1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 2 - 0 7 - 2 4 6 - CV
CH R I S T I NE J AC K S ON AP P E L L ANT V . FEDEX G RO U N D PA C KA G E APPELLEE SYS TE M , I NC.

----- ----- --

FR O M THE 17TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I. I N T R OD U C T I ON The t r i al co urtgr ant ed su m m ary j u d gm entf orA ppe l l eeFe dEx G r ound Pac kage S yst em , I nc. on A ppel l antC hr i st i ne Jackson’ s cl ai m t hatshe w as d i s c h a rg e d i n re ta l i a ti o n fo r fi l i n g a w o rk e r’s c o m p e n s a ti o n c l a i m . T h e p ri m a ry i ss ue w e a ddr es s i n t hi s app ea l i s w het herJa ck so n m ethe rbur den t o pr es ent2

sum m ar y j udg m ent evi dence r ai si ng a genui ne i ssue ofm at er i al f acton w het her F e d E x ’ss ta te d re a s o n fo r h e r te rm i n a ti o n — th a t s h e v i o l a t e d th e c o m p a n y ’s
w ri tten p o l i c yreq u i ri n g an em p l o y e e w h o su sta i n e d an o n -t h e -j o b i n j u ry to obtai n a dr ug and al coho l scr eeni ng t est at t he t i m e of hi s or her i ni t i al m edi cal t r ea t m ent
— w aspr et ext ual or di sc r i m i nat ory. Beca us e, eve n vi ew i ng al l oft he
s u m m a r yju d g m e n tin t h e lig h t m o s tf a v o r a b le t o J a c k s o n a n d e n g a g in g in a ll
r ea so nab l e i nf er enc esi n he rf avo r , no su c h c o nt r ove rt i ng s um m ary j udgm ent
e v i d e n c e e x i s ts , w e w i l l a ffir m .

II. F ACT UALAND P RO CEDU RA L B ACKGROUND Jac ks on, w ho w or ke d f o rFe dEx, s us t ai ned a w or k- r el at ed i nj ury on Fr i day , Sept em ber16, 2005 , w hen a f i ve- gal l on dr um sl i d of f t he pac ka ge sl i de
a n d in ju r e d h e rb a c k . L a t e rt h a t d a y , J a c k s o n t o ld h e rc o o r d in a t o r , K e v in B e d lin e r , t h a ts h e w a s h u rt ; h e re f e r r e d J a c k s o n t o t h e irs u p e rv is o r , E r ic F e rge rso n . A c c o rding to J a c k so n , F e rge rso n told h e r sh ed i d n o t ne e d to g o to t he doc t or . He t ol d he rt o t ak e s om e i cepa ck s t hathepr ov i d e d a n d t o go hom e and re s t. F e rger son di d not gi ve Jackson an author i zat i on f orm edi cal tre a tm e n t fo rm . O n M ond ay, Sep t em ber19 , 20 05 , Jackson w entt o F e d E x and spoke
w i t h Tyr ol Le m on, an em pl oye e r el at i on m ana ger . Jac ks on t ol d hi m t hat she h a d i n j u red h e r ba c kthe p rev i o u s F ri d a y a n d n e e d e d to se e km e d i c a l tr e a tm e n t.2 ... FedEx’ s post - i nj ur y dr ug scr eeni ng po l i cy st at es: 3 Jackson t ol d Le m o n t hatshe w as goi ng t o K C l i ni c, and “[ h] e di dn’ tsay any t hi ng. ” Le m on ga ve Jac ks on a n a ut hor i z at i on f orm edi ca l t r ea t m entan d a dr ug s cr ee ni ng pa ck et . L em on a l so pr ovi ded Ja ck so n w i t h a m ap and a l i stof f aci l i t i es t hat cond uct ed dr ug scr eeni ngs; som e oft he f aci l i t i es l i st ed w er e open unt i l 9: 00 p. m. J a c k s o n s a i d t h a tL e mo n d i d n o tg i v e h e ra t i me f r a me f or
w h e n s h e w a s to c o m p l e te th e d ru g s c re e n i n g te s t. Th ata f t e r n o o n , o n M o n d a y , S e p t e mb e r1 9 , J a c k s o n s o u g h tme d i cal t r e a t me n t f r o m K C l i n i c . J a c k s o n , h o we v e r , d i d n o t c o mp l e t e t he dr ug s c re e n i n g te s t th a t d a y . The ne xtda y, J a ck so n w entt o a f ac i l i t y a nd c om pl et ed t he dr ug scr eeni ng t est . She then w ent back t o FedEx and gave Lem on t he com pl et ed dr ug s cr ee ni ng pa per w or k. That aft er noon, Le m on ca l l ed Jac ks on at hom e a nd asked w hy she had go ne t o K C li n ic . Jackson sai d t hatLem on “sound ed upset . ” A fter rec e i v i n g J a c k so n ’s p a p e rw o rk, L e m o n c o n su l ted w i th tw o sa fety
m ana ge rs to ver i f y t hatJa ck so n’ s dec i si on t o w ai ta dayt o t ak e t he dr ug scr eeni ng t est
— t hati s, t o not subm i t t o a dr ug scr eeni ng t estatt he t i m e ofher i n i t i a l me d i c a l t r e a t me n t
— d i d , i n f a c t , v i o l a t e F e d E x ’ s d r u g s c r e e n i n g p o l i cy. 2A ny em pl oyee w ho sust ai ns an on- t he-j ob i nj ur y t hatr equi r es

