CompFox AI Summary
The plaintiff, dismissed after eleven years as a sales representative, brought claims for age discrimination under the ADEA, breach of employment contract, and intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant moved for summary judgment on all counts. The court denied summary judgment on the ADEA claim, finding sufficient evidence for trial. It also denied summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, noting a factual dispute regarding the existence of an employment contract modifying at-will employment. For the emotional distress claim, the court granted summary judgment against intentional infliction of emotional distress but denied it for negligent infliction, allowing the latter to proceed to a jury. Additionally, the court determined that Texas law governs the pendent state claims, concluding that the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act does not preempt common law causes of action.
Abston v. Levi Strauss & Co. is a workers' compensation case decided in District Court, E.D. Texas. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in District Court, E.D. Texas.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The plaintiff, dismissed after eleven years as a sales representative, brought claims for age discrimination under the ADEA, breach of employment contract, and intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant moved for summary judgment on all counts. The court denied summary judgment on the ADEA claim, finding sufficient evidence for trial. It also denied summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, noting a factual dispute regarding the existence of an employment contract modifying at-will employment. For the emotional distress claim, the court granted summary judgment against intentional infliction of emotional distress but denied it for negligent infliction, allowing the latter to proceed to a jury. Additionally, the court determined that Texas law governs the pendent state claims, concluding that the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act does not preempt common law causes of action.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.