Blaire Reid v. SSB Holdings, Inc., D/B/A Protec Laboratory
506 S.W.3d 140
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Reid, a former employee, alleged sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge by Protec after reporting harassment; she says Protec failed to investigate and then terminated her.
- Reid emailed the TWC Civil Rights Division’s Employment Discrimination Complaint Form on October 22, 2013; the form contained no signature or verification box but asked whether she would sign a drafted charge if emailed back.
- The Commission acknowledged receipt on October 25, 2013, then dismissed the complaint on November 8, 2013, as "insufficient to file a claim of discrimination."
- Protec filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing Reid failed to exhaust administrative remedies because (1) her Commission filing was untimely and (2) it was not made under oath (unverified).
- The trial court granted the plea and dismissed Reid’s claims with prejudice; Reid appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhaustion/administrative filing requirements under the TCHRA are jurisdictional | Reid: Federal Title VII precedent treats EEOC charge requirements as non-jurisdictional; same should apply to TCHRA. | Protec: TCHRA exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional; Reid’s unverified filing fails to exhaust. | Court: Need not resolve whether exhaustion generally is nonjurisdictional; here, failure to verify did not deprive court of jurisdiction. |
| Whether an unverified complaint filed with the Commission deprives the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction | Reid: She timely filed the Commission form and followed Commission instructions; lack of signature was a technical defect. | Protec: Verification is required by statute; lack of oath means no exhaustion. | Court: Verification requirement is mandatory but not jurisdictional; statute allows amendment to cure technical defects, so unverified filing did not strip jurisdiction. |
| Whether statutory language or purpose indicates legislative intent to make verification jurisdictional | Reid: TCHRA modeled on Title VII; federal courts treat verification as nonjurisdictional. | Protec: Schroeder established jurisdictional exhaustion under TCHRA. | Court: Statutory text, purpose, and legislative scheme point away from treating verification as jurisdictional. |
| Whether final-judgment and precedent concerns counsel against a jurisdictional reading | Reid: Not directly asserted; relies on federal analogies and remedial scheme. | Protec: Earlier state precedent supports jurisdictional approach. | Court: Treating verification as nonjurisdictional avoids undermining prior final judgments and is consistent with statutory amendment/cure provision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (framework for reviewing jurisdictional pleas)
- Schroeder v. Tex. Iron Works, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 483 (TCHRA exhaustion required; historically treated as jurisdictional)
- In re United States Auto. Ass’n, 307 S.W.3d 299 (examined whether TCHRA deadlines are jurisdictional; moved analysis toward nonjurisdictional view)
- Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (shift away from treating statutory prerequisites as jurisdictional)
- Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796 (reaffirmed exhaustion requirement under TCHRA without resolving jurisdictional question)
- Prairie View A & M Univ. v. Chatha, 381 S.W.3d 500 (reaffirmed requirement to timely file with Commission; declined to decide jurisdictional issue)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (federal rule distinguishing jurisdictional requirements from claim-processing rules)
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (Title VII charge-filing construed as nonjurisdictional in federal law)
- Edelman v. Lynchburg Coll., 535 U.S. 106 (discusses verification provision’s purpose and effect under federal scheme)