Skip to main content

Su v. Heritage

D. Haw.July 21, 2020No. 1:18-cv-00155
Plaintiff WinHenry S. Miller Co.$181,278 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
791 Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal
State
Hawaii

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Bynum for $60,426 in actual damages and $120,852 in additional damages under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, holding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing the plaintiff to testify despite not being listed in discovery responses.

What This Ruling Means

**Worker Wins $181,000 After Company Breaks Contract Promise** This case involved a dispute between a worker and Henry S. Miller Co. over a broken employment contract. The worker sued the company claiming they failed to honor promises made in their employment agreement. The Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of the worker, awarding $181,278 in total damages. This included $60,426 for actual losses the worker suffered, plus an additional $120,852 under Texas's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which provides extra penalties when businesses engage in misleading or unfair practices. The court also decided that the worker should have been allowed to testify in their own case, even though there were some procedural issues with how the case was handled during the discovery process. **What this means for workers:** This ruling shows that courts will enforce employment contracts and hold employers accountable when they break their promises to workers. The significant additional damages under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act demonstrate that workers may be entitled to more than just their direct losses when employers act deceptively. Workers also have strong rights to present their side of the story in court proceedings.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.