CompFox AI Summary
The Chief Justice dissents from the Court’s decision not to reconsider a panel’s opinion en banc, arguing that the panel opinion is contrary to established Texas law concerning retaliatory discharge under article 8307c of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The dissent asserts that the after-acquired evidence defense is an unprecedented affirmative defense that lacks statutory or common law basis in Texas, and it conflicts with the principle that an employee can recover even if retaliation is not the sole reason for discharge. Furthermore, the defense is criticized for being based on the false premise that an employee cannot be injured by an illegal discharge if they would not have been hired initially due to a falsified application. The dissent also argues that the defense is inherently speculative and cannot be proven as a matter of law, and that it encourages employers to engage in unlawful behavior. Finally, it suggests that equitable goals can be met through existing legal mechanisms like reducing damages or counterclaims for fraud.
Jordan v. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a workers' compensation case decided in Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas). 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 Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas).
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Chief Justice dissents from the Court’s decision not to reconsider a panel’s opinion en banc, arguing that the panel opinion is contrary to established Texas law concerning retaliatory discharge under article 8307c of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The dissent asserts that the "after-acquired evidence defense" is an unprecedented affirmative defense that lacks statutory or common law basis in Texas, and it conflicts with the principle that an employee can recover even if retaliation is not the sole reason for discharge. Furthermore, the defense is criticized for being based on the false premise that an employee cannot be injured by an illegal discharge if they would not have been hired initially due to a falsified application. The dissent also argues that the defense is inherently speculative and cannot be proven as a matter of law, and that it encourages employers to engage in unlawful behavior. Finally, it suggests that equitable goals can be met through existing legal mechanisms like reducing damages or counterclaims for fraud.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.