Gordon R. Gross v. the City of Houston
391 S.W.3d 168
Tex. App.2012Background
- Goss sued the City of Houston in state court for TCHRA violations, conspiracy to violate the TCHRA, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Goss previously filed complaints with the TWC and EEOC in 2006 and 2007; EEOC determinations in 2009 asserted Title VII claims against the City.
- Goss filed suit on February 26, 2010, asserting TCHRA and tort claims but amended later to add Title VII claims not timely served.
- The City moved for plea to the jurisdiction; the trial court dismissed with prejudice based on lack of jurisdiction.
- Texas courts determined the TCHRA's two-year/180-day timing is jurisdictional against governmental entities, making the suit untimely.
- Equitable tolling does not apply to TCHRA claims against governmental entities, and amended pleading with Title VII claims cannot revive jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the TCHRA deadline is jurisdictional against a governmental entity | Goss contends tolling should save timely filing of TCHRA claims. | City argues statute of limitations is jurisdictional under Government Code 311.034 and cannot be tolled. | TCHRA limitations are jurisdictional against government entities; untimely claims were dismissed. |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to TCHRA against the City | EEOC delay and misrepresentations justify tolling under equitable tolling doctrine. | Equitable tolling does not apply to TCHRA against governmental entities. | Equitable tolling does not apply to TCHRA claims against the City. |
| Whether Title VII claims relating back can create jurisdiction | Amended Title VII pleading relates back to timely TCHRA claim to cure timeliness. | Relation back cannot create jurisdiction where none existed; amended petition not properly before court. | No relation back; Title VII claims could not create jurisdiction over time-barred TCHRA claims. |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was proper | Dismissal should be without prejudice if not all claims were properly before the court. | Jurisdictional defects negate power to act; dismissal with prejudice appropriate where claims are impermissible. | Dismissal with prejudice proper due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Prairie View A&M Univ. v. Chatha, 381 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. 2012) (clarified 180-day filing deadline is jurisdictional for government suits)
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Alamo, 307 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2010) (labor code deadline treated as jurisdictional against government entities; tolling discussed)
- Alspini v. El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 144 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2010) (appropriateness of jurisdictional treatment of statute of limitations against government)
- Colquitt v. Brazoria Cnty., 324 S.W.3d 539 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (jurisdictional prerequisites including notice treated for government suits)
- MHCB (USA) Leasing & Fin. Corp. v. Galveston Cent. Appraisal Dist. Review Bd., 249 S.W.3d 68 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (exhaustion of remedies as jurisdictional prerequisite)
- Sykes v. Harris County, 136 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. 2004) (plea to the jurisdiction and dismissal standards; government immunity context)