Janice Hunicke v. Seafarers International UnionAppeal from 80th District Court of Harris County (Memorandum Opinion )

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 14th District Court of Appeals » 2013 » Janice Hunicke v. Seafarers International UnionAppeal from 80th District Court of Harris County (Memorandum Opinion )

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 14-12-00199-CV

Case Date: 06/04/2013

Plaintiff: Janice Hunicke

Defendant: Seafarers International UnionAppeal from 80th District Court of Harris County (Memorandum Opinion )

Preview:Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed June 4, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-12-00199-CV JANICE HUNICKE, Appellant, V. SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, Appellee. On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County Trial Court Cause No. 2009-75113 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Janice Hunicke appeals the trial court's judgment in favor of her former employer, appellee Seafarers International Union, on her claims under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (the "Act"). We reverse the trial court's judgment as to Hunicke's sexual-harassment claim and remand the cause of action to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I Hunicke began working as a secretary in Seafarers's Houston office in 1989.1 Dean Corgey was the vice president of the office, and James McGee was the port agent, or assistant vice president. At all times relevant to this litigation, McGee directly supervised the employees in the office, including Hunicke. Seafarers is a labor organization established to promote the interests of workers in the maritime industry. During Hunicke's employment, Seafarers members often had their personal mail sent to the office while they were at sea, where it would be held until the members returned. In August of 2008, however, the office became overwhelmed with the amount of personal mail it was receiving, so McGee instructed Hunicke to return what was already in the office and not to accept any more. Although she received similar instructions again in October and November, Hunicke failed to get rid of the mail. On December 30, an investigator from the Department of Public Safety went to the office and advised McGee and Corgey that 30 members, many of whom were fugitives and felons wanted for crimes including homicide and drug offenses, were illegally using the office's address as their personal address. McGee again told Hunicke to stop accepting members' mail and to return the mail already in the office. Nevertheless, Hunicke failed to follow the instructions, so on January 5, 2009, McGee fired her. Shortly thereafter, Hunicke wrote a letter to Michael Sacco, the president of Seafarers, asking to be reinstated and explaining that she believed she was being discriminated and retaliated against because she had been fired without cause. Corgey called Hunicke on January 8 and reiterated that she was terminated because she refused to follow instructions about the mail. On May 5, Hunicke's attorney,
Hunicke had previously worked as a secretary in Seafarers's Houston office from 1984 until 1985, when she left to have a child. 2
1

Glenn Patterson, sent Sacco a second letter, accusing Seafarers of gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation, and warning that Hunicke would sue unless Seafarers agreed to pay her $800,000 to settle the matter. On March 6, Hunicke filed a complaint based on those allegations with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Texas Commission on Human Rights. On November 19, 2009, Hunicke sued Seafarers under the Act, again asserting claims for gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation.2 On November 23, 2010, Seafarers filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that Hunicke failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation and that her sexualharassment claim was barred by limitations. In her response, Hunicke conceded that her sexual-harassment claim was time barred and voluntarily dismissed it. On June 1, 2011, the trial court granted partial summary judgment as to Hunicke's retaliation claim only. Meanwhile, on May 13, 2011, Hunicke had filed a motion for a spoliation instruction, claiming that McGee had intentionally destroyed two hard drives that contained evidence relevant to her claim. On August 24, she filed a motion for reconsideration of the partial summary judgment, arguing that it was improper in light of her motion for a spoliation instruction. The trial court denied her motion for reconsideration on October 11, and on that same day, Hunicke filed her first amended petition, in which she reasserted her sexual-harassment claim. After the trial court denied Seafarers's motion to strike the amended petition, Seafarers filed a second motion for summary judgment, again arguing Hunicke's sexualHunicke did not assert claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nevertheless, because one of the purposes of the Act is to "provide for the execution of the policies of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its subsequent amendments," we look to federal precedent for guidance when interpreting the Act. See Tex. Lab. Code

Download 14-12-00199-cv.pdf