m edi ca l t r ea t m ent w i l l be r equ i r ed t o hav e a pos t - i nj ury dr ug a nd al coho l scr eeni ng. Thi s s cre eningm us tb ea d m inis tere d

a tth etim e of i niti al m edi cal trea tm ent, but sh o u l d n o t pre c l u d e i m m e d i a te m edi ca l att ent i on w hen w ar r ant ed.

. . . . If an e m p l o y e e fa i l s to c o o p e ra te , o r re fu s e s a p o s t-i n j u ry dr ug a nd a l coh ol s cr ee ni ng fo r a ny r ea so n, ori ft he sc r ee ni ng re s u l t s a r e a l te re d , su b s ti tu te d o r ta m p e re d w i th i n a n yw a y , the employee wi

l l be ter m i nated . [E m p h a s i s a d d e d .]

4 Bot h s a f e t yma n a g e r s i n d i c a t e d t h a tJ a c k s o n ’ s r e f u s a l t o s u b mi tt o a dr ug sc r ee ni ng t es tco ncu r r ent l y w i t h he r i ni t i al m edi ca l t r ea t m entw asa vi ol at i on of F e d E x ’sw ri tte n p o s t-i n j u ryd r u g s c re e n i n g p o l i c y . L e m o n m e t w i th F e d E x ’s seni orm anageroft he FortW ort h hub t o di scuss Jacks on’ s vi ol at i on, and t hey
m a d e th e d e c i s i o n to te rm i n a te h e r. Jackson sai d t hatw hen Lem on t er m i nat ed her , he t ol d hert hatshe w as be in g te rm i nat ed f orf ai l i ng t o t ake t he dr ug t estw i t hi n t w ent y- f ourhour s. Beca us e J ac ks on be l i eve d t hats he w as t er m i nat ed f ors ee ki ng t r ea t m entf r om K C l i ni c i nst ead of t he com pany d oct or , she f i l ed sui tf orw r ong f ul di schar ge. Fed Ex a ns w er ed. M or e th a n a y ea rl at er , Fe dEx f i l ed a m ot i on f or sum m ar y j udg m ent . A s one gr oun d f orsum m ar y j udg m ent , FedEx ar gued t hat itw a s e n t it le d t o ju d g m e n ta s a m a t t e ro fla w b e c a u s e itc o n c lu s iv e ly
e s ta b l i s h e d a l egi t i m at e, nond i sc r i m i nat ory r ea so n f orJa ck so n ’s5

