Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger
Headline: Court Affirms Summary Judgment for Whataburger in Discrimination Case
Citation:
Brief at a Glance
Former employees' racial discrimination and retaliation claims against Whataburger were dismissed because they failed to provide sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment or a causal link for retaliation.
- Document all instances of alleged discrimination and retaliation meticulously.
- Understand that 'severe or pervasive' is a high legal standard for hostile work environment claims.
- Be prepared to show a direct causal link between protected activity and adverse employment actions for retaliation claims.
Case Summary
Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger, decided by Texas Supreme Court on May 9, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. This case concerns a dispute over alleged racial discrimination and retaliation in employment. The plaintiffs, former Whataburger employees, claimed they were subjected to a hostile work environment based on race and subsequently retaliated against for reporting these issues. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to support their claims of racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court held: The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination because they did not present evidence showing that similarly situated employees outside their protected class were treated more favorably.. The court found that the alleged discriminatory remarks were stray remarks not attributable to the employer and did not create a hostile work environment.. The court determined that the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to show a causal link between their protected activity (reporting discrimination) and the adverse employment actions they suffered, thus failing to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.. The court concluded that the defendants offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the employment actions, and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate these reasons were pretextual.. The court affirmed the district court's exclusion of certain evidence as irrelevant or hearsay, which did not prejudice the plaintiffs' case.. This decision reinforces the high burden of proof plaintiffs face in employment discrimination and retaliation cases. It highlights the importance of presenting direct evidence or strong circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent and causation, rather than relying on isolated remarks or speculation, to overcome a motion for summary judgment.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
Former Whataburger employees claimed they faced racial discrimination and retaliation. They argued their workplace was hostile due to their race and that they were punished for reporting it. However, the court found they didn't provide enough evidence to prove their claims were severe enough to violate federal law, so their case was dismissed.
For Legal Practitioners
The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Whataburger, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for hostile work environment or retaliation under Title VII. The court found the alleged incidents, while offensive, did not meet the 'severe or pervasive' threshold for a hostile work environment, and the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a causal link between protected activity and adverse employment actions.
For Law Students
This case illustrates the high bar for proving hostile work environment and retaliation claims under Title VII. The court emphasized that isolated incidents or general workplace friction, without more, are insufficient to establish a claim. Plaintiffs must demonstrate severe or pervasive harassment and a clear causal link for retaliation.
Newsroom Summary
A federal appeals court sided with Whataburger in a racial discrimination lawsuit filed by former employees. The court ruled that the employees did not provide enough evidence to show their workplace was hostile due to race or that they were unfairly punished for reporting issues, upholding the dismissal of their case.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination because they did not present evidence showing that similarly situated employees outside their protected class were treated more favorably.
- The court found that the alleged discriminatory remarks were stray remarks not attributable to the employer and did not create a hostile work environment.
- The court determined that the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to show a causal link between their protected activity (reporting discrimination) and the adverse employment actions they suffered, thus failing to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.
- The court concluded that the defendants offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the employment actions, and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate these reasons were pretextual.
- The court affirmed the district court's exclusion of certain evidence as irrelevant or hearsay, which did not prejudice the plaintiffs' case.
Key Takeaways
- Document all instances of alleged discrimination and retaliation meticulously.
- Understand that 'severe or pervasive' is a high legal standard for hostile work environment claims.
- Be prepared to show a direct causal link between protected activity and adverse employment actions for retaliation claims.
- Consult with an employment attorney early in the process.
- Employers should implement robust anti-discrimination policies and training.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
The court reviews the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. This means the appellate court examines the record and applies the same legal standards as the district court to determine if there was an error, without giving deference to the district court's decision.
Procedural Posture
The case reached this court on appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger.
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof for claims of racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII rests with the plaintiffs. They must present sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact. The standard is whether a reasonable jury could find in their favor.
Legal Tests Applied
Hostile Work Environment (Racial Discrimination)
Elements: The plaintiff experienced ‘unwelcome’ harassment based on race. · The harassment was ‘because of’ race. · The harassment was ‘severe or pervasive’ enough to create an objectively hostile work environment. · The plaintiff ‘was subject to’ the hostile work environment. · Respondeat superior liability exists.
