355 S.W.3d 164
Tex. App.2011Background
- Dr. Chase, a tenured EPCC professor, filed a race and national origin discrimination charge with the EEOC on December 19, 2002.
- EPCC suspended Chase with pay on March 12, 2003 for allegedly giving a student an unearned A and other record-keeping issues.
- EPCC’s president notified Chase by letter on April 4, 2003 that termination was recommended for the original charge and for failing to provide student records and for an improper timesheet.
- Chase filed a retaliation claim with the EEOC and the Texas Commission on Human Rights in April 2003; EPCC terminated him on August 13, 2003.
- Chase filed suit November 4, 2003 alleging retaliation under Tex. Labor Code § 21.055; EPCC pled sovereign immunity and lack of jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied EPCC’s plea to the jurisdiction on March 24, 2009; EPCC appealed via accelerated interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plea to the jurisdiction can challenge the merits of a retaliation claim | Chase argues EPCC cannot raise merits contention at jurisdiction stage | EPCC contends it can challenge pretext through jurisdictional facts | Plea cannot affect merits; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on this point |
| Whether sovereign immunity waivers in Chapter 21 are jurisdictional | Chase claims waiver suffices to allow suit | EPCC asserts immunity governs unless jurisdictional facts are met | Waiver is not a jurisdictional fact for all elements; immunity from suit not necessarily invoked through merits argument |
| Whether McDonnell Douglas pretext framework elements are jurisdictional facts | Chase must show pretext or failure of nondiscriminatory reason | EPCC argues pretext issue should be addressed via summary judgment, not jurisdiction | McDonnell Douglas pretext elements are not jurisdictional facts |
| Whether the appeal is properly before the court given the jurisdictional issues | Chase argues interlocutory appeal should proceed on jurisdictional grounds | EPCC contends interlocutory appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction | Interlocutory appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. 2004) (plea to jurisdiction is a dilatory measure)
- Bland Independent School District v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (rules governing jurisdictional pleas)
- Texas Association of Business v. Texas Air Control Board, 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (burden to plead jurisdictional facts)
- Gomez v. Housing Authority of the City of El Paso, 148 S.W.3d 471 (Tex. App. El Paso 2004) (jurisdictional facts standard)
- Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for reviewing pleas to the jurisdiction)
- Lueck v. State, 290 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. 2009) (immunity from suit vs liability; jurisdictional facts)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court 2000) (burden-shifting framework; ultimate burden on plaintiff)
- Lawler v. El Paso Community College, --- S.W.3d --- (Tex. App. El Paso 2010) (prima facie case vs. jurisdictional pleading in employment discrimination)
- Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2001) (McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework in Texas context)
- Dias v. Goodman Manufacturing Co., L.P., 214 S.W.3d 672 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (application of McDonnell Douglas in retaliation cases)