KIPP, Inc. v. Kimberly Whitehead, 446 S.W.3d 99

Background

Whitehead, a white female, worked for KIPP (an open-enrollment charter school) from April 2009 until termination on February 17, 2011; she was an Administrative Learning Specialist/Facilitated Support Service employee.
In August 2010 Whitehead, while pregnant, was hospitalized and took FMLA leave; KIPP assigned her duties to Andrea Dozier (African‑American) during her absence.
She returned to work October 5, 2010 with different duties, went on maternity leave November 2–December 3, 2010, then asked repeatedly to be returned to her prior duties.
On January 11, 2011 principal Daphane Carter (African‑American) told Whitehead things including "You just had a baby" and "You cannot do this job having children," and later gave a negative performance evaluation; Whitehead filed an HR complaint on February 9 and was terminated February 17, 2011.
Whitehead sued under Chapter 21 (sex/pregnancy and race discrimination) after receiving a right-to-sue letter; KIPP filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity and arguing Whitehead failed to plead or produce evidence of prima facie elements (protected-class membership, replacement, causation, pretext).
The trial court denied KIPP’s plea; on interlocutory appeal the court reviews whether Whitehead alleged and presented facts sufficient to establish a prima facie Chapter 21 claim, reserving merits issues (like pretext) for later.

Issues

Issue	Whitehead's Argument	KIPP's Argument	Held
Whether Whitehead was a member of the pregnancy‑based protected class at the time of termination	Whitehead: recently pregnant, on maternity leave, returned Dec. 3, 2010 and was terminated <3 months later — thus within protected class	KIPP: she was not pregnant at termination, so not in protected class for pregnancy discrimination	Court: fact issue exists; recent pregnancy/maternity leave suffices to plead membership — plea denied
Whether Whitehead was replaced by someone outside the pregnancy‑protected class	Whitehead: she was replaced by Dozier and/or Nicole Santos, neither pregnant or recently pregnant	KIPP: replacements were not permanent/non‑pregnant in a way that establishes the element	Court: Whitehead presented evidence Dozier/Santos were not in pregnancy class; fact question exists — plea denied
Whether Whitehead was replaced by someone outside her race (white)	Whitehead: Dozier (African‑American) or Santos (Hispanic) replaced her	KIPP: any replacement was temporary or later changed, so element not established	Court: evidence raised fact issue that replacement was by persons outside her protected race — plea denied
Whether plaintiff must rebut employer’s nondiscriminatory reasons (pretext) at jurisdictional stage	Whitehead: only required to plead prima facie elements to invoke Chapter 21 waiver; pretext is a merits issue	KIPP: court should consider pretext now and dismiss if reasons legitimate	Court: pretext is beyond jurisdictional prima facie inquiry; cannot require rebuttal at this stage — plea denied

Key Cases Cited

Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (framework for resolving jurisdictional‑fact disputes; consider evidence where needed)
Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) (prima facie elements are jurisdictional for Chapter 21 waiver)
Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) (governmental immunity components and effect)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination evidence)
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (direct‑evidence rule and employer’s burden if direct evidence exists)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (evidence‑weighing in discrimination cases)