The court found that the plaintiffs, Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado, failed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy the 'severe or pervasive' element. While they alleged incidents like racial slurs and discriminatory treatment, the court determined these incidents, viewed collectively, did not rise to the level of severity or pervasiveness required to alter the conditions of employment and create a hostile work environment under Title VII.
Retaliation under Title VII
Elements: The plaintiff engaged in a protected activity. · The employer took an adverse employment action against the plaintiff. · There was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action.
The court found that the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between their protected activity (reporting discrimination) and the alleged adverse employment actions (termination). The timing and nature of the actions, when considered with other evidence, did not create a genuine issue of material fact for a jury to decide.
Statutory References
| 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) | Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Unlawful Employment Practices — This statute prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It forms the basis for the plaintiffs' racial discrimination claim. |
| 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) | Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Retaliation — This statute prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who have opposed unlawful employment practices or participated in proceedings under Title VII. This is the basis for the plaintiffs' retaliation claim. |
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
To establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination based on a hostile work environment, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he or she experienced unwelcome harassment based on race; (2) that the harassment was because of his or her race; (3) that the harassment was severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile work environment; and (4) that the employer is subject to vicarious liability for the harassment.
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he or she engaged in a protected activity; (2) that the employer took an adverse employment action against him or her; and (3) that there was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action.
Remedies
The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger. No remedies were awarded to the plaintiffs.
Entities and Participants
Key Takeaways
- Document all instances of alleged discrimination and retaliation meticulously.
- Understand that 'severe or pervasive' is a high legal standard for hostile work environment claims.
- Be prepared to show a direct causal link between protected activity and adverse employment actions for retaliation claims.
- Consult with an employment attorney early in the process.
- Employers should implement robust anti-discrimination policies and training.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You believe your boss is making racist jokes and comments, creating an uncomfortable work environment, and you recently complained about it. Now, you've been demoted.
Your Rights: You have the right to a workplace free from racial discrimination and retaliation for reporting it. If you can show the jokes were severe or pervasive, or that your demotion was directly because you complained, you might have a case.
What To Do: Document all incidents, including dates, times, and witnesses. Keep copies of any complaints you made and any adverse actions taken against you. Consult with an employment lawyer to assess the strength of your claim based on specific evidence.
Scenario: You were fired shortly after reporting your manager for using racial slurs.
Your Rights: You have the right to report discrimination without fear of retaliation. If you can prove your termination was a direct result of your complaint, you may have a valid retaliation claim.
What To Do: Gather evidence of your protected activity (the complaint) and the adverse action (termination). Look for evidence of a connection, such as the timing of the events or statements made by management. Seek legal advice from an employment attorney.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal to be subjected to racial slurs at work?
No, it is generally not legal to be subjected to racial slurs at work if they are severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits such harassment.
This applies to employers with 15 or more employees nationwide.
Can my employer fire me if I complain about racial discrimination?
No, it is illegal for an employer to retaliate against an employee for reporting racial discrimination or participating in an investigation. This protection is provided by Title VII.
This applies to employers with 15 or more employees nationwide.
Practical Implications
For Employees who experience or witness racial discrimination or harassment
Employees need to provide significant evidence of 'severe or pervasive' harassment to win a hostile work environment claim. Simply experiencing unpleasant or offensive conduct may not be enough. Similarly, proving retaliation requires demonstrating a clear link between reporting discrimination and an adverse employment action.
For Employers
Employers must take allegations of racial discrimination seriously and investigate them promptly. They should have clear policies against discrimination and retaliation and ensure managers are trained to handle complaints appropriately to mitigate legal risk.
Related Legal Concepts
When an employer intentionally treats an employee differently based on a protect... Constructive Discharge
When an employer makes working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable perso... McDonnell Douglas Framework
A legal framework used in employment discrimination cases to allocate the burden...
Frequently Asked Questions (33)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (8)
Q: What is Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger about?
Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger is a case decided by Texas Supreme Court on May 9, 2025.
Q: What court decided Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger?
Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger was decided by the Texas Supreme Court, which is part of the TX state court system. This is a state supreme court.
Q: When was Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger decided?
Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger was decided on May 9, 2025.
Q: Who were the judges in Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger?
