351 S.W.3d 637
Tex. App.2011Background
- Acosta, a Hispanic female, worked for GECU since 1984 as an underwriting credit analyst, age 51 as of Sept. 25, 2006.
- On Sept. 25, 2006, Acosta was fired for violating GECU's Confidentiality of Member Business Policy; internal appeal denied and EEOC charge filed.
- GECU argued Acosta cannot prove prima facie national-origin discrimination or age discrimination; presented evidence of policy violation and replacement by a 47-year-old Hispanic male.
- Acosta submitted affidavits alleging Rivera violated the policy without discipline and that a nondiscriminated employee spoke highly of the replacement; other affidavits alleged misconduct by a vice-president with no discipline.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in GECU’s favor on both claims; Acosta appealed asserting error in the grant.
- The court applied McDonnell Douglas framework to evaluate discrimination claims and affirmed the summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| National-origin discrimination prima facie | Acosta establishes prima facie case via evidence of disparate treatment and Rivera's non-discipline. | No similarly situated non-Hispanic was treated less favorably; termination for policy violation was legitimate. | National-origin claim failed; no pretext shown; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Age-discrimination prima facie and pretext | Replacement by someone four years younger suggests disparate treatment; argues it may be a 'job elimination' case. | Four-year age difference is insignificant; replacement within protected class; no evidence of age-based motive or pretext. | Age claim failed; no prima facie showing or pretext; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quantum Chem. Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2001) (establishes McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework in Texas)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (pretext showing allowed when plaintiff presents prima facie case and evidence of falsity)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- O'Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1996) (replacement by someone younger not always required to prove age discrimination; differing circuit views)
- Herr v. City of Forest Hill, 189 S.W.3d 369 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006) (subjective belief of discrimination insufficient without proof)