College of the Mainland v. Bruce Glover, 436 S.W.3d 384

Glover, a male, alleged gender discrimination in faculty pay at College of the Mainland.
The College restructured pay scales in 2007, creating bands by education level and steps by experience, with overall pay fixed by band/step and contract length.
Glover was placed on the FM band (master’s degree) at Step 4 with a 12‑month contract for 2007–2008 and a >3% raise.
Two female comparators, F.O. (FA band, Step 10) and C.J. (FM band, Step 5), were treated differently, affecting their pay despite differences in education/experience.
Glover filed an EEOC charge in October 2012 alleging discriminatory placement in the salary scale; the EEOC dismissed; he then sued in state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of the charge under TCHRA	Glover argues continuing-violation and tolling apply	College asserts untimely filing (outside 180 days)	First issue not reached; appellate focus on second issue
Prima facie case of discrimination	Glover claims he was treated less favorably than female comparators	Glover failed to show comparators are similarly situated	Glover failed to establish a prima facie case; court dismisses suit on jurisdictional grounds

Garcia v. Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 253 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2008) (waiver of immunity under TCHRA; discrimination scope)
Garcia v. Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) (Garcia II; burden-shifting framework; jurisdictional analysis)
Navy v. College of the Mainland, 407 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (prima facie case framework in this context)
Wright v. Southland Corp., 187 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 1999) (McDonnell Douglas framework described)
Ysleta Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Monarrez, 177 S.W.3d 915 (Tex. 2005) (similarly situated standard for comparators)