Austin Independent School District v. Andrew Lofters, 03-14-00071-CV

Andrew Lofters, an AISD administrator/teacher, was denied participation in UT Austin’s Educational Doctoral (CCLP) program while a person of a different race/sex later attended. Lofters discovered a comparator in a class around January and made Open Records requests in April.
Lofters sent a letter to AISD Human Resources on June 5, 2008, stating he believed he was being discriminated against and intended to file EEOC charges; AISD sent a letter about his assignment ending effective June 5.
Lofters filed an EEOC charge on or about July 25, 2008 (the court held he filed 179 days after an earlier date per the opinion), later amended to add retaliation in November/December.
Lofters alleges AISD failed to provide post-closure placement assistance afforded to other Johnston HS employees, leading to his effective termination; he contends these post-filing harms grew out of his June complaint.
Appellee moved for rehearing, arguing (1) the 180‑day limitations period began when he discovered the discriminatory treatment (not at the initial denial), (2) his retaliation claim is exhausted or relates back to the original charge, and (3) equitable tolling/estoppel applies because AISD concealed relevant facts and gave misleading information.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. When did the 180‑day period to file an EEOC/TWC charge begin?	Lofters: limitations began when he discovered facts supporting a claim (after observing comparator and obtaining records), not at the initial denial.	AISD: limitations began at the date of the denial; charge was untimely.	Court ruled the 180‑day period started at the earlier date (denial) and held claim untimely (subject of rehearing).
2. Whether Lofters can maintain a retaliation claim without a separate, timely administrative charge	Lofters: his June HR letter and amended EEOC filing relate back and/or the retaliation arose from the earlier charge (Gupta doctrine), so exhaustion is satisfied.	AISD: separate exhaustion required for retaliation; claim not administratively exhausted.	Court held Lofters cannot maintain the retaliation claim (court dismissed/declined it; appellee seeks rehearing).
3. Whether equitable tolling or estoppel applies to the 180‑day filing requirement	Lofters: equitable tolling/estoppel applies because AISD concealed facts, misled him about decisionmaking, and withheld comparator information.	AISD: the 180‑day requirement is jurisdictional and not subject to tolling in this case.	Court held equitable tolling/estoppel does not apply to revive the untimely charge (appellee contends error).

Prairie View A&M Univ. v. Chatha, 381 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. 2012) (Texas Supreme Court decision on TCHRA limitations and relation to the federal Fair Pay Act)
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (U.S. 2007) (Supreme Court decision on timing of pay discrimination claims; prompted federal legislative response)
National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts vs. continuing violations in employment discrimination limitations)
Gupta v. E. Tex. State Univ., 654 F.2d 411 (5th Cir. 1981) (retaliation claims that "grow out of" an earlier charge may be heard without a separate administrative filing)
Reeves v. Sanderson, 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (framework for proving discriminatory motive and rebutting employer's nondiscriminatory explanation)
Hennigan v. I.P. Petroleum Co., Inc., 858 S.W.2d 371 (Tex. 1993) (administrative charge amendments relate back to the original filing date)
Davis v. Autonation USA Corp., 226 S.W.3d 487 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (equitable estoppel may apply where employer conceals vital information affecting filing periods)
Santi v. Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr., 312 S.W.3d 800 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (discriminatory practices in promotion/transfer may manifest only in cumulative effects; liberal construction of complaints)