Terminated employee alleges harassment, bullying, unfair treatment in the workplace
A former employee failed to present evidence showing that, if not for the attorney’s alleged mishandling of the case, the outcome of her employment discrimination lawsuit would have been more favorable, the Texas Court of Appeals recently said.
McDonald Transit Associates employed the plaintiff from 1993 until 2019. In early January 2019, McDonald and the plaintiff signed a settlement and severance agreement and release to reflect the termination of her employment. The agreement stated that McDonald would pay a severance payment to the plaintiff, who would release McDonald from any and all employment-related claims that she had against it.
Despite signing the agreement, in mid-January 2019, the plaintiff met with a lawyer (the defendant) to discuss the possibility of suing McDonald with claims for harassment, bullying, and unfair treatment and practices in the workplace.
Two days later, the plaintiff executed a legal services agreement and tendered a $1,500 retainer fee. In May 2019, the defendant employed an attorney, who sent McDonald a demand letter alleging that it wrongfully terminated the plaintiff.
Read more: What happens if a worker sues for wrongful termination, age discrimination – after signing a release
The employer’s counsel denied the alleged wrongdoing, rejected the plaintiff’s demands, and cited the releases in the settlement and severance agreement.
The plaintiff repeatedly asked about the status of her case, but the defendant apparently made little progress in the legal proceeding. The plaintiff and the defendant parted ways in November 2019.
The plaintiff retained new counsel. She sued the employer in January 2020 then sued the defendant in October 2020 with a legal malpractice claim.
Last December, the trial court granted summary judgment in the defendant’s favor. The plaintiff appealed. In the case of Cynthia Wilson v. Joshua Graham and Joshua Graham & Associates, PLLC, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
The defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the legal malpractice claim because the plaintiff failed to provide expert testimony about causation, which was required for her claim, the appellate court ruled.
The plaintiff argued that a layperson could understand that breaching a deadline would leave a client in a much less favorable position than if the client’s attorney complied with their duty and advised their client accordingly.
The appellate court disagreed. The plaintiff failed to provide evidence establishing that, if not for the defendant’s alleged mishandling of the case, the trial court would have issued a more favorable outcome on her employment discrimination case, the appellate court held.
This case depended on whether the plaintiff had viable claims against the employer and would have gotten a favorable outcome in the lawsuit against the employer, the appellate court said. Expert testimony was necessary because these questions went beyond a layperson’s common knowledge or experience, the appellate court explained.
