# Diamond Shamrock Refining & Marketing Co. v. Mendez

> Texas Supreme Court · December 31, 1992 · 844 S.W.2d 198

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775831

## Case

- **Full name:** DIAMOND SHAMROCK REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Roque MENDEZ, Respondent
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 31, 1992
- **Citations:** 844 S.W.2d 198; 1992 WL 259270
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hightower
- **Judges:** Dogget, Phillips, Mauzy, Gammage, Hecht, Hightower, Gonzalez, Cornyn, Doggett
- **Cited by:** 98 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775831

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the plaintiff’s allegations that his employer “falsely depict[ed]” him “in the community as a thief” and “potential employers[] knew that he had been terminated for stealing,” even if true, “fall short of being beyond all possible bounds of decency, atrocious, and…
- stating “there would be little left of the employment-at-will doctrine if an employer’s public statement of the reason for termination was, so long as the employee disputed that reason, in and of itself some evidence that a tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress …
- holding that falsely depicting the plaintiff in the community as a thief is not sufficiently outrageous to raise a fact issue on outrageous conduct

## Opinion text

HIGHTOWER, Justice,
concurring.
I join the court’s opinion and judgment in this cause. However, I write separately to *203 express my continuing support of the right to privacy under the Texas Constitution.
In Texas State Employee’s Union v. Texas Dep’t of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, 746 S.W.2d 203 (Tex.1987), cited by the dissent, this court recognized that the Texas Constitution guarantees the right to privacy and articulated a strict standard of review for governmental intrusion:
Each of these provisions [sections 6, 8, 9, 10, 19 and 25 of article 1 of the Texas Constitution] gives rise to a concomitant zone of privacy. We do not doubt, therefore, that a right of individual privacy is implicit among those “general, great, and essential principles of liberty and free government” established by the Texas Bill of Rights. We hold that the Texas Constitution protects personal privacy from unreasonable intrusion. This right to privacy should yield only when the government can demonstrate that an intrusion is reasonably warranted for the achievement of a compelling governmental objective that can be achieved by no less intrusive, more reasonable means.
Id. at 205 (citations omitted). In an unanimous opinion, this court held “that the Department’s polygraph policies impermis-sibly violate privacy rights protected by the Texas Constitution.” Id. at 206 . I have and will resist any attempts to trivialize or otherwise weaken this fundamental right. It is imperative that the right to privacy under the Texas Constitution remain a vital right for the protection of all Texans.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775831. Public record. Not legal advice.