The Texas Court of Appeals has upheld a jury's decision that R Construction Company wrongfully terminated Lavorgus Canady in retaliation for his opposition to racial discrimination. The court's ruling, delivered on May 27, 2026, affects Canady, who claimed he faced retaliation after reporting discriminatory remarks made by an EOG Resources employee. This case highlights the importance of protecting employees from retaliation when they report discrimination in the workplace.
The case, R Construction Company v. Lavorgus Canady (Docket No. 04-25-00053-CV), originated in Wilson County, Texas. Canady began working for R Construction in November 2018 as a roustabout, a role that involved various duties related to servicing oil rigs. He was later promoted to a crew leader position. The conflict arose in March 2019 when Canady and his crew, all of whom were African American, were assigned to an EOG oil rig. During this assignment, Canady encountered a mud engineer from EOG who made a racially charged comment, suggesting that the crew would not make it past the KKK. Canady reported this incident to his supervisor, Dustin Meyer, and subsequently faced disciplinary actions that he argued were retaliatory.
Canady's troubles began when he reported the mud engineer's comments. After expressing his concerns to Meyer and other management, Canady was subjected to several reprimands for alleged work violations, which he claimed were pretexts for his termination. R Construction contended that Canady was fired due to legitimate performance issues, including missing a safety meeting and a verbal altercation with a coworker. However, Canady maintained that these reprimands were issued as retaliation for his complaints about racial discrimination.
The jury sided with Canady, awarding him $415,000 in back pay, $100,000 in compensatory damages, $50,000 in future compensatory damages, and $750,000 in punitive damages. The trial court later reduced the punitive damages to $50,000 in accordance with statutory caps and awarded attorney's fees of $55,297.50. R Construction appealed the verdict, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's findings.
The Texas Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence and ultimately upheld the jury's decision. The court stated, "We hold the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Canady was terminated in retaliation for opposing a discriminatory practice and Canady was entitled to recover back pay." The court acknowledged that the evidence supported Canady's claims of retaliation, including the timing of the reprimands and Canady's consistent complaints about the discriminatory remarks.
However, the court also reversed the portion of the trial court's judgment that awarded future compensatory damages, stating that the evidence was legally insufficient to support that award. In all other respects, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment. The ruling reinforces the legal protections afforded to employees under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), which prohibits retaliation against individuals who oppose discriminatory practices.
The ruling has significant implications for both employees and employers. For employees, it reinforces their right to report discrimination without fear of retaliation. For employers, the case serves as a reminder to ensure that disciplinary actions are not used as tools for retaliation and to adhere to established procedures when handling complaints of discrimination.
Looking ahead, R Construction may consider appealing the decision to the Texas Supreme Court, although it remains unclear whether they will pursue that option. The outcome of this case may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding the standards of evidence required to prove retaliation claims under the TCHRA.