Harris County Hospital District v. William Parker, 484 S.W.3d 182

Background

Parker, an African-American male, alleged race and sex discrimination and retaliation under the TCHRA against Harris County Hospital District.
District challenged for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; trial court partially granted, partially denied the plea to the jurisdiction.
Parker worked as Pharmacy Supervisor at Settegast Health Center from 2006–2012; Le supervised Settegast and reported to Hoffman; other supervisors were McCuen (Asian) and Fonge (African-American).
Parker raised complaints about Le’s management in 2011, including alleged harassment by frequent calls and alleged disparate treatment; he did not allege race discrimination at that time.
Between Jan 2011 and Oct 2012, Parker’s performance and attendance issues led to verbal counseling in Feb 2012 and leave under FMLA Aug–Oct 2012; he opened an independent pharmacy in Oct 2012 while on leave, leading to a compliance investigation and termination on Oct 17, 2012.
Parker filed an EEOC discrimination charge on Sept 28, 2012 and a right-to-sue letter followed; suit was filed Nov 2012; the EEOC charge included race and retaliation allegations but not all asserted acts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Parker exhaust administrative remedies for failure-to-promote and constructive discharge?	Parker's EEOC charge alleged discrimination; attachment claimed constructive discharge.	District argues failure-to-promote undisputedly untimely; constructive discharge not properly pleaded in EEOC charge.	Failure-to-promote untimely; constructive discharge not properly exhausted.
Is Parker's race-based disparate treatment claim actionable based on a timely adverse employment action?	Parker asserts disparate treatment from Le based on race.	No timely, identifiable adverse employment action supporting disparate treatment.	No prima facie case; court reverses on that claim.
Is Parker's race-based hostile work environment claim timely and supported?	Harassment was race-based and pervasive toward Parker.	Harassment was not extreme or pervasive enough to alter employment terms.	Hostile work environment claim not established; district plea upheld on this claim.
Did Parker establish retaliation by Le or by the District for EEOC activity?	Had engaged in protected activity and experienced adverse actions.	Actions cited were not materially adverse; termination was for non-retaliatory reasons; temporal proximity insufficient.	No retaliation by Le or District; termination not shown to be retaliatory.
Does the District win on jurisdiction given the exhaustion and merits issues?	Parker's claims fall within TCHRA scope and pleaded facts.	Exhaustion and lack of actionable facts defeat jurisdiction.	Court reverses and renders judgment dismissing Parker's race discrimination and retaliation claims.

Key Cases Cited

Garcia II, 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) (waiver of immunity and scope of TCHRA claims)
Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (pleading and evidence standards for jurisdictional pleas)
Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2007) (limits on jurisdictional inquiries when pleading sufficiency)
Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (1982) (discrete acts triggering statute-of-limitations clock in discrimination claims)
WC&M Enters., Inc., 496 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2007) (hostile work environment timing; acts within period affect entire claim)
Canchola, 121 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. 2003) (employment discrimination temporal and evidentiary standards)
Elgaghil v. Tarrant Cty. Junior Coll., 45 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000) (retaliation claims and administrative exhaustion)
Lopez v. Tex. State Univ., 368 S.W.3d 695 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012) (retaliation exception to EEOC exhaustion)
García II, 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) (see above)