Nick Yeh, Individually, Ashdon Inc. D/B/A Impression Bridal, and Emme Bridal, Inc. v. Ellen Chesloff
483 S.W.3d 108
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Chesloff worked as a manager/sales rep for Ashdon/Impression Bridal and Emme Bridal; last alleged sexual-harassment email was March 30, 2009; she left employment June 5, 2009.
- Employers (Yeh and the companies) sued Chesloff for defamation in August 2009; after that Chesloff completed an EEOC intake questionnaire received Sept. 24, 2009 (checked Box 2: “I want to talk to an EEOC employee before deciding whether to file a charge”).
- The EEOC mailed Chesloff a Form 5 (Charge of Discrimination) on Oct. 6 and instructed her to sign/return the form within 30 days to file a charge; Chesloff signed and returned the charge, received by EEOC Oct. 30, 2009.
- The last alleged harassment was March 30, 2009. The EEOC intake questionnaire was filed 179 days after that date; the formal Charge was filed 214–215 days after that date—outside Texas Labor Code §21.201’s 180-day deadline.
- Chesloff asserted the intake questionnaire satisfied the 180-day filing requirement or, alternatively, that the later formal charge related back to the questionnaire; defendants argued the questionnaire was not a charge and the later charge was untimely.
- The trial court submitted Chesloff’s Chapter 21 hostile-work-environment and harassment claims to the jury and entered judgment for Chesloff; the court of appeals reversed and rendered judgment that Chesloff take nothing on her Chapter 21 claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chesloff’s EEOC intake questionnaire (checked Box 2) constituted a timely "charge" under Chapter 21/EEOC rules | Chesloff: the questionnaire filed within 180 days satisfies administrative exhaustion | Defendants: Box 2 expressly disclaims filing a charge; intake questionnaire is not a charge | Held: Questionnaire checked Box 2 is not a charge; it did not satisfy the 180-day filing requirement |
| Whether the formal EEOC Charge (filed after 180 days) relates back to the earlier intake questionnaire under §21.201(f) | Chesloff: the later charge should relate back to the timely questionnaire | Defendants: relation-back applies only to an original "complaint"/charge; intake questionnaire here was not an original charge | Held: Relation-back doctrine does not apply because the intake questionnaire was not a complaint/charge |
| Whether post-employment acts (texts, defamation suit) toll or revive the harassment claim or constitute continuing violations | Chesloff: post-employment texts/suit tolled or revived the claim or were part of a continuing violation | Defendants: post-employment acts were discrete, non-sexual, or relate to retaliation and not part of the hostile-work-environment claim | Held: Post-employment acts did not revive the harassment claim and were not within the scope of the hostile-environment claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (interpreting when an EEOC intake document qualifies as a charge and recognizing need to distinguish information requests from enforcement requests)
- Prairie View A & M Univ. v. Chatha, 381 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. 2012) (Texas exhaustion principles and that claimant may file with EEOC or TWC)
- Schroeder v. Tex. Iron Works, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 483 (Tex. 1991) (administrative exhaustion as prerequisite to suit under Chapter 21)
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (timely EEOC charge is a precondition to recovery and subject to equitable doctrines)
- Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2010) (statutory scheme preempts common-law claims that would evade administrative exhaustion)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (standards for legal-sufficiency review of jury verdicts)