Christie Lawson v. Parker Hannifin Corporation
614 F. App'x 725
5th Cir.2015Background
- Lawson was hired in April 2010 as an administrative assistant specialist for Parker Hannifin in Fort Worth, reporting to Puckett.
- Hanlon, the California Technology Team Leader on the Winovation Fuel Cell Project, allegedly acted inappropriately toward Lawson between July and October 2010.
- Alleged conduct included discussing women he pursued, pressing against Lawson, kissing her, inviting her to his hotel room, and making flirtatious remarks.
- Lawson reported concerns in mid-to-late 2010; Parker Hannifin investigated and in January 2011 reassigned Lawson away from Hanlon, gave Hanlon a final warning, and provided Lawson with support resources.
- Lawson left Parker Hannifin on leave in May 2011, returned August 2011, and was terminated September 12, 2011 for falsifying her timecard.
- Lawson filed an EEOC intake on April 7, 2011 (stating harassment as basis but not filing a charge), and an EEOC retaliation charge on October 7, 2011; she subsequently filed suit in July 2012 in state court, removed to federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sexual harassment claim was timely under the TCHRA | Lawson contends timely notice through EEOC intake could encompass harassment. | No timely EEOC charge filed within 180 days of last harassment; intake cannot substitute for a charge. | Harassment claim time-barred; no timely EEOC charge filed within 180 days. |
| Whether Lawson’s retaliation claim survives summary judgment | Evidence of retaliatory motive and pretext show genuine dispute. | Timecard fraud provides a legitimate non-retaliatory reason; plaintiff fails to show pretext. | Summary judgment affirmed for Parker Hannifin; no genuine issue as to pretext. |
Key Cases Cited
- Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. DeMoranville, 933 S.W.2d 490 (Tex. 1996) (180-day filing deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Harris v. Honda, 213 F. App’x 258 (5th Cir. 2006) (EEOC intake cannot substitute for a proper charge)
- Gorman v. Verizon Wireless Tex., L.L.C., 753 F.3d 165 (5th Cir. 2014) (substantive law for retaliation claims is identical to Title VII)
- Royal v. CCC & R Tres Arboles, L.L.C., 736 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2013) (McDonnell Douglas framework for retaliation claims; prima facie burden on plaintiff)
- Pineda v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 360 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2004) (pretext and burden-shifting in retaliation cases; but district must show legitimate reason)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Canchola, 121 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. 2003) (pretext evaluation in Texas discrimination cases)