The Texas Supreme Court has reversed an El Paso Court of Appeals decision overturning a summary judgment in favor of a hospital that terminated a nurse for violating is employment policies.
Scott & White Memorial Hospital d/b/a Baylor Scott & White McLane Children’s Medical Center a/k/a Baylor Scott & White Health v. Dawn M. Thompson, R.N. (No. 22-0558; delivered December 22, 2023) arose from the hospital’s termination of plaintiff after a series of alleged violations of the hospital’s personal-conduct policies. After each of the first two incidents, which involved plaintiff’s conduct toward hospital employees and a physician, the hospital warned plaintiff that a third violation “will” result in termination. A few months later, plaintiff contacted a school nurse in which she disclosed a child patient’s protected health information without authorization. Based on information received from the school nurse, plaintiff reported her concerns about potential abuse by the child’s divorced parents to CPS. When she discovered the report, the child’s mother called the hospital to complain. Following an investigation, the hospital terminated plaintiff’s employment.
Plaintiff sued the hospital for a violation of § 261.110(b), Family Code, which prohibits an employer from taking an adverse employment action against a professional who reports suspected abuse to CPS. The hospital moved for summary judgment on the basis that it terminated the employee for violating its policy, not for reporting suspected abuse. The trial court granted the motion. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that she raised a genuine fact issue as to whether the hospital fired her for making the report. The El Paso Court of Appeals agreed and remanded to the trial court. The hospital appealed
SCOTX reversed and rendered judgment in favor of the hospital. The Court applied the same causation standard to § 261.110 as it does to other similar statutes, a but-for standard providing that “the protected conduct ‘need to be the employer’s sole motivation’ for the adverse action ‘but it must be such that without’ the protected conduct the adverse action ‘would not have occurred when it did’” (citations omitted). The hospital argued that it conclusively proved that it terminated plaintiff because she disclosed protected health information without authorization in violation of hospital policy. It had previously warned plaintiff that such a violation would result in her termination, which it did. Plaintiff asserted that a form the hospital provided to her at the time of her termination indicated that the hospital knew about the CPS report, raising a fact issue as to the rationale and timing of her termination. SCOTX agreed with the hospital.
This case should not have gotten all the way up to the Court. The trial court did its job. Unfortunately, the court of appeals didn’t see it that way.
