## IN THE SUPREME COURT O F TEX AS

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 N O . 14-0006

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

### K IN G S A IR E 

### , I N C


### . D 

### / B 

### / A 

### K IN G S 

### A IR E 

### , I N C


### . , P E T IT IO N E R 

### ,
v . J O R G E 

### M E L E N D E Z 

### , R E S P O N D E N T

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

O N P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W F R O M T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E E I G H T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X A S

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
J U S T I C E G U Z M A N , concur ring

. I n enac ting the Family and Medica l L eave Act (F ML A), Congr ess struck a delicate balanc e to

acc ommodate “the demands of the workplac e” while promoting the “ec onomic secur ity of families.” 29 U.S.C. § 2601(b)( 1). C o n gre s s ensure d employ ees wer e entitled “to take rea sonable leave for medical rea sons,” but rec og nized the economic nece ssity of acc ommodating “the leg itimate interests of employ ers.” 29 U.S.C. § 2601(b)( 2)-( 3). An equilibrium betwee n these counter points is achie ved throug h the FML A’s limit ed g uara ntee of twelve wee ks of job-protec t ed l ea v e. On occa sion, workplac e injuries may require em p l oy ees to take medical leave extending bey ond the FML A’s protec tions, but employ ers may never theless manag e the resulti n g b u rd ens on their businesses by

enac ting and enfor cing rea sonable leave policies

. I f an employ ee rema ins on leave bey ond twelve

wee ks, the employ ee can be ter m i n at ed when such a policy require s it, even if the employ ee has eng ag ed in protec ted conduct under the Workers’ Com pensation Act. Absent evidence proving theleave policy was applied in a discriminatory manner or the rea son for discharg e was prete x tual, a

reta liatory

discharg e cla im is not viable. See Cont’l Coffee Prods. Co. v

. Cazarez , 937 S.W .2d 444, 450-51 (Te x . 1996). Be cause no such evidence was i ntroduce d here , I join the C ourt’s opi nion and holding that Me lendez failed to c arr y his burden of pr oving r etaliatory discharg e. I write separa tely , howeve r, because I believe it is important to clar ify which party bear s the burden of proof in a reta liatory discharg e case when sufficie nt evidenc e exis ts that termination resulted from the uniform en forc ement of a rea sonable leave policy

. The burden of persua sion compels the result in this case . I further note this issue is square ly prese nted in King s Aire’ s second appellate point, which complains about the jury char g e but is mooted by the Court’s dispositi on of the first appellate point. Thoug h we have not previously stated so, uni form enforce ment of a rea sonable leave poli cy i s an infere ntial rebuttal defe nse to a reta liatory discharg e claim. When an employ er p ro d u ce s evidenc e that an adver se employ ment action resulted from uniform enfor ceme nt of a rea sonable leave policy , the employ ee must prove all the requisite elements of reta liation and disprove the employ er’ s claim that termination was based on the leave policy

. This burden- shifting scheme ex ists beca use,

u nder the Texas L abor Code, the employ ee bear s the burden of proving that a dischar ge (o r o t h er adver se action) “occ urre d ‘bec ause’ of the protec ted activity .” Cazarez , 937 S.W .2d at 450; see T E X . L A B O R C O D E §§ 451.001, 451.002(c)

. To prove causation, the employ ee must demonstrate “that the employ er’ s action would not have occur red when it did had the employ ee’ s protec ted conduct—f iling

a worke rs’ compensa tion claim—not occur red.” Haggar Clothi ng Co. v. Hernand e z , 164 S.W .3d 386, 388 (Tex. 2005).
2As we explained in Cazarez , even if an em p l oy ee has eng ag ed in protec ted conduct, the

employ ee cannot establish a causa l nexus betwee n protec ted conduct and termination of employ ment if termination was require d under a leave policy that is both rea sonable and uniformly enfor ced. 937 S.W .2d at 451. I n such circ umstances, the e mploy ee’ s protecte d conduct is nec essar ily not the “but for” cause of the employ ee’ s termination. Id

