r t h e s o l e r e a s o n t h a t he
re fused to per

form an il leg al actthat he re asona bly beli ev ed w oul d subje ct him to c ri minal penal ti es. See S abi

ne Pi lot , 687 S. W .2d a t 735 ; see a lso Tex. Dep't o f Hum an Se rvs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W .2d 6 29, 6 33 ( Tex . 199 5)

. In Sabi ne Pi lot , t he s upr eme co urt i mposed a “v erystrict standa rd of

causa tion. ” Tex. D ept. of H um an Ser vs . v . H ind s, 904 S. W .2d 6 29, 633 (Tex . 199 5) ; see Sabi ne Pi lot , 687 S.W .2d a t 735

. If there is any

othe r re ason for th e
em ployee's discha rg e, he cann ot m eeth is b urde n of proof und er Sabi

ne Pi lot , ev en i f the
re fusal t o p e r

fo r m a n i l l e g a l a c t w a s , i n fa c t , o n e o f t h e r e a s o n s fo r t h e d i s c h a rg e. See W hite v. F CI

U SA, Inc ., 319 F. 3d 672, 676- 7 ( 5th C ir . 200 3) ; Bel l v. Specialty Pack

agi ng Pr ods. , 925 F. Supp. 475, 477 (W .D . Tex . 199 4)

. The Sabi

ne Pi lot exception doe s not ap ply w hen the wrongf u l m o t iva t ion is a produci ng ca use ra ther than the sol e re ason for the d is charg e. See Paul v. P.B .- K.B. B., Inc. , 8 0 1 S

. W

. 2 d 2 2 9 , 2 3 0 ( Te x . A p p
. – H o u s t o n [ 1 4 t h D i s t

. ] 1 9 9 0 , w r i td e n i ed) ; s e e also Fitch v. R eli

ant P har m ., LLC , No

. Ci v. A

. 4 : 0 4 -C V -6 1 5 -Y , 2 0 0 6 W L 3 2 5 7 5 9 a t * 3 (N

. D. T e x.11

2006) ( g ra nti n g a s ummary j udg ment bec ause defendant i ntroduce d ev ide nce show ing mult ipl e reason s t o fire pla int iff and no ev ide nce that the sol e caus e for the firi ng w as the
re fusal to pa rt ic ipa te i n an il leg a l p ro g ra m). An empl oy er w ho di sc harg es an empl oy ee both for refusal to c ommit an i ll eg al actand for a leg it imat e re ason is not li abl e for w ro ng ful ter minat ion

. Tex. Dept . of Hum an Se rvs ., 904 S. W .2d a t 633

. Mo st of the c ases i nter pr eti ng the Sabi ne Pi lot ex cept ion hav e done so str ic tl y . For ins tanc e, i n Bel

l v. Specialty Pack

agi ng Pr oduct s , t he c our

t hel d tha t th e ev ide nce w as cl ear thatat lea st one reason for t he pl ain ti ff ’s termi nati on w as a reduc ti on in w or k for ce. Id. at 477. The Bell cour t, appl y ing Tex as law , s ummari ly hel d tha t t he Sabi

ne Pi lot claim failed b ecau se the plaintif f ’s alleged ref usal to perform a n illegal act w as no t t he so le
re ason for her

di sc harg e. Id.; see W

hite v. FC I v. US

A, Inc. , 319 F .3d a t 677 ( hol din g that defendant’ s e v ide nce of an ong oin g reduct ion -i n- force and f ina nci al difficul ti es w as
unre f ute d an d tha t plaint if f failed to make a prima f acie case und er Sabi ne Pi lot); see a lso Laird v. Lo ckhee d Eng ’ g & Scis. Co

. , No

. 0 1 -9 8 -0 1 1 4 0 -C V , 2 0 0 1 W L 3 0 1 4 3 8 , a t*4 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] M ar
. 29, 2001, no pet.) (n ot desi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( hol din g that summar

y j udg ment w as proper

bec ause the s ummary j udg ment e vide n ce show ed several fa ctors cont ribute d to th e de cision to te rmina te th e p la in t if f , includin g a cost
re duct ion p rog ra m and t he fact the c ompany w as dow nsi z ing ); Ense rch Explorat ion In c.
v. Thor ne , No. 11- 98- 00070- CV , 2000 W L 34234577, at *5 (Tex . Ap p.–Eas tl and J an. 1 3, 2000, no pet .) ( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( re v ersi ng and re nder ing a j ur y v erdic t, hol din g thati n addi ti on to p la in tiff fail ing to est abl is h tha t he had refused to per form an illegal act, th e evidence showed thatplaintif f w as discha rg ed in a general redu ction-in-force12

fo u r y e a rs a ft e r h e c l a i me d t o h a v e r e fu s e d t o p e r fo r m a n i l l e g al act ); cf. Eba sco Constru ctors, Inc. v. Rex , 923 S

