467 S.W.3d 706
Tex. App.2015Background
- Jacklyn Worfel Mayfield (Jacklyn) and Lori Beth Mayfield (Lori) were employees of Tarrant Regional Water District; Jacklyn was an administrative assistant for <1 year and Lori had worked ~20 years and supervised Jacklyn in engineering projects.
- In Dec. 2011 Jacklyn was shown a photo of an exposed penis by supervisors Ashton, Robson, and Poulson; she was shocked and left; Lori advised Jacklyn not to report it.
- After the incident Jacklyn alleges increased monitoring, unusual reporting and documentation demands about medical absences, and accusations of dishonesty; she suffered medical problems and hospitalizations in early 2012.
- On March 21, 2012 both Jacklyn and Lori were terminated; Jacklyn was told she exhausted leave and failed to make prior arrangements; Lori was terminated after supporting Jacklyn to a supervisor.
- Plaintiffs filed TCHRA discrimination and retaliation claims; after right-to-sue letters, the district filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity; the trial court granted the plea and dismissed with prejudice. The court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded facts to waive sovereign immunity for sex discrimination (TCHRA) | Jacklyn: penis-photo incident + subsequent hostile treatment = sexual harassment (quid pro quo and hostile work environment) | District: incident was isolated, not a sexual advance; post-incident workplace measures were not sex-based or severe/pervasive | Court: No waiver — quid pro quo fails; hostile-work-environment not severe or pervasive objectively; plea sustained |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded facts to waive sovereign immunity for retaliation (TCHRA) | Both: termination was in retaliation for opposing/disclosing harassment and complaining | District: plaintiffs did not engage in protected activity under TCHRA (no opposition, no complaint filed) | Court: No protected activity shown (Lori advised against reporting; Jacklyn did not file/oppose) — plea sustained |
| Whether plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend before dismissal | Plaintiffs: pleadings insufficient; deserved chance to replead | District: plaintiffs already provided affidavits with facts; amendment would be futile | Court: Amendment would not cure lack of jurisdictional facts given affidavits; denial of leave not error |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for plea to the jurisdiction and reviewing jurisdictional evidence)
- Mission Consol. I.S.D. v. Garcia, 253 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2008) (legislative waiver of governmental immunity under TCHRA requires pleading prima facie elements)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Soto v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 942 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1997) (recognizing sexual harassment as sex discrimination under TCHRA)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (objective/subjective standard for hostile work environment severity)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (perspective of a reasonable person in plaintiff’s position for harassment claims)
- County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. 2002) (leave to amend when jurisdictional facts not pleaded)
- University of Tex. at Arlington v. Williams, 455 S.W.3d 640 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2013) (when jurisdictional challenge implicates merits, court considers submitted evidence)
- Garcia v. Schwab, 967 S.W.2d 883 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1998) (example where repeated sexually explicit conduct was held insufficient as a matter of law to create hostile work environment)