Second Court of Appeals
Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of June 11, 2018.
NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his
or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case
and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.
Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Burnett, No. 02-16-00489-CV (June 14, 2018) (Charles Bleil (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment) joined by Walker, J.; Pittman, J., dissents with opinion).
Held: In this age-discrimination case, the evidence supports the trial court’s findings on liability and damages. The circumstantial evidence is legally and factually sufficient to prove that Bell Helicopter violated chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code by terminating Burnett’s employment because of his age. Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Burnett front pay as an equitable remedy. Finally, the trial court’s award of front pay does not qualify as “compensatory damages” subject to a monetary cap under section 21.2585 of the Texas Labor Code.
Dissent: There is no evidence of any action that occurred after Burnett turned forty that motivated or precipitated his termination. Accordingly, the plain language of the TCHRA cannot be stretched to cover any discriminatory actions that occurred in this case.
In re Guardianship of A.E., No. 02-17-00189-CV (June 14, 2018) (Pittman, J., joined by Gabriel and Birdwell, JJ.).
Held: Clear and convincing evidence established the requirements for a guardian of the person to be appointed for A.E., an incapacitated adult—including that supports and services and alternatives to guardianship that would avoid the need for the appointment of a guardian have been considered and determined not to be feasible—and there was no evidence to the contrary. A.E.’s parents are entitled to and not disqualified from the appointment. Accordingly, the probate court abused its discretion by denying the guardianship application of A.E.’s parents.
Nw. Cattle Feeders, LLC v. O’Connell, No. 02-17-00361-CV (June 14, 2018) (Birdwell, J., joined by Walker and Meier, JJ.).
Held: The trial court erred by dismissing, for lack of personal jurisdiction, claims against Jason O’Connell that arise from his alleged misrepresentation that he made while in Texas and that concerned cattle within Texas. Even if Jason’s contacts arise from his acts in a representative capacity for an LLC, the fiduciary shield doctrine does not protect him from being subject to specific personal jurisdiction to answer for intentional torts or fraudulent acts for which he may be liable. The trial court did not err by dismissing direct claims against Tom O’Connell because those claims did not arise from any contacts that Tom had with Texas. The trial court erred by dismissing Appellants’ denuding claims against Jason and Tom because those claims derive from the LLC’s liability (if any) for certain acts, and the LLC’s unchallenged jurisdictional contacts are therefore imputed to Jason and Tom. Finally, to the extent that claims against the O’Connells are based on sufficient jurisdictional contacts with this state, the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.