t er m i nat i on— Jac ks on’ s vi ol at i on o fFe dEx’ s pos t - i nj ury dr ug s cr ee ni ng pol i cy— and becau se t he bur d e n t hen shi f t ed back t o Jackson t o pr odu ce sum m ar y j udg m entevi dence of a r et al i at or y m ot i ve ort hatt hi s r eason w as a p re te x t fo r re ta l i a ti o n , a b u rd e n w h i c h J a c k s o n c o u l d n o t a n d d i d n o t m e e t. A ppr oxi m at el y one m onth l at er( seven days bef or e t he schedul ed
sum m ar y j udg m enthear i ng and el even days bef or e t he t r i al sett i ng r equest ed by Jackson) , Jackson f i l ed a m ot i on f orcont i nuan ce al ong w i t h herr esponse to F e d E x ’sm o ti o n fo r s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t . J a c k s o n ’sre s p o n s e to F e d E x ’s
sum m ar y j udg m entm ot i on cl ai m ed t hat genu i ne i ssues of m at er i al f actexi st ed as t o w het hert her e w as a causalconnecti on betw een herw or ker s’
c o m p e n s a ti o n c l a i m a n d h e r te rm i n a ti o n , a s to w h e th e r F e d E xh a d a re ta l i a to ry m o t iv e f o rt e r m in a t i n g h e r , a n d a s t o w h e t h e rF e d E xa c t e d w it h m a lic e in te rm i n a ti n g h e r. FedExf i l ed a r epl y t o Jackson’ s r esponse, ar gui ng t hatJackson had f ai l ed t o c ont r ove rtFe dEx’ s l egi t i m at e, nond i sc r i m i nat ory r ea so n f orhe rt er m i nat i on. FedExal so obj ect ed t o Jackson’ s sum m ar y j udg m entevi dence. The t r i al co urthe l d a hea r i ng on Fed Ex’ s m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent and gr ant ed th e m ot i on. The t r i al co urtt her ea f t ers i gne d a n or ders us t ai ni ng FedEx ’ s obj ect i ons t o Jackson’ s sum m ar y j udg m ent e vi dence. Thi s appeal f ol l ow ed.6 III. M OTI ON FO R C O NTINUAN CE I n h e r f i rst i ss u e , J a c k so n co n ten d s th a t t h e tr i a l co u rtab u se d i ts di sc r et i on byde nyi ng he rr equ es tf ora con t i n u a n c e . The ba si s f ort he conti nuan ce sought by J a c kson on M ar ch 2 9, 20 07 , w as t hatshe needed
a d d i ti o n a l ti m e to c o n tac t ex -Fe d E x e m p l o y e e s c o n tai n e d o n a l i st p rov i d e d to h e r b yF e d E xo n O c to b e r 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 . G ene r al l y, a part y m o vi ng f ora con t i nua nceofa su m m ary j udgm ent h e a ri n g m u st o b tai n a ru l i n g o n i ts m o ti o n to p res e rve a c o m p l a i n t f o r ap p e l l a te
re v i e w . S ee T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 3 .1 ; Rangel v. State Ba r

of Tex. , 898 S. W . 2d 1, 3 ( Tex . A pp. — S an A nt oni o 1 99 5, no w r i t ) . A part y m ay pr eserve er r oreven i n t he abs enc e o fa r ul i ng on a m ot i on f or con t i nua nce i f t he part y obj ec t s t o t he t r i al cou rt ’ s r ef us al t o r ul e. S ee T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(2 )(B ); S w. Co un try Enter s. , I nc. v. Lu ck y L adyOi l Co. , 9 9 1 S .W .2 d 4 9 0 , 4 9 3 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 9 , p e t. d e n i e d ). H er e, Ja ck so n di d not obt ai n a r ul i ng on herm ot i on f orco nt i nua ncean d al so f ai l ed t o r eq u e s t thatt he hea r i ng on he rm ot i on f orco nt i nua ncebe
r ec or ded . Absen ta r ec or d o ft he con t i nua ncehe ar i ng, t her e i s no i ndi ca t i on t hatJa ck so n obj ec t ed t o t he t r i al co urt ’ s f ai l u re to ru l e o n he rm ot i on f or7

