A party seeking summary judgment may combine a request for summary judgment under the no-evidence standard with a request under the traditional summary judgment standard in a single motion. Binur v. Jacobo , 135 S.W.3d 646, 651 (Tex. 2004) ; Cardenas v. Bilfinger TEPSCO, Inc. , 527 S.W.3d 391, 398 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.). In a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, the movant asserts that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of the claims for which the nonmovant bears the burden of proof at trial.
In deciding whether the trial court has abused its discretion in denying a motion for continuance, we examine various factors such as the nature of the case, the length of time the case and motion for summary judgment have been on file, the nature of the evidence needed to controvert a no-evidence motion, the materiality and purpose of the discovery sought, the amount of discovery that has already taken place, and whether the party seeking the continuance has exercised due diligence to obtain the discovery sought. Joe , 145 S.W.3d at 161 ; Cardenas v. Bilfinger TEPSCO, Inc. , 527 S.W.3d 391, 404 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.). Generally, it is not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for continuance where a party has received the 21–days' notice required by Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c).
A trial court's order granting a summary judgment motion constitutes an implicit decision to overrule a motion for continuance. Cardenas v. Bilfinger TEPSCO, Inc., 527 S.W.3d 391, 403 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.).
As stated by the First Court of Appeals, "knowledge that [an employee] had been injured on the job is not the same as knowledge that he was pursuing a workers' compensation claim." Cardenas v. Bilfinger TEPSCO, Inc., 527 S.W.3d 391, 400 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.). The fact that Marecle knew that Kreder was injured on the job is not enough to establish that Marcele knew, as the sole decision-maker in the termination of Kreder's employment, that Kreder had filed a workers'-compensation claim.
Circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish a causal link between termination and filing a compensation claim includes: (1) knowledge of the compensation claim by those making the decision on termination; (2) expression of a negative attitude toward the employee's injured condition; (3) failure to adhere to established company policies; (4) discriminatory treatment in comparison to similarly situated employees; and (5) evidence that the stated reason for the discharge was false. 937 S.W.2d at 451 ; seeCardenas v. Bilfinger TEPSCO, Inc. , 527 S.W.3d 391, 399 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (citing Continental Coffee factors as types of evidence an employee may rely on to establish the necessary causal link between the filing of a claim and the termination). But an employee's subjective belief that the employer acted in retaliation for the filing of a claim has no probative force because such beliefs are "no more than conclusions."
(4) testified or is about to testify in a proceeding under Subtitle A. TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 451.001 ; seeKingsaire, Inc. v. Melendez , 477 S.W.3d 309, 312 (Tex. 2015) ; Cardenas v. Bilfinger TEPSCO, Inc. , 527 S.W.3d 391, 399 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.). An employer who violates this statute is subject to a retaliation claim, which is an exception to the traditional doctrine of employment at-will found in Texas law.
It is well-established that allegations contained in pleadings and motions are not summary-judgment evidence. CHRISTUS Health Gulf Coast v. Carswell, 505 S.W.3d 528, 540 (Tex. 2016); Cardenas v. Bilfinger TEPSCO, Inc., 527 S.W.3d 391, 401 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.). We hold that the Shahs failed to present more than a scintilla of evidence that Saqer's alleged breaches of the settlement agreement caused them any damages and that the trial court therefore properly granted summary judgment on the Shahs' breach-of-contract claim.
To make a prima facie showing of retaliation under § 451, Morgan must show: (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there is a causal connection between the filing of a workers' compensation claim and his termination. See Cristain v. Hunter Buildings & Mfg., LP, No. H-16-2462, 2017 WL 2633565, at *5 (S.D. Tex. June 19, 2017); Cardenas v. Bilfinger TEPSCO, Inc., 527 S.W.3d 391, 399 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.). If Morgan establishes a primafacie case, the burden shifts to Goodman to produce evidence that its underlying employment action was based on a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason.
Therefore, Centurion's argument and affidavit are insufficient to support the requested continuance. See Merrill v. Curry, No. 05-21-0093-CV, 2023 WL 3070810, at *9 (Tex. App.-Dallas Apr. 25, 2023, pet. denied) (mem. op.); see also Cardenas v. Bilfinger TEPSCO, Inc., 527 S.W.3d 391, 404 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (conclusory allegations are not sufficient).
Tex. Dep't of Motor Vehicles v. Bustillos, 630 S.W.3d 316, 330 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2021, no pet.) (first citing TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 451.001(1); and then citing Cardenas v. Bilfinger TEPSCO, Inc., 527 S.W.3d 391, 399 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.)). The plaintiff establishes a causal link by demonstrating that the termination would not have occurred when it did but for the plaintiff's filing of the workers' compensation claim.