. W

. 2 d 6 9 4, 70 0 (Te x . App .–Corp us Christi 1996 , w rit den ied) (discussing that p laintif f ’s man agers prepa red a redu ction in f o rc e e v alua tion in pla int iff’s j ob cat eg or

y and immedi atel y re commended him for di sc harg e and conc lud ing that there w as some e v ide nce to s uppor t findi ng of sol e c ause)

. In Mi ller v. R a yth e o n Ai

rcra ft Com

pany , t he c our

t uph eld a s ummary

j udg ment g ra nted in f a vor o f

R aytheon on ev ide nce that ithad ter minat ed al l pil ots , i ncl udi ng the pla int iff, due to the creati on of a new bus ine ss and the c ess ati on of another

. Mi ller , 229 S. W .3 d 358, 368 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 7, no pet. ); c f

. Mc Cle l la n v . Ri tzC a r lto n Ho te l

C o., 961 S.W .2d 4 63, 4 64 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 199 7, no pet. ) (h old ing de fe n d a n tfa i l e d a s a m a t t e r o f l a w t o p ro v e a tl e a s to n e l e g i t i ma t e re a s o n for term inatin g plaint if

f ’s emp loyment ). IV. A N A LY S IS Ci ng ula r a rgu e s that the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment s houl d be re v ersed becau se the Sabi ne Pi lot ex cept ion does not appl y , pr imar il y for t he reas on that Lee fail ed to prov e tha t he was discharged solely beca use h e ref used to lie in his dis p o s it ion. Alth ough alm ost each re lev ant factw as hotl y co ntes ted w it h reg ard to the e lement s o f a Sabi ne Pi lot c l ai m,
w e w il l ass ume, for pur poses of our anal y si s o f this i ss ue on ly, that the ev ide nce w as suffici ent t o s uppor

t Lee’ s cl aim that he w as ask ed to per form an i ll eg al act ; namel y that he wa s asked to lie in his depo sition. Howev er, Lee ’s burden of proof und er this v ery
nar ro w ex cept ion to the e mploy ment- at- w il l doct ri ne w as to prov e by a pr eponderance of the e v ide nce that his refusal to l ie in his depos it ion w as the sole caus e of depar ture from13

Ci ng ula r. The ter m “ sol e” i s d efined as “ the o ne and onl y , s ing le. ” Bry an A. Gar ner , A D I CT I ONARY OF M ODE RN U S A GE , 8 1 6 (2 n d e d

. 1 9 9 5 ). T o p r e v a i l , L e e h a d t o p ro ve two things: (1) his refu sal to lie in the d epo sition w as the ca use for h is d epa rture f rom Cingular, and ( 2) hi s d isc h a rge wa s for no o ther

reason than hi s refusal to l ie in his depos it ion

. Sabi ne Pi lot , 68 7 S. W .2 d at7 35

. W hi l e th e s ta te me nto f l aw i s c l ea r , i ts ap pl i c at i on s ee ms les s s o. For

i nst ance, i n Bel

l v. Specialty Pack

agi ng Pr oduct s , the tr ial cour

t found t hat t he Sabi ne Pi lotcl aim faile d bec a u se “ it is c lea r from the facts that at l eastone re ason for plaint if f ’s termina tion was th e redu ction in w ork f orce at th e plan t.” Id. at 477. In Bell , t he
mere fact of another r eason for disc harg e w as enoug h to neg ate the pl ain ti ff ’s cl aim. Id. Si mil ar ly , i n W

hite , the Fifth Ci rc uithel d tha t t her e w as unr efuted ev ide nce of an ong oin g
re duct ion -i n- force and finan ci al difficul ti es and affirmed a summar y jud g ment, hol din g that the e mploy ee di d notco me w it hin the Sabi ne Pi lot ex cept ion of

