Wrongful Termination

Maintenance worker says company fired him for filing a workers' comp claim

Property management company says property owner’s accociation was the worker's employer

Stewart v. Logan Properties Inc., Court of Appeals of Texas, Ist Dist., Houston, No. 01-98-00015-CV (1998)

Question before the court:

Who’s the boss? Does the property owner employ a maintenance worker, or does the property manager?

Facts of the case:

      The plaintiff, Stewart, began working for Countryside Village Homeowners' Association as a general maintenance person for a townhouse complex in 1980. Countryside fired him a few years later, then rehired him in 1985.

      In 1990, Countryside hired a property management company to run the complex's day-to-day operations. Stewart began to receive instructions from various employees of the management company. Later that year, Countryside hired a new management company, Logan Properties Inc. The management agreement didn't give Logan the right to fire any Countryside employees.

      Stewart began receiving orders from Logan's employees, including Littlefield, who was also a director of Countryside.

      In 1992, Steward was injured on the job while working for Countryside. He filed a worker’s compensation claim, and received benefits from Countryside's insurance company.

      Later that year, Littlefield, acting in his capacity as a director of Countryside, told Stewart his job had been eliminated. Littlefield told Countryside's board of directors that Stewart had "discontinued employment" after many years of service.

      Littlefield later admitted the letter was false and that Stewart's position had been eliminated because an independent contractor had agreed to hire Stewart in the same capacity to do the same work for Countryside.

      Stewart sued Countryside, Logan, and Littlefield, claiming they illegally fired him in retaliation for filing a worker's comp claim. State law provided that "no person may discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee" for filing a workers' comp claim. Stewart apparently claimed all the defendants were liable as his supervisors.

      Logan, the property manager, asked the court to dismiss Stewart's claims against it. Logan argued that Countryside was Stewart's employer, not the property manager, and that it couldn't be held liable as a supervisor.

Case Dismissed:

      The court dismissed the claims against Logan, finding the property manager wasn't Stewart's employer.

Appealed:

      Stewart appealed, arguing the term "person" in the statute applied to Logan as his supervisor.

DECISION: Affirmed.

      The court properly dismissed the claims against Logan. The property manager didn't fire Stewart Countryside did. Littlefield, acting in his capacity as an officer of Countryside, told Stewart his job had been eliminated. Logan never fired Stewart and - based on its management agreement with Countryside - had no authority to fire Stewart. Nor could Logan be liable for Stewart's termination as his "supervisor." The statute prohibited any person from discriminating against an employee for filing a worker’s comp claim, and Stewart wasn't Logan's employee.

 Also see: City of LaPorte v. Barfield, 898 S. W.2d 288 (1995).
                Roberts v. Friendswood Development Company, 886 S.W2d 363(1994).