- Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth
- MOLLY FRANCIS, JUSTICE
An employee, B.C., sued her former employer, Steak and Shake Operations, Inc. The employer moved for a combined traditional motion and no-evidence motion for summary judgment on the employee's claim. The employee failed to file a timely response to the no-evidence motion. The trial court granted the employer's summary judgment motion and did not indicate if it considered the employee's late-filed response. The employee appealed to the Texas Supreme Court who reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case back to the trial court to determine whether the employee met her burden of proof on the combined summary judgment motions. The court ruled that it was required to grant the employer's summary judgment motion because the employee did not file a response or failed to provide a legally adequate response to the no-evidence motion for summary judgment. The dissenting opinion of the court held that the employee met her burden of proof on the traditional summary judgment motion. The majority opinion of the court however, rejected the dissent's opinion because no-evidence summary judgment motions get decided first when a combined no-evidence motion and traditional motion for summary judgment is before the court. Since the employer's no-evidence motion for summary judgment was granted because of an inadequate response, the court need not decide the traditional summary judgment motion. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
B.C. v. Steak N Shake Operations, Inc., Dallas Court of Appeals, Case No.: 05-14-00649-CV, 8/30/17.
This premium content is reserved for Texas Lawyer subscribers.
Continue reading by getting started with a subscription.
Already a subscriber? Log in now