the em pl o ym e n t-at-w ill d o c t ri n e u n d e r T e xa s la w. 319 F. 3d at 674. Li kew is e, i n Mi ller , t he c our

t det er mined as
a ma tter of

law in a summ aryjudgmen t procee ding thatthe e m p loyer esta blished thatit ter minat ed th e employ ee for a reason othe r than the e mploy ee’ s refusal to pe rfor m il leg al act s. Id. at 367. On t he ot her

hand, i n Mo ra les

v. Si m uFl ite T ra ini ng In t’ l, Inc ., the D all as Cou rtof App eals reversed a sum ma ry judgmen t tha t h a d b e en grante d in the emp loyer’ s favor, statin g tha t the re w as mo re than a scin tilla o f e v iden ce tha t genuine issu es of mat erial fact
ex is ted reg ardin g w hether M or ale s’ s refusal to si g n a bla nk form w as the sol e re ason for his ter minat ion

. 132 S. W .2d 6 03, 6 09 (Tex . App.–D all as 2004, pet denied ). The Mo ra les14

cour t reason ed: “S imuF li te c ontends thatev en i f ther e i s e v ide nce that Mo ra les w as fire d for ref using to sign the FRF–w hich it den ies– his ref usal w as no t the sole cause for his ter minat ion

. W hen j uxtapos ed, h ow ev er , t o M or ale s’ s t est imony the alt er nati v e reason s
me rely raise a fact i ssue concernin g the reaso n for his term inatio n.” Id. at 61 0 . The Mo ra les opi nio n, ho w ev er , appears to disreg ard tha t t he burden t o s how the sol e reason for di sc harg e is on th e empl oy ee, n ot t he empl oy er
. See al so Bowen v

. E
- Syste m s, Inc. , No. 05- 95- 00821- CV , 1996 W L 499814 at *9 (Tex

. App.–D all as Aug

. 29, 1996, w ri t den ied ) (n ot de si g nated for publ ic ati on) ( hol din g thatsu mmaryj u d gm ent i n fav or of employ er shoul d be rev ersed becau se a fact i ss ue ex is ts conc er nin g w hether empl oy er

di sc harg ed employ ee s ole ly

for refusing to chang e hi s d is posi ti on for re jec ti on of ci rc uitboards or panel s a t i ss ue)

. Here, t he ev ide nce w as uncon trov erted t hat P ro jec t Al li ance eli minat ed bot h the j ob title an d job f unct ion th at Le e he ld in the o rg anization. The positio n he had pre v iously held no lon ger ex isted a t Cingular. Le e agreed th at th ere w ere no director positio ns available after Proje ct Al li ance w as impl emented. C ing ula r pr esent ed unc ontrov erted e v ide nce of at l eastone other

reaso n that ex pla ine d Lee’s separ ati on from e mploy ment—n amely , t hat his j ob no lon g er

ex is ted u nderProje ct Al li ance. Lee urg es that his abi li ty to g et ot her posi ti ons w it h Ci ng ula r after the real loc ati ons made i n Proje ct Al li ance occ ur re d w as made impos si ble or

se v er ely co mpromi sed becau se of the poor rati ng s he recei v ed from A ll en and t hat t hose low

rati ng s o cc ur re d sol ely becau se Lee refused to l ie in a depos it ion

. That is a dif feren t issue from the issue of w het her he w as f ired solely beca use h e ref used to lie in his depos it ion

.15

A l t h o u g h L e e d o e s n ’ ta rg u e e x p a n s i o n o f Sabi ne Pi lot , w hat Lee ask s t his C our t t o do is eit her

disreg ard unrefuted ev ide nce of another ca use for hi s s eparati on from C ing ula r
or extend the e x cept ion i n Sabi ne Pi lot to all ow an employ ee to re cov er w hen an employ er decl ine s t o pl ace an empl oy ee i n anot her pos it ion after

a r eorg ani z ati on bec ause the
em ployee has previously ref used t o com mit an ill egal act. Unde r City of K eller , “ undi sput ed cont ra ry ev ide nce becomes co ncl usi v e ( and t hus canno t be di sreg arded) w hen i t c oncer ns physical facts that cannot be d enie d.” City of K eller , 168 S. W .3d a t 815 ; see a lso Aug illard
v. Ma dur a, 257 S. W .3d 4 94 , 501 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2008, no p et.) Here, Le e does not c hal len g e C ing ula r’ s deci si on to condu ct Proje ct Al li ance, nor does he chal len g e or re fute the eli minat ion of his di re cto r- lev el ti tl e and functi on. He does noturge that he w as place d in the in c orrect “universes” fo r job placem entin Project Al li ance. H e remaine d w it h C ing ula r for al most one y ear after his depos it ion took pl ace. The el imi nati on of hi s p osi ti on as a re sul t of P ro jec t Al li ance w as undi sput edl y one re ason Lee did notkeep his job. T here was a rest ructuring a nd a reductio n-in-force. Le e also did not a ppl y

