In Re Arcelormittal Vinton, Inc., 2011 WL 32430

Relator ArcelorMittal Vinton, Inc. seeks mandamus to compel the trial court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in an age-discrimination suit filed by Sandovol.
Sandovol, a long-time employee, was laid off in June 2004 when the ball mill department closed; six employees were laid off, and only one returned when reopened in December 2004.
Sandovol claimed discrimination for not being recalled between December 2004 and January 2005; Border Steel produced evidence showing another employee re-hired January 5, 2005.
Sandovol filed a Texas Workforce Commission complaint February 28, 2006; the commission issued a right-to-file suit, and he filed his petition August 22, 2006.
Border Steel moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing Sandovol filed his administrative complaint after the 180-day period required by Tex. Lab. Code § 21.202(a); the trial court denied the plea.
The court of appeals granted mandamus relief, holding the 180-day period expired July 5, 2005 and thus the trial court lacked jurisdiction; it directed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Sandovol’s claim arise untimely under §21.202(a)?	Sandovol timely filed within 180 days of discrimination.	Sandovol failed to file by July 5, 2005; timely filing required.	Yes; failure to timely file divests jurisdiction.
Is mandamus an appropriate remedy to correct a jurisdictional error in this context?	Relator seeks immediate dismissal rather than waiting on post-judgment appeal.	Mandamus is not ordinarily appropriate; appeal could remedy.	Mandamus relief is appropriate to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the limitations period accrues at the time of the discriminatory act or when consequences are realized.	Discrimination occurred when not recalled, triggering the 180-day clock.	Limitations begins when the act occurs and is known; the delay misstates accrual.	Accrual occurs at the time of the discriminatory act; here the time ran by January 2005.

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus proper where there is clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by appeal)
In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard in mandamus review)
In re Nexion Health at Humble, Inc., 173 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. 2005) (mandamus relief when no adequate remedy by appeal)
Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (duty to plead jurisdictional facts; review of jurisdiction)
Cooper-Day v. RME Petroleum Co., 121 S.W.3d 78 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003) (jurisdictional pleading and timeliness under §21.202)
Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. DeMoranville, 933 S.W.2d 490 (Tex. 1996) (timeliness and exhaustion of administrative remedies)
Ricks, Delaware State College v., 449 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1981) (focus on time of discriminatory acts for accrual)
Johnson & Johnson Med., Inc. v. Sanchez, 924 S.W.2d 925 (Tex. 1996) (statutory accrual principles for discrimination actions)
City of El Paso v. Maddox, 276 S.W.3d 66 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2008) (jurisdictional review and de novo standard)