In pursuing a claim under Section 451.001, Medina had the burden of establishing a causal connection between the filing of a workers' compensation claim and her discharge or other adverse action taken by Aramark. SeeFenley v. Mrs. Baird's Bakeries,Inc., 59 S.W.3d 314, 319 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. denied). Therefore, we consider whether Aramark presented sufficient summary judgment evidence negating this element.

An employee cannot prevail on a claim of retaliatory discharge if the employer can establish that the reason for the employee's discharge or other adverse treatment was not due to the employee's filing of a worker's compensation claim, but rather due to a neutrally-applied policy. Fenley v. Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc., 59 S.W.3d 314, 321 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. denied). While City of Fort Worth v. Zimlich, 29 S.W.3d 62 (Tex. 2000) , involves a whistle blower claim, the standard of causation used in that case is applicable to Section 451 cases.

The nonmovant must come forward with more than mere conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation to survive summary judgment. Fenley v. Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc., 59 S.W.3d 314, 320 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. denied) (citing Int'l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1266 (5th Cir. 1991)). Chhim has produced no evidence of a causal link with respect to a change in performance evaluations.

In re Poly-America, L.P., 262 S.W.3d 337, 350 (Tex. 2008); accord Trico Tech. Corp. v. Montiel, 949 S.W.2d 308, 312 (Tex. 1997); Polansky v. Sw. Airlines Co., 75 S.W.3d 99, 103 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, no pet.) "Unless one of the four specific circumstances in the article motivated the employer in discharging or discriminating against the employee, that employee cannot prevail on a claim based on this article." Burfield, 51 F.3d at 589; accord Fenley v. Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc., 59 S.W.3d 314, 319 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. denied). In pursuing a claim under § 451.001, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing a causal nexus between the filing of a workers' compensation claim and his discharge or other adverse action taken by his employer.

These characterizations are "merely [the kind of] conclusory allegations, improbable inferences[,] and unsupported speculation" that cannot support a finding of retaliatory intent even in a summary-judgment context. Fenley v. Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc. , 59 S.W.3d 314, 320 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. denied) ; see alsoChhim v. Univ. of Houston , 76 S.W.3d 210, 218–19 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. denied) ("[Employee's] assertions amount to nothing more than conclusory allegations and unsupported speculation. The nonmovant must come forward with more than mere conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation to survive summary judgment.").

When an employer produces evidence that the absence-control policy has been uniformly enforced, resulting in the employee's termination, then no violation of the anti-retaliation statute is shown. See Fenley v. Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc., 59 S.W.3d 314, 320 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. denied). III.

"In a situation where the discharge policy was drawn in such a manner only to apply to employees filing workers' compensation claims, or if it could be shown that the policy was enforced only against employees filing workers' compensation claims, this would be a logical inference that there was not a neutral application of a company policy" and would indicate an unlawful discharge under section 451.001. Fenley v. Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc., 59 S.W.3d 314, 326 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. denied). But no such policy or practice has been shown here.

When an employer produces evidence that the absence-control policy has been uniformly enforced, resulting in the employee's termination, then no violation of the anti-retaliation statute is shown. See Fenley v. Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc., 59 S.W.3d 314, 320 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. denied). We conclude the summary judgment evidence produced by appellant does not raise a fact issue regarding the District's articulated reason for placing appellant on indefinite medical leave. Appellant presented no evidence showing that she was placed on indefinite medical leave because she filed a workers' compensation claim against the District or even that the claim was a determining factor in the employment status decision.

When an employer produces evidence that the absence-control policy has been uniformly enforced, resulting in the employee's termination, then no violation of the anti-retaliation statute is shown. See Fenley v. Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc., 59 S.W.3d 314, 320 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. denied). Cerre does not contend the policy is not uniformly enforced.

To survive summary judgment, First Union must come forward with more than mere intuition, conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation. See Chhim v. University of Houston, 76 S.W.3d 210, 218-19 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002, pet. denied); Fenley v. Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc., 59 S.W.3d 314, 320 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. denied). We conclude the trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment finding that as a matter of law First Union was not an intended third party beneficiary of the Guaranty.