Kathleen Cardone

Salcedo v. Evanston Insurance

District Court, W.D. Texas · 2011-06-24 · cited 2×

The case concerned a coverage dispute under a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Evanston Insurance to Villegas & Sons. After Villegas was held liable in state court for severe burns suffered by plaintiff Salcedo during the unloading of hot oil from a truck into an asphalt plant, Salcedo (as assignee) sued the insurer to collect on the judgment. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant and denied the plaintiff's motion, holding that the policy's auto exclusion barred coverage. The exclusion applied because the injury arose out of the use and unloading of an auto—the oil tank truck—even though a pump malfunction on the plant also contributed to the accident. The court found that the plant equipment did not fall within any exception to the exclusion and that the policy language unambiguously precluded coverage.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

Muniz v. EL PASO MARRIOTT

District Court, W.D. Texas · 2011-02-25 · cited 8×

The case involved a former El Paso Marriott employee who alleged that her supervisor sexually harassed her by showing her inappropriate images and making offensive comments, which she reported to management, and that she subsequently faced retaliation including conflicts with coworkers and exclusion from training duties, leading to her resignation. She sued under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code for hostile work environment, retaliation, aiding or abetting discrimination, and sex discrimination based on pregnancy or related conditions. The court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that the alleged incidents were not severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment, there was insufficient evidence of a materially adverse employment action or causal link for retaliation, the negligence claim was preempted by the statutory claims, and the remaining claims were waived for lack of evidence and briefing.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Douglas v. Mission Chevrolet

District Court, W.D. Texas · 2010-12-01 · cited 10×

In Douglas v. Mission Chevrolet, plaintiff Raymond Douglas alleged that his employer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay minimum and overtime wages and by retaliating against him through termination after he complained about the wages. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for emotional distress and punitive damages. The court granted the motion, holding that such damages are not recoverable under the FLSA's anti-retaliation provision. The reasoning relied on the Fifth Circuit's requirement that FLSA remedies be interpreted consistently with those under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, under which emotional distress and punitive damages are unavailable.

labor & employmentprocedure

City Bank v. Compass Bank

District Court, W.D. Texas · 2010-05-12 · cited 7×

Escobedo v. Dynasty Insulation, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Texas · 2010-03-03 · cited 9×

El Paso Healthcare System, Ltd. v. Molina Healthcare of New Mexico, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Texas · 2010-01-21 · cited 12×

Affiliations

Decision record

Kathleen Cardone

Affiliations

Decision record