Brunner v. Al Attar
786 S.W.2d 784, 53 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 39,737, 1990 Tex. App. LEXIS 317 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Texas employment-at-will doctrine, an employee's termination for volunteering with a controversial organization does not fall under the narrow public policy exception. Furthermore, a claim for handicap discrimination requires the plaintiff to actually be a 'handicapped person' under the statute, not merely for an employer to fear the employee's association with a handicap.
Facts:
- Brunner was an employee of Apollo Paint & Body, a general partnership run by Farouk and Rima Al Attar.
- Brunner informed her employer, Farouk Al Attar, that she would begin volunteering at the AIDS Foundation during her personal time.
- Brunner assured Farouk that her volunteer work would not interfere with her job and that she could not contract AIDS through casual contact with patients.
- Farouk stated that he did not want to place himself, his family, or his employees in jeopardy and demanded that Brunner either resign or stop her volunteer work.
- When Brunner refused to stop volunteering, Farouk terminated her employment.
- Brunner has never contracted AIDS, nor has she been infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
Procedural Posture:
- Brunner sued Farouk Al Attar, Rima Al Attar, and Apollo Paint & Body in a Texas trial court for wrongful termination and handicap discrimination.
- The defendants (appellees) filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Brunner's petition failed to state a valid cause of action.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Brunner's claims.
- Brunner (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does firing an employee because the employer fears the employee might contract AIDS through their volunteer work violate either the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine or the Texas statute prohibiting handicap discrimination?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sam Bass
No. Firing an employee based on the employer's fear that the employee might contract AIDS through off-duty volunteer work does not violate the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, nor does it constitute handicap discrimination under the applicable Texas statute. The court's reasoning for the public policy claim is that Texas law presumes employment is at-will, meaning it can be terminated for any reason or no reason at all. The Texas Supreme Court has created only two very narrow exceptions: termination for refusing to perform an illegal act (Sabine Pilot) and termination to avoid paying pension benefits (McClendon). Brunner's claim does not fit into either of these established exceptions, and this intermediate appellate court lacks the authority to create a new one. Regarding the handicap discrimination claim, the statute requires a plaintiff to first establish that they are a 'handicapped person' to be protected. Because Brunner expressly stated she was not handicapped and did not have AIDS, she does not fall within the statute's protected class, and her claim must fail.
Analysis:
This decision starkly illustrates the narrowness of common law exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine in Texas, emphasizing the judiciary's deference to the legislature and the state's highest court for creating new public policy protections. It also highlights a significant gap in early anti-discrimination law, where an adverse employment action based on an employer's irrational fear or prejudice related to a disability (associational discrimination) was not illegal if the employee themself did not have the disability. This ruling underscores that without a specific statutory prohibition, even a morally questionable or fear-based termination was legally permissible, a reality that later prompted broader legislative protections like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which covers discrimination based on perception or association.
