Latasha Rose v. Houston Independent School District
14-16-00687-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- Latasha Rose was a HISD teacher and Magnet Coordinator; she opposed exclusion of a disabled student in 2010, filed an EEOC charge, was temporarily transferred, then reinstated after dropping the grievance.
- HISD eliminated her position in 2011 in a district-wide RIF; Rose litigated that nonrenewal earlier (Rose I) but did not seek judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. Those claims are not at issue here.
- Between August and November 2013 Rose applied to HISD multiple times (14 applications within the 180-day TCHRA window) and was not rehired; she filed a November 23, 2013 EEOC charge alleging retaliation and deprivation of constitutional rights.
- Rose sued under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) for retaliation and under Texas Const. art. I, § 19 for alleged deprivation of liberty/property; she sought reinstatement and damages.
- HISD filed a combined plea to the jurisdiction and summary-judgment motion asserting, inter alia, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (sovereign immunity), failure to plead a prima facie TCHRA claim, failure to assert protected constitutional interests, and statute-of-limitations/exhaustion issues.
- The trial court granted HISD’s plea and dismissed with prejudice; on appeal the court affirmed, holding Rose failed to establish a prima facie retaliation claim (no causal link) and failed to assert a protected property or liberty interest under the Texas Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rose stated a TCHRA retaliation claim | Rose: HISD refused to rehire her in 2013 in retaliation for her 2010 opposition/EEOC charge and earlier grievance | HISD: Rose failed to establish a prima facie case (no adverse act within 180 days tied causally to protected activity; sovereign immunity not waived) | Held: No prima facie case — temporal gap and lack of evidence of decisionmakers’ knowledge; TCHRA claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether a failure-to-hire can be an adverse action under TCHRA | Rose: Failure to hire her for the 14 applications in Nov 2013 is an adverse employment action | HISD: Assumed arguendo it could be adverse but argued Rose produced no evidence to connect it to protected activity | Held: Court assumed failure-to-hire could qualify but Rose produced insufficient evidence to prove causation; claim fails |
| Whether Rose exhausted administrative remedies for constitutional/property claim | Rose: Her constitutional claim arises from HISD’s rehiring decisions and failure to post/fill positions | HISD: Prior administrative processes and Rose I addressed related employment-contract issues; she did not exhaust available remedies | Held: Court found no protected property interest in mere expectation of rehire and noted exhaustion problems for claims tied to earlier contract/nonrenewal; constitutional claim fails |
| Whether Rose had a protected liberty or property interest under Tex. Const. art. I, § 19 | Rose: She had an objective expectancy/access to continued employment and entitlement to her former position; alleged retaliatory placement on a “not rehirable” list | HISD: No contract or entitlement existed; mere desire or expectation of future employment is not a protected interest | Held: No protected liberty (abandoned) and no protected property interest — Rose had no legitimate claim of entitlement grounded in state law; constitutional claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. 2003) (political subdivisions generally immune absent waiver)
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for plea to the jurisdiction; consider evidence when jurisdictional facts challenged)
- Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) (TCHRA waiver of governmental immunity requires prima facie case)
- Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property and liberty interest standards for nonrenewal/nonhire claims)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (materially adverse actions standard for retaliation under Title VII)
- City of Beaumont v. Bouillion, 896 S.W.2d 143 (Tex. 1995) (limited waiver of immunity for constitutional claims against political subdivisions)