Slater v. Southwest Research Institute, No. SA-12-CV-1205-XR, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2013)(Rodriguez, J.)

This case centered on a Southwest Research Institute (SWR) researcher’s election to reduce his life insurance benefits from $500,000 to $100,000 two-and-a-half years before his death.  Dr. Slater made the election after a battle with brain cancer that left him with some memory loss.  Id. at 1-2.  His widow alleged that a year later, when she discovered the reduced death benefit, Dr. Slater had no recollection of making the change and was “visibly upset” by it.  Id. at 2. 

After the typical skirmishing over ERISA preemption, Dr. Skinner’s widow amended her complaint to assert that SWR breached its ERISA fiduciary duties to Dr. Skinner by (a) failing to oversee his benefit election, (b) failed to abide by the work restrictions his physician imposed, and (c) changing life insurance providers during the pendency of the Slaters’ ERISA appeal.  Id. at 5. 

ERISA imposes fiduciary duties on employers only to the extent they exercise discretionary authority with respect to a benefits program.  Slip op. at 4.  The District Court concluded that (a) the three areas Ms. Slater cited did not implicate any ERISA discretionary authority, and (b) lack of evidence and other legal principles precluded Ms. Slater’s claims.  Id. at 5-9.  Therefore, the District Court dismissed Ms. Slater’s claims by summary judgment.  Id. at 10.

Reyes v. Texas Health & Human Services, No. SA-12-CV-907-XR, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2013)(Rodriguez, J.)

In this employment case, Reyes maintained that Texas Health & Human Services (HHSC) terminating her in retaliation for requesting a modified hours to accommodate her disabled daughter’s therapy, thereby violating the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  Id. at 2.  The District Court found that HHSC “established a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination and Ms. Reyes . . . ha[d] failed to produce evidence of pretext or of discriminatory intent.”  Id. at 6; see also id. at 7-10.  Therefore, the District Court granted HHSC’s motion for summary judgment.  Id. at 10.

Gonzales v. Everbank, No. SA-13-CV-733-XR, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2013)(Rodriguez, J.)

The bank moved to dismiss after removing this case and Gonzales did not file a response.  Her complaint did not “allege a cause of action,” but the District Court construed it to assert breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and breach of contract.  Slip op. 1 and 3.  The District Court noted that Texas law did not recognize a duty of good faith and fair dealing in the lender-borrower context.  Id. at 3.  The District Court also observed that her pleading did not allege any facts that could ground a breach of contract claim.  Thus, the District Court dismissed the case under Rule 12(b)(6), but afforded Gonzales a chance to amend file an amended complaint for breach of contract before January 10, 2014.  Id. at 5.