CompFox AI Summary
Jeremiah McKenzie sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and manager Rick Rumfelt for wrongful termination and slander after being fired from a Wal-Mart in Tyler, Texas, allegedly for instituting a worker’s compensation claim and racial discrimination. He later amended his petition to include retaliatory discharge and a Texas Labor Code discrimination claim after being rehired and re-fired from another Wal-Mart store. A jury awarded McKenzie damages, including back-pay, mental anguish, lost credit reputation, and exemplary damages. Wal-Mart challenged the availability of compensatory and punitive damages under former article 5221k in a post-verdict motion. The court of appeals ruled Wal-Mart waived this objection by not raising it earlier. However, the higher court reversed, holding Wal-Mart’s objection was timely as the availability of remedies is a legal question, remanding the case for consideration of the merits.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. McKenzie is a workers' compensation case decided in Texas Supreme Court. 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 Supreme Court.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Jeremiah McKenzie sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and manager Rick Rumfelt for wrongful termination and slander after being fired from a Wal-Mart in Tyler, Texas, allegedly for instituting a worker’s compensation claim and racial discrimination. He later amended his petition to include retaliatory discharge and a Texas Labor Code discrimination claim after being rehired and re-fired from another Wal-Mart store. A jury awarded McKenzie damages, including back-pay, mental anguish, lost credit reputation, and exemplary damages. Wal-Mart challenged the availability of compensatory and punitive damages under former article 5221k in a post-verdict motion. The court of appeals ruled Wal-Mart waived this objection by not raising it earlier. However, the higher court reversed, holding Wal-Mart’s objection was timely as the availability of remedies is a legal question, remanding the case for consideration of the merits.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.