400 S.W.3d 219
Tex. App.2013Background
- Ray was terminated from the Dallas County Medical Examiner’s Office on April 27, 2010 and was 54 at the time, replaced by a younger employee.
- Ray filed a CHRA administrative complaint on October 18, 2010 alleging age discrimination.
- The Commission accepted the complaint for investigation; Ray signed a perfected Charge of Discrimination on December 9, 2010.
- The Commission initially did not notify the County of the defective (unsworn) filing and did so only after Ray perfected the complaint; the Commission dismissed the complaint April 29, 2011 and notified Ray of a right to file a civil action.
- Ray filed suit June 27, 2011 alleging age discrimination under CHRA; the County moved for a plea to the jurisdiction; the trial court denied B; the County appealed, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to failure to comply with statutory prerequisites.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 21.201(g) is a statutory prerequisite to CHRA suit | Ray exhausted administrative remedies; 21.201(g) not prerequisite | County argues 21.201(g) compliance is prerequisite | Not a statutory prerequisite; plea to jurisdiction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Schroeder v. Tex. Iron Works, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 483 (Tex. 1991) (exhaustion of CHRA remedies required before suit)
- Alexander v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 300 S.W.3d 62 (Tex. 2009) (outlines CHRA exhaustion requirements (180 days, 180-day window, two-year limit))
- Prairie View A&M Univ. v. Chatha, 381 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. 2012) (defines statutory prerequisites to suit under 311.034 and the concept of mandatory pre-suit steps)
- Univ. of Houston v. Barth, 313 S.W.3d 817 (Tex. 2010) (jurisdictional requirements under statute-specific contexts)
- C. Green Scaping, L.P. v. Dallas County, 301 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (discussed whether a statutory prerequisite exists when imposed on plaintiff versus other parties)