The Corpus Christi/Edinburg Court of Appeals reversed a trial court judgment for a plaintiff in a workers’ compensation retaliation case, holding that the trial court erroneously denied defendant contractor’s motion to transfer venue.
Marquis Construction Services, LLC v. Jesus Torres (No. 13-23-00266-CV; January 8, 2026) arose from an accident at the Formosa Plant in Point Comfort. Plaintiff, working as a scaffold carpenter at the plant, was injured when he fell down some stairs while carrying plywood. The following month, Marquis terminated Plaintiff after missing three consecutive days of work. In October of that year, Plaintiff filed for worker’s compensation and began receiving benefits. He then filed suit in February 2020 in Hidalgo County, alleging that Marquis had violated § 451.001, Labor Code, the worker’s compensation retaliation statute. He argued that his termination was the result of a “pretextual reason” and asserted damages for both economic loss and mental anguish. Marquis filed a motion to transfer venue, contending that the proper venue was Calhoun County because the events giving rise to the claim occurred there, or Brazoria County, where its principal office was located. The trial court denied the motion, and a jury subsequently found in favor of Plaintiff, awarding him $225,000 in damages. Marquis appealed.
In an opinion by Justice Peña, the court of appeals reversed. Marquis argued that the trial court erred by denying its motion to transfer venue from Hidalgo County to Brazoria County and that Plaintiff did not demonstrate that venue was proper in Hidalgo County. The relevant evidence, including the affidavit of Marquis’ Director of Human Resources, pointed to venue being proper in Calhoun or Brazoria County because (1) the injury occurred and Plaintiff was examined at the Formosa Plant in Calhoun County, (2) the decision to terminate Plaintiff was made in Calhoun County, and (3) Marquis’s principal office and decision-makers were located in Brazoria County. After Marquis challenged Plaintiff’s venue choice, the burden shifted to Plaintiff to prove Hidalgo County was the proper venue. He alleged that he was domiciled in Hidalgo at the time of the injury and at the time he filed for worker’s compensation. According to the court, however, Plaintiff’s claim accrued the moment he received “unequivocal notice of the termination” at the Formosa Plant, and the gravamen of the claim itself was the alleged retaliation that occurred in Calhoun County following his worker’s compensation claim.
Plaintiff argued further that his affidavit served as prima facie proof immune to “rebuttal, cross-examination, impeachment or even disproof,” although Marquis maintained that Plaintiff’s place of residence and where he was treated were extraneous to the proceedings of this case. The court agreed with Marquis. Plaintiff attempted to reinforce a tenuous connection between his residence, to which he returned on his days off and from which he made calls to the foreman, but the court held that the essential elements of the claim remained arose in Calhoun County. Finally, Plaintiff attempted to argue that his worker’s compensation claim was formalized in Hidalgo County, but this link was too tenuous to support his claim because any alleged improper motive on Marquis’s part would have to have existed at the time of the termination, rather than when Plaintiff began receiving benefits four months later. Having determined that Calhoun County was a proper venue, the Court held that the trial court erred by finding that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the retaliation claim occurred in Hidalgo County.
Next, the Court turned to whether Marquis submitted similarly adequate evidence showing proper venue in Brazoria County. Marquis cited § 15.002(a)(3), CPRC, arguing that venue was proper because based on the location of its principal place of business. Marquis offered the affidavits of two employees confirming that fact. Plaintiff never argued that venue was improper in Brazoria but only that Hidalgo was proper. The court thus found that Marquis had indeed proffered sufficient evidence supporting venue in Brazoria County pursuant to § 15.002(a)(3).
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals sustained Marquis’ first issue and reversed the judgment of the trial court. The case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to transfer the case to Brazoria County.
TCJL Intern Satchel Williams researched and prepared the first draft of this article.