co n t i n u a n c e . C o n s e q u e n t l y , J a c k s o n wa i v e d a n ye r r o rc o n c e r n i n g t h e t r i al
c o u rt’sfa i l u re to g ra n t a c o n ti n u a n c e o f th e s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t h e a ri n g . See Hor nsby v. A lter ’

s G em Je wel

ry, Ltd. , No. 09- 04- 00542

- CV , 2005 W L 3 0 7 3 7 9 0 , a t* 3 ( T e x . A p p . — B e a um on tN o v . 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 , p e t . d e n i e d ) ( me m. op. ) . Foral l t hese r easons, w e over r ul e Jackson’ s f i r sti ssue.

I V. J AC KS ON ’ S S UM M A RY J UDG M EN T E VIDENCE I n he rs ec ond i ss ue, Ja ck so n c l ai m s t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed by s us t ai ni ng F e d E x ’s o bj e c ti o n s to h e r su m m a ry j u d g m e n t ev i d e n c e . I n h e r ap p e l l a te b ri e f, how eve r , Ja ck so n doe s not art i cul at e how ea ch oft he t r i al co urt ’ s r ul i ngson F e d E x ’s o bje c t io n s t o h e rs u m m a r y j u d g m e n te v id e n c e a r e p u r p o rt e d ly
er r one ous . I ns t ea d, s he si m pl y gl oba l l y cl ai m s t hat sh e “d i sa gr ee s w i t h al l of t he bas esal l ege d by Fed Ex f ori t s obj ec t i ons ” and “ con t end s t hatt he obj ec t i ons to th e d e p o s i ti o n te s ti m o n yo f J a c k s o n a n d h e r s i s te r a re p a rti c u l a rl yw e a k .” Thus , Ja ck so n ha s w ai ved he r com pl ai ntt hatt he t r i al co urter r ed by s us t ai ni ng F e d E x ’so bj e c ti o n s t o h e r s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t e v i d e n c e . See, e. g. , Cantu v. Horany , 19 5 S . W . 3d 86 7, 87 1 ( Tex . A pp. — D al l as 20 06 , no pet . ) ( st at i ng t hat
a p p e lla n tw a iv e s c h a lle n g e t o e v id e n t ia ry r u lin g u n le s s h e c h a lle n g e s a ll p o s s ib le g ro u n d s fo r tri a l c o u rt’sru l i n g s u s ta i n i n g o bj e c ti o n ). N o n e th e l e s s , fo r p u rp o s e s o f th i s a p p e a l , w e a s s u m e th a t th e tri a l c o u rt shoul d have con si der ed al l ofJackson’s sum m ar y j udg m entevi dence; even8

consi der i ng al l ofherevi dence and vi ew i ng al l oft he evi dence i n t he l i ght m ost f avo r abl e t o Ja ck so n, asex pl ai ned bel ow , no evi den ceex i st s cr ea t i ng a ge nui ne i ss ue ofm at er i al f ac tt hatFe dEx’ s enf or ce m entofi t s w r i t t en pos t - i nj ury dr ug scr eeni ng po l i cy w as pr et ext ual or r et al i at or y. Because Jackson has w ai ved her
s e c o n d i s s u e c o m p l a i n i n g th a t th e tri a l c o u rt e rre d b ys u s ta i n i n g F e d E x ’s obj ect i ons t o hersum m ar y j udg m entevi dence and becaus e w e nonethel ess c o n s i d e r a l l o f J a c k s o n ’s s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t e v i d e n c e i n o u r a n a l y s i s , w e over r ul e hersecond i ssue. V. S UM M A RY J UDG M EN T W AS P ROP ER I n he r t hi r d i ss ue, Jac ks on con t end s t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed by g r ant i ng F e d E x ’sm o ti o n fo r s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t. A . S t andar d ofRev i ew A de f end antw ho c onc l us i vel y ne gat es at l ea st onees se nt i al el em entof
a c a u s e o f a c ti o n i s e n ti tl e d to s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t o n th a t c l a i m . IHSCe da rs Trea tm ent

