B.C. v. Steak N Shake Operations, Inc.
512 S.W.3d 276
Tex.2017Background
- B.C., a Steak N Shake employee, alleges her supervisor sexually assaulted her in an employee restroom during a single overnight shift in October 2011; she reported the incident to the employer and police and then quit.
- Steak N Shake’s internal investigation did not corroborate the assault; the supervisor was not fired and the employer offered B.C. reinstatement.
- B.C. sued Steak N Shake and the supervisor asserting assault, sexual assault, battery, negligence, gross negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; she later nonsuited claims against the supervisor and appealed summary judgment dismissal of her assault claim against Steak N Shake.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Steak N Shake without stating a basis; the court of appeals affirmed on the sole ground that the TCHRA preempts common-law claims when the underlying facts could support a TCHRA sexual-harassment claim.
- The Texas Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the TCHRA’s statutory remedy exclusively preempts a common-law assault claim when the gravamen of the plaintiff’s claim is assault rather than harassment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TCHRA preempts B.C.’s common-law assault claim | B.C.: claim is a common-law assault by an employer/vice-principal and not a TCHRA-based harassment claim | Steak N Shake: any workplace sexual assault is sexual harassment under TCHRA, so TCHRA is the exclusive remedy | Where gravamen is assault, TCHRA does not preempt the common-law assault claim; summary judgment on preemption reversed |
| Whether Waffle House controls here | B.C.: Waffle House is distinguishable because it involved repeated harassment and negligent-supervision claims tied to a hostile-work-environment theory | Steak N Shake: Waffle House mandates preemption whenever facts could support a TCHRA claim | Court: Waffle House is distinguishable (severity, frequency, and theory of employer liability); it does not require preemption of direct-assault claims against employers |
| Standard for deciding preemption (gravamen test) | B.C.: courts must examine the claim’s true nature; here it is assault | Steak N Shake: focus on overlap of facts that could constitute harassment | Court: apply gravamen analysis; if essence is assault, no clear repugnance with TCHRA, so no abrogation of common law |
| Remand scope after disposition | B.C.: other summary-judgment grounds remain unaddressed | Steak N Shake: alternative grounds may still support affirmance (e.g., vice-principal status) | Court: remanded to court of appeals to address unconsidered grounds in light of holding on preemption |
Key Cases Cited
- Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2010) (TCHRA forecloses common-law theories predicated on the same harassment facts where gravamen is statutory harassment)
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d 438 (Tex. 2004) (TCHRA modeled on Title VII; courts look to federal analogues)
- Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (recognizes hostile-work-environment sexual harassment under Title VII)
- Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2001) (state courts rely on analogous federal law when applying TCHRA)