The judge in Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger: Lehrmann.
Q: What is the citation for Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger?
The citation for Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Title VII is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and also prohibits retaliation against employees who report discrimination.
Q: Who is protected by Title VII?
Title VII protects employees and job applicants from discrimination and retaliation by employers with 15 or more employees.
Q: What are the key takeaways from the Ferchichi v. Whataburger case?
The case emphasizes that proving racial discrimination or retaliation requires substantial evidence of severe or pervasive harassment and a clear causal link, respectively. Mere offensive conduct is often insufficient.
Legal Analysis (12)
Q: Is Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger published?
Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What was the ruling in Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger. Key holdings: The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination because they did not present evidence showing that similarly situated employees outside their protected class were treated more favorably.; The court found that the alleged discriminatory remarks were stray remarks not attributable to the employer and did not create a hostile work environment.; The court determined that the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to show a causal link between their protected activity (reporting discrimination) and the adverse employment actions they suffered, thus failing to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.; The court concluded that the defendants offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the employment actions, and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate these reasons were pretextual.; The court affirmed the district court's exclusion of certain evidence as irrelevant or hearsay, which did not prejudice the plaintiffs' case..
Q: Why is Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger important?
Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger has an impact score of 25/100, indicating limited broader impact. This decision reinforces the high burden of proof plaintiffs face in employment discrimination and retaliation cases. It highlights the importance of presenting direct evidence or strong circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent and causation, rather than relying on isolated remarks or speculation, to overcome a motion for summary judgment.
Q: What precedent does Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger set?
Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination because they did not present evidence showing that similarly situated employees outside their protected class were treated more favorably. (2) The court found that the alleged discriminatory remarks were stray remarks not attributable to the employer and did not create a hostile work environment. (3) The court determined that the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to show a causal link between their protected activity (reporting discrimination) and the adverse employment actions they suffered, thus failing to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. (4) The court concluded that the defendants offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the employment actions, and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate these reasons were pretextual. (5) The court affirmed the district court's exclusion of certain evidence as irrelevant or hearsay, which did not prejudice the plaintiffs' case.
Q: What are the key holdings in Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger?
1. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination because they did not present evidence showing that similarly situated employees outside their protected class were treated more favorably. 2. The court found that the alleged discriminatory remarks were stray remarks not attributable to the employer and did not create a hostile work environment. 3. The court determined that the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to show a causal link between their protected activity (reporting discrimination) and the adverse employment actions they suffered, thus failing to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. 4. The court concluded that the defendants offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the employment actions, and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate these reasons were pretextual. 5. The court affirmed the district court's exclusion of certain evidence as irrelevant or hearsay, which did not prejudice the plaintiffs' case.
Q: What cases are related to Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger?
Precedent cases cited or related to Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger: Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 403 (2011); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006); Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000); Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981).
Q: What is a hostile work environment?
A hostile work environment occurs when workplace harassment based on race, or other protected characteristics, is so severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions of employment and creates an abusive atmosphere.
Q: What evidence is needed to prove a hostile work environment claim?
Plaintiffs must show unwelcome harassment based on race that was severe or pervasive, that they were subjected to it, and that the employer is liable. The court in Ferchichi v. Whataburger found the evidence presented was not sufficient to meet the 'severe or pervasive' standard.
Q: What is retaliation under Title VII?
Retaliation occurs when an employer takes an adverse action against an employee because the employee engaged in a protected activity, such as reporting discrimination.
Q: How do you prove retaliation?
You must show you engaged in protected activity, suffered an adverse employment action, and there was a causal link between the two. In Ferchichi v. Whataburger, the plaintiffs failed to establish this causal link.
Q: What does 'severe or pervasive' mean in a hostile work environment case?
It means the harassment must be frequent and serious enough to fundamentally change the work environment, not just occasional offensive remarks. The court looks at the frequency, severity, and whether it interferes with work.
Q: Can isolated racial incidents lead to a hostile work environment claim?
Generally, no. Isolated incidents, unless extremely serious, are usually not enough. The court requires a pattern of conduct that is severe or pervasive. The Ferchichi case highlights this point.
Practical Implications (4)
Q: How does Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger affect me?