Ctr. of D eSoto, Tex. , I

nc. v. Mas on , 143 S. W .3 d 794 , 798 ( Tex. 2 0 0 4 ); seeT EX . R. C IV . P . 1 6 6 a (b), (c). W h e n rev i e w i n g a s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t,
w e ta k e a s tru e a l l e v i d e n c e fa v o ra b l e to th e n o n m o v a n t, a n d w e i n d u l g e e v e ry re a s o n a b l e in f e r e n c e a n d re s o l v e a n yd o u b ts i n th e n o n m o v a n t’sfa v o r. IHS Ce da rsT

rea tm en t C tr. , 1 4 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 9 8 . B . L a w A p p lic a b let oR e t a lia t o ryD is c h a r g eC la im s9

Sect i on 451. 001 oft he Texa s La borCode pr ohi bi t s an em pl oye rf r om di sc har gi ng a n e m pl oye e f orf i l i ng a w or ke r s’ com pen sa t i on cl ai m i n good f ai t h. T EX . L ABOR C ODE A NN . § 45 1. 00 1 ( V er non 20 06 ) . The em pl oyee has t he i ni t i al bur den ofde m ons t r at i ng a ca us al l i nk bet w ee n t he di sc har ge and t he f i l i ng of
a w o rk e rs ’ c o m p e n s a ti o n c l a i m . Ben ners v. Bl anks Color

I m agi ng, I nc. , 133 S. W . 3d 364, 369 ( Tex. A pp. — D al l as2004 , no pet . ) . The e m pl oye e m us ts how t hatt he em pl oye r ’ s ac t i on w oul d notha ve occ u rre d w hen i tdi d ha d t he
em pl oye e’ s pr ot ec t ed con duc t
— f i l i ng a w or ke r s’ co m pen sa t i on c l ai m — not
o c c u rre d . Haggar

Cl othi ng Co. v. Her

nandez , 164 S . W . 3d 386, 388 ( Tex. 2 0 0 5 ); see Co nt ’

l Coff ee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez , 937 S . W . 2d 444, 450 ( Tex. 1 9 9 6 ). O ncet he em pl oye e e st abl i sh esa ca us al l i nk, t he em pl oye rbe ar s t he b u rde n to re b u t t h e all e g e d i m p rop e r term i n a ti o n b y sh o w i n g tha t a l e g i ti m a te
re a s o n e x i s ts fo r te rm i n a ti o n . See Cont ’ l Coff eeProds . Co. , 93 7 S . W . 2d at 45 0– 51 . Ther eaf t er , to s u rvi ve a m ot i on f orsum m ar y j udg m ent , t he bur den shi f t s back t o t he em pl oyee t o pr odu ce cont r overt in g e v idence r ai si ng a f act i s s u e a s t o a r e t a l i a t o r ymo t i v e o rn o n u n i f o r m e n f o r c e me n to fa t er m i nat i on p o l i c y . Id . a t 4 4 4 ; McI ntyre v. Lo ckhee d Cor p. , 970 S . W . 2d 695 , 697 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 8 , n o p e t.). C . A n a ly s is3 ... C o n s e q u e n tl y , w e d o n o t d i s c u s s J a c k s o n ’sc a u s a l l i n k s s u m m a ry

