See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.565. 559 S.W.3d 188. I
And even if Morris were incorrect, we would still be bound to follow it "because there has been no intervening material change in the law since the opinion was issued." Nghiem v. Sajib, 559 S.W.3d 188, 192 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017), rev'd, 567 S.W.3d 718 (Tex. 2019). In sum, Johnson presented substantial evidence that her discharge was remote in time from her misconduct, and the DAO failed to present evidence conclusively negating Johnson's evidence or proving that its delay in discharging her was reasonable.