CompFox AI Summary
Jesse L. Cunningham sued his former employer, Santex, Inc., for wrongful discharge, alleging discrimination for filing a Worker’s Compensation claim under Article 8307c of Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes. A jury found Santex discharged Cunningham due to his claim and awarded him $2850.00, though it also found he was discharged for unsatisfactory work. Santex appealed, raising several contentions, including arguments that the jury should have found 'solely' for the discharge reason and that future wages were an improper element of damages for an employee at will. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the statute does not require 'solely' as the reason for discharge and that future wages are a valid form of damages under Article 8307c, citing precedent. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Cunningham was discharged because he filed a Worker’s Compensation claim.
Santex, Inc. v. Cunningham is a workers' compensation case decided in Court of Appeals of 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 Court of Appeals of Texas.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Jesse L. Cunningham sued his former employer, Santex, Inc., for wrongful discharge, alleging discrimination for filing a Worker’s Compensation claim under Article 8307c of Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes. A jury found Santex discharged Cunningham due to his claim and awarded him $2850.00, though it also found he was discharged for unsatisfactory work. Santex appealed, raising several contentions, including arguments that the jury should have found 'solely' for the discharge reason and that future wages were an improper element of damages for an employee at will. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the statute does not require 'solely' as the reason for discharge and that future wages are a valid form of damages under Article 8307c, citing precedent. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Cunningham was discharged because he filed a Worker’s Compensation claim.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.