j udgm entev i den ceex ce ptt o t he ext entt hati tov e rl a p s w i t h ours ubs equ ent di sc u ssi on bel ow concer ni ng w het herJackson m etherbur den t o pr odu ce con t r ove rt i ng e vi den cer ai si ng a f ac ti s s u e a s t o a r et al i at ory m ot i ve or nonun i f or m en f or ce m entofFe dEx’ s pos t - i nj ury dr ug s cr ee ni ng po l i cy. 10 Forpur poses ofouranal ysi s, w e w i l l assum e t hatJackson m etheri ni t i al bur den ofde m ons t r at i ng a ca us al l i nk bet w ee n t he di sc har ge and t he f i l i ng of
a wo r k e r s ’ c o mp e n s a t i on c l a i m. S e e, e .g ., Benn ers , 133 S. W . 3d a t369. 3 C ons equ ent l y, w e n extex am i ne w het herFe dEx m eti t s bur d e n to re butt he al l ege d i m pr ope rt er m i nat i on bys how i ng t h a ta l egi t i m at e r ea so n e xi st ed f or te rm i n a ti o n . See Cont ’ l Coff eeProds . Co. , 937 S. W . 2d a t450- 51. FedEx ’ s sum m ar y j udg m entevi dence est ab li s h es t hati thad a w r i t t en post - i nj ur y dr ug scr eeni ng po l i cy i n ef f ect , t hat t he pol i cy r equi r ed an em pl oyee
w ho s us t ai ned an on- t he-j ob i nj ury t hat r equ i r ed m edi ca l t r ea t m ent t o obt ai n a dr ug s cr ee ni ng t es tatt he t i m e of t he em pl oye e’ s i ni t i al m edi ca l t r ea t m ent , an d th a t th e re fu s a l to c o m p l yw i th th e p o l i c y w o u l d re s u l t i n te rm i n a ti o n . F e d E x ’s
s u m m a r yju d g m e n te v id e n c e s h o w e d t h a tJ a c k s o n w a s m a d e a w a r e o ft h is pol i cy i n Jun e 20 05 and si gned a saf et y m eet i ng sheeti ndi cat i ng heraw ar eness of t he pol i cy. Fe dEx al so pr oduc ed su m m ary j udgm entev i den cees t abl i sh i ng t hati t s pol i ci es , i ncl udi ng i t s pos t - i nj ury dr ug s cr ee ni ng po l i cy, w er e p os t ed on a w ebs ite cr eat ed speci f i cal l y f orpackage hand l er s l i ke Jackson and t hat11

com put er s w er e p r ovi ded a t F edE x’ s FortW ort h f ac i l i t y s o t hatpa ck age han dl er s l i keJa ck so n c oul d f r ee l y ac ce sst he pol i ci es . The su m m ary j udgm ent evi den ceco ncl us i vel y e st abl i sh es , an d i nde ed Jac ks on agr ee s, t hats he di d not subm i tt o a post - i nj ur y dr ug scr eeni ng t estat t he t i m e she r ecei ved heri ni t i al
m e d i c a l tre a tm e n t fo r h e r i n j u ry . A n e m pl oye rw ho t er m i nat esan em pl oye e f orvi ol at i ng a w r i t t en com pan y p o lic y o rru le c a n n o tb e lia b le f o rre t a lia t o r yd is c h a r g e a s lo n g a s t h e ru le is
u n i fo rm l ye n fo rc e d . See, e. g. , Haggar Clothi ng Co. , 164 S. W . 3d a t388 (d e a l i n g w i th e n fo rc e m e n t o f o n e -y e a r l e a v e -o f-a b s e n c e p o l i c y ); Cont’ l Coff ee Prods . Co. , 9 3 7 S . W .2 d a t4 4 4(d e a lin g w it h e n f o r c e m e n to ft h r e e -d a yru le g o v e rn i n g e m p l o y e e a b s e n c e s ); Sa n ti l l a nv. W al-Ma rt, 203 S. W . 3d 502, 506 ( Tex. A pp. — El Pas o 2006, pe t . de ni ed) ( dea l i ng w i t h e nf or ce m entof
re q u i re m e n t th a t e m p l o y m e n t a u th o ri z a t i o n d o c u m e n ts b e ti m e l yre n e w e d ). Thus , i n l i ght ofFe dEx’ s su m m ary j udgm entev i den ceco ncl us i vel y e st abl i sh i ng th a t Ja c k so n ’s term i n a ti o n d e c i sion w a s b a se d o n h e r fai l u re to co m p l yw i th i ts
w r i t t en pos t - i nj u ry dr ug s cr ee ni ng po l i cy, t he bur den s hi f t ed bac k t o Ja ck so n t o pr oduc e c ont r ove rt i ng e vi den cer ai si ng a f ac ti ss ue ast o a r et al i at ory m ot i ve o r n o n u n i fo rm e n fo rc e m e n t o f F e d E x ’sp o s t-i n j u ryd ru g s c re e n i n g p o l i c y . S ee Haggar Clothi ng Co. , 164 S. W . 3d a t388; Co n t ’ l Co f f e ePro ds . Co. , 937 S .W .2 d a t 4 4 4 , 4 5 0