for a ny pos it ion s o uts ide Proje ct Al li ance. T he trial cou rt w as no t f ree to d is re ga rd und ispute d con troverting evidence est abl is hin g thatLee’ s p ur por ted refusal to li e i n hi s d eposi ti on w as not t he s ole ca use of his depar ture form Ci ng ula r. Fur

ther , based on the cons is tent re fusal to ex pand t he Sabi ne Pi lot ex cept ion , w e c annot do s o here. See, e.g., Fite v . Cher okee W ater C o., 6 S. W .3d 337, 342 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 1999, no pet .) ( re fusing to ex pand Sabi ne Pi lot to s tatut es that hav e no penal ti es) ; Ma yfi eld v. Loc kheed

En g ’ g& S cis . C o., 9 7 0 S

. W

. 2 d 1 8 5 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1989, pet. deni ed) ( sta ti ng 2 tha t t her e i s no cause of acti on forW e not e t hat t he Sabine Pi l ot except i on t o t he em pl oy m ent
- at
- wi l l doct r i ne i s v er y nar r owl y app l i ed 6 and does not ser v e as a bl anket pr ohi bi t i on o n ba d f ai t h pr act i ces by em pl oy er s i n per sonnel deci si ons. For ex am pl e, un de r Sabine Pi l ot and i t s pr ogeny , an em pl oy er m ay l aw f ul l y base a deci si on t o t er m i nat e an em pl oy ee p r edom i nant l y on t hat em pl oy ee’ s r ef usal t o com m i t an i l l egal act , as l ong as t her e i s any add i t i onal non- i l l egal r eason t hat cont r i but es t o t he d eci si on t o t er m i nat e. Her e, t he co ur t f ound as f act t hat “ i t beca m e cl ear soon af t er Lee t est i f i ed i n hi s d ep os i t i on t hat Al l en i nt ended t hat Lee ul t i m at el y be sur pl ussed f r om [C in g u la r ]. ” T h u s , C in g u la r m a y h a v e f o r m e d th e in te n t t o te r m in a te L e e b a s e d o n h is r e f u s a l to lie in deposi t i on. However , C i ng ul ar di d no t act ual l y eff ect uat e Le e’ s t er m i nat i on u nt i l Pr oj ect Al l i ance was i m pl em ent ed. G i v en t he f act t hat ov er 100 em pl oy ees wer e l et go i n T exa s a l on e as a r esul t of Pr oj ect Al l i ance, i t woul d ha v e been ext r em el y di ff i cul t fo r Lee t o show t hat t hi s re or gani z at i on was not a f act or t hat cont r i but ed, i n ho wev er sm al l a par t , t o Ci ngul ar ’ s deci si on t o t er m i nat e hi m
. T he ref or e, ev en i fC i ngul ar i nt ended t o t er m i nat e Le e be cause ofhi s f ai l ur e t o l i e i n de posi t i on, Pr oj ect A l l i ance gav e Ci ngul ar t he ad di t i on al no n-i l l eg al reas on for t erm i na t i on t ha t i s ne c es s ary un de r Sabine Pi l ot to a v o id lia b ility. 16 e m p l o y e e s i n t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r w h o a r e t e r m i n a t e d f o r r e p o rt i n g i l l e g a l a c t i v i t y )

. We 6
sus tai n i ss ue one. V. C ONCL US I ON Havi ng d ete rmine d tha t the trial court erred in disregarding uncon tradicte d evidence that Lee’ s a ll eg ed refusal to l ie in his depos it ion w a s n ot t he s ole ca use for hi s l eav ing C i n g u l a r , w e re v e rs e t h e j u d g me n to f t h e tr i a l c o u rta n d re n d e r j u d g me n tt h a tt h e p l a i n t i ff ta ke no th in g.

RO SE VELA J u s t i c e
Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 nd day

of Apr il , 200 9.