## Facts

- Maria Guadalupe Vasquez worked for Bannworths, Inc. as a farm worker beginning in 1973, returning for several seasons each year for nine consecutive years.
- In 1982, Vasquez sought help through the United Farm Workers (UFW) union to obtain permanent resident status in the United States.
- About a month later, Vasquez joined the UFW and became an active member.
- Vasquez reported to UFW representatives that Bannworths’ field conditions were unsanitary, including that workers had to share a common drinking cup.
- Vasquez also reported that portable restroom facilities provided in the fields were filthy and did not meet minimum health and sanitation standards established by the Texas Health Commissioner.
- On November 5, 1982, sanitation engineers from the Hidalgo County Health Department went to Bannworths’ fields to inspect the bathroom facilities.
- Later that same day, Bannworths fired Vasquez.
- Vasquez sued Bannworths under the Texas Right-to-Work Act, alleging she was discharged because of her union membership.
- Vasquez sought lost wages and injunctive relief ordering reinstatement and restraining future violations of the Act.
- The jury found (1) Bannworths fired Vasquez because of her UFW membership and (2) Bannworths would continue to injure Vasquez in violation of the Act, and awarded $3,000 in lost wages.
- The trial court accepted that Vasquez would suffer irreparable injury and lacked an adequate remedy at law, and it enjoined Bannworths from terminating, suspending, discriminating, or threatening Vasquez based on her union membership.
- However, the trial court did not order reinstatement and instead conditioned the injunction on Bannworths voluntarily rehiring Vasquez.
- The court of appeals affirmed, and Vasquez sought review in the Supreme Court of Texas.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to order Bannworths to rehire Vasquez after a jury found she was fired for union membership and would likely suffer future injury under the Texas Right-to-Work Act.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas held the trial court abused its discretion by failing to order reinstatement.
- The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals.
- The case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to reform the judgment to include a mandatory injunction ordering Bannworths to rehire Vasquez in the same or similar capacity she held before the unlawful discharge.

## Legal Principles

- The Texas Right-to-Work Act bars an employer from denying a person the right to obtain or retain employment because of membership or non-membership in a labor union.
- When a fact-finder determines an employer discharged an employee in violation of the Act and will continue to injure the employee, injunctive relief is an available statutory remedy to stop continuing violations.
- If the trial court determines the employee will suffer irreparable injury and has no adequate remedy at law, the injunction should provide effective relief against the statutory wrong, not relief dependent on the employer’s choice.
- An injunction that restrains future discrimination only if the employer voluntarily rehires the employee may fail to remedy an ongoing denial of the right to work and may be inadequate to prevent continued injury found by the jury.
- Although injunctive rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, a court abuses its discretion when it refuses relief necessary to enforce established statutory rights and to prevent ongoing harm shown by the findings.

## Conclusion

Because the jury found Vasquez was fired due to her union membership and that Bannworths would continue to injure her in violation of the Texas Right-to-Work Act, and the trial court recognized irreparable injury and no adequate legal remedy, the Supreme Court held that conditioning relief on voluntary rehiring was ineffective; the trial court therefore abused its discretion, and the judgment had to be reformed to include a mandatory injunction reinstating Vasquez to the same or similar job.


Vasquez v. Bannworths, Inc., 707 S.W.2d 886 (1986)