PJC Business

E MPLOYMENT

PJC 107.5

PJC 107.5

Question and Instruction on Retaliation for Seeking Workers’ Compensation Benefits

QUESTION ______ Did Don Davis [ discharge or (describe other adverse employment action) ] Paul Payne because he [ filed a workers’ compensation claim in good faith, hired a lawyer to represent him in a workers’ compensation claim, instituted or caused to be instituted a workers’ compensation claim in good faith, testified or is about to testify in a workers’ compensation proceeding ]? There may be more than one cause for an employment decision. An employer does not [ discharge or (describe other adverse employment action) ] an employee for [ filing a workers’ compensation claim in good faith, hiring a lawyer to represent him in a workers’ compensation claim, instituting or caus ing to be instituted a workers’ compensation claim in good faith, testifying or intending to testify in a workers’ compensation proceeding ] if the employer would have [ insert employment decision — e.g., discharged ] the employee when he did even if the employee had not [ filed a workers’ compensation claim in good faith, hired a lawyer to represent him in a workers’ compensation claim, instituted or caused to be instituted a workers’ compensation claim in good faith, testified or was about to testify in a workers’ compensation proceeding ]. Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. PJC 107.5 should be used for a claim that the employer has com mitted an unlawful practice under Tex. Lab. Code § 451.001. Source of question and instruction. The question is derived from Tex. Lab. Code § 451.001 and Azar Nut Co. v. Caille , 720 S.W.2d 685, 687 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1986), aff’d , 734 S.W.2d 667 (Tex. 1987); see also Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Garza , 164 S.W.3d 607, 615–16 (Tex. 2004) (discussing PJC 107.5 and noting that the question would have been more accurate if it had asked whether the defendant dis criminated against the plaintiff, thereby retaining the statutory language). The instruc tion is derived from Continental Coffee Products Co. v. Cazarez , 937 S.W.2d 444, 450–51 (Tex. 1996). See also Haggar Clothing Co. v. Hernandez , 164 S.W.3d 386, 388 (Tex. 2005).

305