Here's a summary of the case of Walgreens v. Pamela McKenzie from the Texas Supreme Court. You can read the full text of the opinion by clicking here.
Pamela McKenzie sued Walgreens after a Walgreens employee mistakenly accused her of shoplifting, causing her to be detained by police. She claimed intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, gross negligence, respondeat superior liability for employee negligence, and negligent hiring, training, and supervision (NHTS).
Walgreens tried to dismiss the claims under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), which protects certain free speech-related activities from lawsuits by allowing early dismissal if the action is based on or in response to exercising free speech rights.
The key legal question: Can Walgreens invoke TCPA protections for McKenzie's negligent hiring, training, and supervision claim since it involves the employee's allegedly wrongful communication (accusing McKenzie of theft)?
The Texas Court of Appeals said no, because the NHTS claim partly concerns Walgreens' conduct before the incident (hiring/training), not just the employee’s speech. So they denied dismissal of the NHTS claim but dismissed other claims under TCPA.
The Texas Supreme Court disagreed. They ruled that:
- TCPA does apply to the NHTS claim since the employee’s allegedly tortious communication (accusing McKenzie) is a protected exercise of free speech linked to a matter of public concern.
- The Court rejected the Court of Appeals' narrow interpretation that the entire claim must be based solely on protected speech to trigger TCPA.
- Because the employee acted as Walgreens’ agent, Walgreens can invoke TCPA protections for the employee’s speech.
- McKenzie failed to provide clear, specific evidence to establish a prima facie case of negligent hiring, training, or supervision—lacking evidence on how Walgreens allegedly failed to meet standards in those areas or how that caused harm.
- Therefore, McKenzie's NHTS claim must be dismissed under TCPA.
- The Court also declined to reconsider other claims or exceptions McKenzie raised for lack of preservation or insufficient evidence.
In sum: The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on the NHTS claim, holding that TCPA protections apply and that McKenzie failed to meet the burden to proceed. The case was remanded for dismissal of that claim and further trial court proceedings consistent with these rulings.
Girards Law Firm specializes in severe injury and wrongful death cases, especially those that involve brain damage, heart damage, spinal cord injuries or severe burns in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Contact us at www.girardslaw.com by using the chat feature for more information