This decision reinforces the high burden of proof plaintiffs face in employment discrimination and retaliation cases. It highlights the importance of presenting direct evidence or strong circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent and causation, rather than relying on isolated remarks or speculation, to overcome a motion for summary judgment. As a decision from a state supreme court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: What happens if a hostile work environment claim is dismissed?
If a claim is dismissed, typically through summary judgment, the plaintiff loses their case and does not receive any remedies like damages or reinstatement, as happened to the plaintiffs in Ferchichi v. Whataburger.
Q: What should I do if I experience racial discrimination at work?
Document everything, report it according to your company's policy, and consider consulting an employment lawyer. The Ferchichi case shows the importance of having strong evidence.
Q: How long do I have to file a discrimination claim?
There are strict time limits, called statutes of limitations, for filing claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or in court, often 180 or 300 days from the discriminatory act.
Historical Context (2)
Q: When was Title VII enacted?
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964.
Q: What was the historical context of Title VII?
Title VII was enacted as part of the broader Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, aiming to end segregation and discrimination in public accommodations and employment.
Procedural Questions (4)
Q: What was the docket number in Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger?
The docket number for Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger is 23-0568. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger be appealed?
Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Q: What is the standard of review for summary judgment appeals?
Appellate courts review grants of summary judgment de novo, meaning they apply the same legal standards as the trial court and give no deference to the lower court's decision.
Q: What is summary judgment?
Summary judgment is a court order that resolves a case without a trial when there are no genuine disputes of material fact and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 403 (2011)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000)
- Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981)
Case Details
| Case Name | Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger |
| Citation | |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Date Filed | 2025-05-09 |
| Docket Number | 23-0568 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Disposition | affirmed |
| Impact Score | 25 / 100 |
| Significance | This decision reinforces the high burden of proof plaintiffs face in employment discrimination and retaliation cases. It highlights the importance of presenting direct evidence or strong circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent and causation, rather than relying on isolated remarks or speculation, to overcome a motion for summary judgment. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Racial discrimination in employment, Hostile work environment, Employment retaliation, Prima facie case elements, Adverse employment action, Pretext for discrimination |
| Jurisdiction | tx |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC and Crystal Krueger was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or from the Texas Supreme Court:
-
Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas; Stephanie Muth, in Her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services; And the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor; John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor; And Dr. Megan Mooney
Texas reporting law likely violates First Amendment for gender-affirming care providersTexas Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
In Re Bell Helicopter Services Inc. and Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.
Insurance policy exclusion for 'explosion' bars coverage for Bell Helicopter.Texas Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
In Re Warwick Construction, Inc., Bustamante Construction, and Dlc General Construction Services, Inc.
Settlement Agreement Not Enforceable Due to Indefinite TermsTexas Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
The Mabee Ranch Royalty Partnership, L.P.; 315 Mr, Inc.; 93 Jm, Inc.; Rock River Minerals, Lp; Primitive Petroleum, Inc.; Austen Campbell, Co-Executor of the Estate of William Scott Campbell; Janet Campbell, Co-Executor of the Estate of William Scott Campbell; Osado Properties, Ltd.; And Judith Guidera, Trustee of the Morrison Oil & Gas Trust v. Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd.; Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd.; And Fasken Royalty Investments, Ltd.
Texas Court Affirms Royalty Calculations, Dismisses Breach of Duty ClaimsTexas Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
Webb Consolidated Independent School District v. Robert Marshall and Amy Marshall
School district liable for injuries during "voluntary" extracurricular activityTexas Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
Howmet Aerospace, Inc. F/K/A Arconic, Inc., F/K/A Alcoa, Inc. v. Frank Burford, Individually and as Representative of the Heirs and Estate of Carolyn Burford, Deceased; Wesley Burford, Individually; And Leslie Schell, Individually
Texas Supreme Court: Settlement Release Covers Estate ClaimsTexas Supreme Court · 2026-04-17
-
Ron Valk D/B/A Platinum Construction v. Copper Creek Distributors, Inc. and Jose Doniceth Escoffie
Subcontractor Fails to Prove Damages in Construction Payment DisputeTexas Supreme Court · 2026-04-17
-
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, and Sierra Club
TCEQ must apply BACT to greenhouse gas emissions for major source permits.Texas Supreme Court · 2026-04-17