. (“I f an employ ee’ s termination is require d by the uniform enfor ceme nt of a rea sonable absente e policy , then it cannot be the case that termination would not have

occur red when it did but for the employ ee’ s asser tion of a compensa tion claim or other conduct protec ted by section 451.001.”). Thoug h we did not expli citly cate g orize the leave -policy issue as an infere ntial rebuttal def

ense, it natura lly

follows. “An infere ntial rebuttal defe nse operates to rebut an essential element of the plaintiff’s case by proof of other fac ts.” See Dillard v. Tex. Elec. Coop. , 157 S.W .3d 429, 430 (Tex. 2005). I n contra st, an af firmative de fense enable s a defe ndant to a void liability

even if the plaintiff succ essfully proves all the elements of a cause of action. Tex. Bee f Cattl e Co. v. Gree n , 921 S.W .2d 203, 210 (Tex. 1996). Evidence that an employ ee was terminated based on uniform enfor ceme nt of a rea sonable leave policy rebuts the conclusion that the emplo y ee was terminated in reta liation for eng ag ing in protec ted conduct. I t prese nts a contra ry theory of causation. Acc ording ly , the leave -policy defe nse illust rate s the “basic char acte ristic” of an infere ntial rebuttal def ense; “it prese nts a contra ry or inconsistent theory from the claim relied upon for rec overy .” Selec t Ins. Co. v. Bouche r , 561 S.W .2d 474, 477 (Tex. 1 978). A leave -policy defe nse cannot be trea ted as an aff irmative defe nse beca

use doing so would impermissibly shift the burden of causation to the defe ndant in contra vention of the reta liatory

discharg e st atute. See Zorr i lla v. Aypco C onstr. II , LLC , 469 S.W .3d 143, 156 (Tex. 2015) (“[T] he
3hallmark chara cter istic of [ an affirmative defense ] is t h at the burden of proof is on the defendant to

prese nt sufficient e vidence to establish the defe nse and obta in the requisite jury finding s.”). Properly char acte rizing the leave -policy defe nse as an infere ntial rebuttal defe nse rathe r than an af firmative de fense has important implications. I n the context of this case, a t least two exist

. First, it de termines the applicable leg al-suff iciency standard. I n this case , the Court proper ly conducts a no-evi d en ce l egal- sufficie ncy revie w. And, as the C ourt ably explains, Melende z failed
to prove that his termination did not result from a uniformly enfor ced, rea sonable lea v e p o l icy

. Although Melende z obtained a favor able jury finding that he was t erminate d for filing a worke rs’ compensa tion claim, the jury ’s finding cannot stand beca use the rec ord bear s no evidenc e of employ er subterfug e nor evidenc e that the leave policy was inapplicable or applied in a discriminatory manner . Cf. Cazarez , 937 S.W .2d at 452 (af firming a jury finding beca use there wa s some evidenc e the employ er’ s three- day

rule did not apply

). Second, beca

use the infere ntial rebuttal defe nse is s u b s u m ed in the liability question, dispositi on of King s Aire’ s first appellate issue answe rs its second issue—whether the trial court err ed by not submitt ing a separ ate questio n an d i n s t ruction to the jury on the leave -policy defe nse. I nfer ential rebuttal defe nses cannot be submitt ed to the jury in se parate jury questions. T E X . R. C I V . P. 277. I nstead, infere ntial r ebuttal defe nses ra ised by the evidenc e “must be prese nted throug h jury instructions.” Bed, Bath & Bey ond, Inc. v. Urista , 211 S.W .3d 753, 757 (Tex. 2006); see also Lemos

v. Montez , 680 S.W .2d 798, 800 (Tex. 1984). The trial court did n o t er r in ref using to submit a separ ate que stion on Kings Aire ’s leave -policy defe nse.

4Wit h these a dditional thoughts, Ijoin the Court’s opinion and judgment.

____________________________________ Eva M. Guzman J ustice

OP INION DELIVERED : Dece mber 4, 2015

5