PJC Business

PJC 107.5

E MPLOYMENT

Broad-form submission. PJC 107.5 is a broad-form question designed to be accompanied by one or more appropriate instructions. Tex. R. Civ. P. 277 requires that “the court shall, whenever feasible, submit the cause upon broad-form questions.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 277; see Thota v. Young , 366 S.W.3d 678, 689 (Tex. 2012) (rule 277’s use of “whenever feasible” mandates broad-form submission in any or every instance in which it is capable of being accomplished). For further discussion, see PJC116.2 regarding broad-form issues and the Casteel doctrine. Institution of proceeding. If an employee has been discharged after injury, but before claim paperwork has been filed, the following instruction may be given: “Instituting or causing to be instituted a workers’ compensation proceeding” includes an employee reporting an on-the-job injury to Don Davis , Don Davis completing an on-the-job accident report for an employee, or the employee receiving weekly compensation bene fits related to an on-the-job injury. See Salas v. Fluor Daniel Services Corp. , 616 S.W.3d 137, 150 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020,pet. denied) (an employee need not file a workers’ compensation claim to engage in protected conduct under section 451.001(3); an employee institutes or causes to be instituted a relevant proceeding under section 451.001(3) when he informs his employer of his on-the-job injury). After-acquired evidence of employee misconduct. If the employer has pleaded the discovery of evidence of employee misconduct acquired only after the employee’s employment was terminated, see PJC 107.7 for the applicable question. Imputing bias of someone other than final decisionmaker to employer (“cat’s paw theory”). Bias of someone other than the decisionmaker may be imputed to an employer in a workers’ compensation retaliation context if the person in question pos sessed leverage or exerted influence over the decisionmaker. Tawil v. Cook Children’s Healthcare System , 582 S.W.3d 669, 689 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2019, no pet.). For further discussion on imputation of bias under the “cat’s paw theory,” please see the Comments to PJC 107.6 and 107.9.

306