Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas v. Viola M. Douglas, 14-19-00714-CV

Background

Viola Douglas, a Metro Police Department lieutenant, sued the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Metro) alleging gender discrimination (denied promotion to captain in 2014) and retaliation after she filed an EEOC charge and this lawsuit.
For 2014 captain openings, Chief Tim Kelly abandoned the previously used outside assessment process and used a two-step internal process (five‑person panel + his one‑on‑one scoring). Douglas ranked highest after the panel but, after Kelly’s scores were added, ranked last; two male candidates (Felix Vara and Darrin Lewis) were promoted.
Vara had received a six‑day suspension within the prior year for conduct Metro described as “serious” discipline; Douglas and others contend departmental practice barred promotion after recent discipline.
Douglas presented evidence of a longstanding pattern of few female promotions, instances where internal processes disadvantaged women, and statements/actions by Kelly suggesting bias; she also alleged that Chief Vera Bumpers retaliated against her after she filed an EEOC charge by pressuring supervisors to lower her performance evaluation and reassigning her.
Metro moved to dismiss for want of jurisdiction and for summary judgment, arguing it had legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (subjective interview assessments and managerial discretion) and that the challenged actions were not materially adverse or causally connected to protected activity.
The trial court denied Metro’s plea and motion; on interlocutory appeal the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, finding genuine fact issues on both discrimination and retaliation jurisdictional challenges.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Douglas’s sex‑discrimination claims should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (challenge to existence of jurisdictional facts)	Douglas alleged she was the best qualified (highest panel score), Metro deviated from the neutral outside process, promoted two men (one possibly ineligible), and showed a departmental pattern disadvantaging women — creating a fact issue of pretext/motivating discrimination	Metro argued it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason: chief had discretion to use internal interviews, subjectively rated candidates, and promoted those he found better—Douglas’s beliefs are insufficient	Court held Metro met its burden to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason but Douglas produced sufficient evidence (history of few female promotions, Kelly’s conduct and motivations, Vara’s discipline/potential ineligibility, change in process and score flip) to raise fact issues precluding dismissal
Whether Douglas’s retaliation claims should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction	Douglas alleged protected activity (EEOC charge) was followed by materially adverse acts: reassignment, Bumpers pressuring supervisors to downgrade evaluations, downgrading and forced grievance — and evidence Bumpers told supervisors not to trust her, showing causation	Metro argued transfers were routine rotations (no change in pay/position) and the lowered evaluation was remedied through grievance; knowledge of the charge alone and temporal gaps are insufficient to show causation or material adversity	Court held Douglas presented sufficient evidence that Bumpers’ conduct (pressuring multiple supervisors, downgrading evaluations, disparagement to supervisors) could be materially adverse and causally linked to protected activity, creating fact issues that defeat the jurisdictional plea

Key Cases Cited

Alamo Heights I.S.D. v. Clark, 544 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. 2018) (framework for governmental‑immunity jurisdictional pleas and when evidence must be considered)
Mission Consol. I.S.D. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) (application of McDonnell Douglas burden‑shifting under the TCHRA)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for disparate‑treatment claims)
Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978) (prima facie case raises an inference of discrimination)
Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Canchola, 121 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. 2003) (state employment‑discrimination law should be interpreted in light of federal precedent)
Navy v. Coll. of the Mainland, 407 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (retaliation/adverse‑action analysis and relevance of context)
Alvarado v. Tex. Rangers, 492 F.3d 605 (5th Cir. 2007) (employer’s subjective interview assessment can be a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)