– 5 1 ; Santi l l an , 2 0 3 S .W .3 d a t 5 0 6 .4 ... For i ns t anc e, t he cod e gi ven f or Jac ks on’ s t er m i nat i on w as“ V i ol at i on

ofRu l es. ” The em pl oyee l i stc o n ta i ns t hi s sam e code f orappr oxi m at el y t en em pl oyees. 12 I n an ef f ortt o di schar ge t hi s bur den, Jackson f i r stpoi nt s outt hatw hen F e d E xt e r m in a t e d h e r , it k n e w s h e w a s p u r s in g a w o r k e r s ’ c o m p e n s a t io n c la im . The f ac tt hata m ana gerha s so m e k now l edg e t hatan em pl oye e h asf i l ed a
w or ke r s’ co m pen sa t i on c l ai m d o e s not , by i t se l f , r ai sea gen ui ne i ss ue of
m a te ri a l fa c t. S ee San ti l l an , 203 S. W . 3d a t507. Jackson next cl ai m s t hat she pr odu ced sum m ar y j udg m ent evi dence t hat Fed Ex’ s st at ed r ea so n f ordi sc har ge w as f al se and t hatFe dEx had ex hi bi t ed a patt er n of di sc r i m i nat i on t ow ar d em pl oye esw ho f i l ed w or ke r s’ co m pen sa t i on c l a i m s . J a c k s o n p o i n ts to m u l ti p l e e m p l o y e e l i s ts a tta c h e d to h e r s u m m a ry j udg m entr esponse. The probl em w i t h t hese em pl oyee l i st s, how ever , i s t hat t heydo n otr ef l ec tt he sp ec i f i c r ea so n f orea ch t er m i nat i on. N o affi d a v i t ex i sts 4 i n th e s um m ary j udgm entr ec or d e xpl ai ni ng t hes e l i st s, how t heyw e re gen er at ed, orhow t hey pur port edl y sh ow a patt er n ofnonu ni f or m en f or ce m ent ofFedEx’ s post - i nj ur y dr ug scr eeni ng pol i cy. To t he contr ar y, FedEx p r of f er ed
sum m ar y j udg m entevi de n ce t hatonl y t w o peop l e— one of w hom w as Jackson— had f ai l ed t o com pl y w i t h t he dr ug p ol i cy and t hatbot h had been t e r mi n a t e d . T h u s , J a c k s o n ’ s s u mm a r yj u d g me n te v i d e n c e d o e s n o tr a i se a13

