Diamond Shamrock Refining and Marketing Co. v. Mendez
809 S.W.2d 514 · Court of Appeals of Texas · 1991
Facts
Roque Mendez was terminated from his job at Diamond Shamrock for allegedly stealing a handful of nails. He sued Diamond Shamrock for false light invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, winning a jury verdict. Diamond Shamrock appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for both claims and the jury instructions.
Issue
1. Was there sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Diamond Shamrock placed Mendez in a false light and publicized the matter? 2. What is the appropriate standard of care (actual malice vs. negligence) for a false light claim involving a private individual in Texas, and did Diamond Shamrock preserve its objection to the jury instruction? 3. Was there sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of intentional or reckless infliction of severe emotional distress?
Holding
The court affirmed the false light claim, finding sufficient evidence of publicity and that Diamond Shamrock failed to preserve its objection to the jury instruction regarding the standard of care. The court reversed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, concluding that terminating an at-will employee for admitted theft is a privileged exercise of a legal right. The overall judgment for Mendez was affirmed because the false light claim was upheld.
Rule
For false light claims involving private plaintiffs in Texas, the standard of care is negligence, meaning the defendant knew or should have known the publicized statement was false. An employer's termination of an at-will employee for admitted theft is a permissible exercise of a legal right and will not support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.