Big Dan Law is proud to share a recent appellate win in the Thirteenth Court of Appeals in Oneida Duberney v. Cameron County District Clerk, Cause No. 13-24-00501-CV. On April 2, 2026, the court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
This appeal arose from an employment case involving claims under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. Ms. Duberney alleged that she was unlawfully terminated on account of age, disability, and retaliation after requesting a reasonable accommodation.
The Court of Appeals agreed that the trial court erred in granting the county’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment. In its opinion, the appellate court explained that Rule 166a(i) requires a no-evidence motion to specifically identify the challenged elements. The court held that the county’s motion did not challenge the actual elements of Ms. Duberney’s claims for disability discrimination and retaliation, and therefore failed to meet the rule’s specificity requirement.
The appellate court focused on a principle that matters in every case: procedural rules are not technicalities when they affect a person’s right to be heard. Courts require parties seeking summary judgment to clearly identify what elements they claim lack evidence, so the opposing party has fair notice and a fair opportunity to respond. The court strictly enforced that requirement here.
Because the court found that issue dispositive, it reversed the judgment and sent the case back to the trial court without needing to reach the remaining appellate issues.
At Big Dan Law, we fight for clients not only on the facts, but on the law and the rules that protect fairness in the process. Appellate work demands precision, strategy, and persistence. This result reflects our commitment to holding the line when a case is cut short without the required legal showing.
If you believe your case was wrongly dismissed, or you need guidance on an appeal, Big Dan Law is here to help. Before you sign or sue, let Big Dan Review.