g e n u i n e i ss u e o f m a teri a l fac t on w h e th e r F e d E x d i d n o t u n i fo rm l yen fo rce i ts pos t - i nj ury dr ug s cr ee ni ng po l i cy. Jackson al so ar gues t hat FedEx ’ s st at ed r eason f orhert er m i nat i on w as f al se because Lem on t ol d her t hat she w as bei ng t er m i nat ed f orf ai l i ng t o t ake t he dr ug t est w i t hi n t w ent y- f ourhour s even t hou gh Fed Ex’ s dr ug po l i cy r equi r es a post - i nj ur y dr ug scr eeni ng t estbe condu ct ed att he t i m e ofi ni t i al m edi cal t r ea t m ent , not w i t hi n t w ent y- f our hour s. Ja ck so n c l ai m s sh e d i d t ak e t he dr ug te s t w i t h i n tw e n ty -fo u r h o u rso f b e i n g to l d to d o s o ; c o n s e q u e n tl y , F e d E x ’s
r eason f ort er m i nat i on i s f al se. The f a c t th a t Jac ks on t ookt he dr ug t es tw i t hi n t w ent y- f ourhour s of
w hen she w as t ol d t o t ake i td o e s n o t m a k e FedEx’ s st at ed r eason f orher di sc har ge f al se . Ja ck so n a dm i t t ed t hats he di d notco m pl et e t he dr ug s cr ee ni ng u n ti l th e d a y a fter sh e w e n t to K C l i n i c fo r h e r i n i ti a l m e d i c a l t r e a tm e n t. Ja c k s o n ’s ad m i ss i on s how s t hats he f ai l ed t o c om pl y w i t h Fe dEx’ s pol i cy on pos t - i nj ury dr ug s cr ee ni ng, a pol i cy t hats he w asde em ed t o h a v e kn ow l edg e ofby vi rt ue ofhe ratt end anc e a tt he sa f et y m ee t i ng t hatco ver ed t he dr ug pol i cy. Thu s, Jackson has f ai l ed t o m eet her sum m ar y j udg m entbur den t o r ai se a genui ne is s u e o f m at er i al f actas t o w het herFedEx’ s st at ed r eason f orher d i s c h a rg e w a s fa l s e . See i d. a t 507– 08 ( hol di ng t hatem pl oye r ’ s r ea so n f or t er m i nat i on w asnotf al sew hen i ti ni t i al l y t o l d e m p l oye e t hats he w asbe i ng14

t e r m in a t e d f o rf a ilin g t o p r o v id e n e c e s s a r ye m p lo y m e n t d o c u m e n t s in a t im e ly
m annerand l at err eport ed on em pl oyee’ s unem pl oym entbenef i t s cl ai m t hat
em pl oyee had been t er m i nat ed f or“m i scondu ct ”; em pl oyee f ai l ed t o show t hat h e r “ m i s c o n d u c t” w a s a n y th i n g o t h e r th a n h e r fa i l u re to fi l e th e n e c e s s a ry e m p l o y m e n t d o c u m e n ts ). W e h ol d t hatJa ck so n f ai l ed t o pr oduc e c ont r ove rt i ng e vi den cer ai si ng a fac t i ss u e as to F e d E x ’s retali a to ry m o ti v e o r no n u n i fo rm en fo rce m e n t i ts p o sti n j u ryd ru g s c re e n i n g p o l i c y . See Hagga r Clothi ng Co. , 164 S. W . 3d a t388; Cont ’ l Cof f ee Prods . Co. , 9 3 7 S .W .2 d a t 4 4 4 , 4 5 0

– 5 1 ; Santi l l an , 203 S. W . 3d
a t 5 0 6 ; see al

so Jordan v. BA E A utom ated S ys. , No. 05- 96- 01488

- CV , 1998 W L 24 24 13 , at*2 ( Tex . A pp. — D al l as M ay 15 , 19 98 , no pet . ) ( not desi gnated f o rp u b lic a t io n ) ( u p h o ld in g s u m m a r yju d g m e n tb e c a u s e a p p e lla n ta d m it t e d in dep os i t i on t hathew asdi sc har ged f ort ak i ng a pa i n pi l l w i t hout a p r es cr i pt i on i n v i o l a ti o n o f c o m p a n y ’sd ru g p o l i c y ). A c c o rd i n g l y , w e o v e rru l e J a c k s o n ’s t hi r d i ssue. V I. C ON C L U S I ON H avi ng ov er r ul ed Jac ks on’ s t hr eei ss ues , w e a f f i r m t he t r i al co urt ’ s gr ant ofs um m ary j udgm enti n f avo rofFe dEx.

SU E W A LKER J U S T I C E15

PA N EL A : C A YC E, C. J. ; H O LM A N an d W A LKER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Apr i l 24, 2008