Reference no: EM131470623

Question: Julio Garza was employed by the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) as a health inspector in 1981. His responsibilities included tagging cattle, vaccinating and tattooing calves, and working livestock markets. Garza was injured on the job in 1988 and underwent surgery in January 1989. When his paid leave was exhausted, he asked TAHC for light-duty work- specifically, the job of tick inspector-but his supervisor refused the request. In September, TAHC notified Garza that he was fired. Garza sued TAHC and others, alleging, in part, wrongful termination, and an important issue before the court was whether Garza had mitigated his damages. The court found that in the seven years between his termination and his trial date, Garza had held only one job-an unpaid job on his parents' ranch. When asked how often he had looked for work during that time, Garza responded that he did not know, but he had looked in "several" places. The last time he had looked for work was three or four months before the trial. That effort was merely an informal inquiry to his neighbors about working on their ranch. In view of these facts, consider the following questions. [Texas Animal Health Commission v. Garza, 27 S.W.3d 54 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000)]

1. The court in this case stated that the "general rule as to mitigation of damages in breach of employment suits is that the discharged employee must use reasonable diligence to mitigate damages by seeking other employment." In your opinion, did Garza fulfill this requirement? If you were the judge, how would you rule in this case?

2. Assume for the moment that Garza had indeed been wrongfully terminated. In this situation, would it be fair to Garza to require him to mitigate his damages? Why or why not?

3. Generally, what are the ethical underpinnings of the rule that employees seeking damages for breach of employment contracts must mitigate their damages?