CompFox AI Summary
Justice Willett's concurring opinion agrees with the Court's outcome in Molinet v. Kimbrell, finding that the Insurance Code, as written, does not create a cause of action for disparate impact discrimination related to credit scoring. However, Justice Willett strongly criticizes the Court's methodological approach, arguing that it inappropriately resorts to extratextual aids and legislative history despite the statute's unambiguous language. He emphasizes the principle of textualism, where clear statutory text should be determinative, and deems the use of external sources like failed bills and statements from bill opponents as unreliable and inconsistent with established judicial precedent. Willett expresses concern that the Court's deviation undermines interpretive consistency and predictability in statutory interpretation, which is vital for courts, litigants, and citizens. He also finds the Chief Justice's distinction between 'contextualizing' and 'construing' legislative history to be a 'gossamer-thin' and hazardous distinction, potentially inviting semantic manipulation and reliance on untrustworthy evidence.
Ojo v. Farmers Group, Inc. 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
Justice Willett's concurring opinion agrees with the Court's outcome in Molinet v. Kimbrell, finding that the Insurance Code, as written, does not create a cause of action for disparate impact discrimination related to credit scoring. However, Justice Willett strongly criticizes the Court's methodological approach, arguing that it inappropriately resorts to extratextual aids and legislative history despite the statute's unambiguous language. He emphasizes the principle of textualism, where clear statutory text should be determinative, and deems the use of external sources like failed bills and statements from bill opponents as unreliable and inconsistent with established judicial precedent. Willett expresses concern that the Court's deviation undermines interpretive consistency and predictability in statutory interpretation, which is vital for courts, litigants, and citizens. He also finds the Chief Justice's distinction between 'contextualizing' and 'construing' legislative history to be a 'gossamer-thin' and hazardous distinction, potentially inviting semantic manipulation and reliance on untrustworthy evidence.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.