Comptroller v. LANDSFELD
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 7125
Tex. App.2011Background
- Landsfeld, a Texas Comptroller employee, alleged age-based employment discrimination against TCPA.
- On February 16, 2005, Landsfeld refused to work beyond 5:00 p.m. after already working ten hours without a break.
- On March 1, 2005, TCPA's Office Manager warned Landsfeld he could retire or be fired for insubordination, and Landsfeld offered to retire on March 31, 2005.
- Landsfeld filed EEOC/TWC charges on September 27, 2005, claiming age discrimination and involuntary retirement.
- TWC right-to-sue notice issued June 8, 2006; Landsfeld filed suit July 25, 2006; TCPA challenged timeliness based on §21.202.
- The trial court denied TCPA’s jurisdictional challenge; post-trial, TCPA appealed, and the appellate court vacated and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §21.202's 180-day filing deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional | Landsfeld argues the deadline is nonjurisdictional after USAA. | TCPA asserts §21.202(b) makes the deadline mandatory and jurisdictional for government employers. | Deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional. |
| Whether Landsfeld filed timely within the 180-day period | The start date for the 180 days is disputed; Landsfeld contends March 31, 2005. | The start date is March 1, 2005, when Landsfeld was told to retire or be fired. | Landsfeld filed 29 days late; the court lacked jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (de novo review for jurisdictional questions; controlling standard)
- In re United Servs. Auto. Ass'n (USAA), 307 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2010) (USAA held 21.256 nonjurisdictional; 21.202's 180-day deadline treated as jurisdictional for government entities under 311.034)
- Villanueva, 331 S.W.3d 125 (Tex. 2010) (discussed jurisdictional status of 21.202 following USAA)
- Lueck v. State, 325 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. App.-Austin 2010) (analyzes 21.202's role in jurisdictional analysis)
- City of DeSoto v. White, 288 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. 2009) (governs interpretation of jurisdictional statutory prerequisites)
- Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. 2011) (post-suit notice not a prerequisite to suit; discusses notice vs. jurisdiction)
- Schroeder v. Tex. Iron Works, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 483 (Tex. 1991) (early view on jurisdictional versus nonjurisdictional requirements (overruled in USAA context))