No. 20-194

Franklin Cox v. Texas Workforce Commission, et al.

Lower Court: Texas
Docketed: 2020-08-19
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: duty-to-defend employment-law substantial-evidence-rule tax-audit unemployment-insurance vicarious-liability
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2020-12-11 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the employee has a duty to defend the employer in a tax audit for unemployment, joined as an employer in the above referenced cause

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : ; 1. Will the employee have.a.duty. to defend . employer tax audit for unemployment joined ; ; as employer in the above reference cause? . ; 2. Under Tex. Lab. Code 207.044 Misconduct ° ° neglect that jeopardizes-the life or property of . another does the legal standard. vicarious liaes bilityan employer. canbe held liable -for its employee degree. of careless as -to evidence . a disregard. of.-the consequence, an whether manifested through action or inaction apply in the above reference cause? oo : 3. How can the substantial evidence rule be properly applied when no date in the record . that. misconduct occurred on to satisfy the first prongs of misconduct and second prongs discharge close in time to termination? 4.Did supervisor cause employee to. abandoned job assignment, refusal of job “assignment, or delay performance of job assignment? . 5. Within the scope of employer's business or related. to employer's equipment what confide° ntial and proprietary information ‘was disclosed to.employee including trainingonatask _ -task basis for assignment? . 6. 1s Affirmative Defense of Impracticability ; or Impossibility of Performance with summary evidence sufficient toraise an‘issue of: fact ‘ oneach element to preclude summary judgment. is applicable to above reference cause? : See Brownlee v. Brownlee, 665.8. W. 2d-111, oF 112 (Tex. 1984). Se . -l

Docket Entries

2020-12-14
Rehearing DENIED.
2020-11-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/11/2020.
2020-11-10
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2020-10-19
Petition DENIED.
2020-09-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/16/2020.
2020-09-18
Waiver of right of respondent Lincoln Technical to respond filed.
2020-03-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 18, 2020)

Attorneys

Franklin Cox
Franklin Cox — Petitioner
Franklin Cox — Petitioner
Lincoln Technical
Victor Navasca CorpuzJackson Lewis P.C., Respondent
Victor Navasca CorpuzJackson Lewis P.C., Respondent