Sandra Brewer v. College of the Mainland, 441 S.W.3d 723

Brewer worked part-time at College of the Mainland (Feb 2006–Dec 2008); reassigned in March 2008 and told in July 2008 all part-time staff would re-interview to continue employment.
Brewer filed a written complaint about supervisor Al Bass on July 30, 2008 (no sexual-harassment allegation). She was suspended and moved to on-call in August 2008 for attending a meeting without permission.
On October 17, 2008 Brewer filed an internal sexual-harassment complaint against Bass; the College found no harassment but required counseling/training for Bass; Brewer’s grievance was denied.
Brewer’s last workday before winter break was December 18, 2008; she was told to expect a January 2009 call to return; she received a January voicemail asking her to report but did not go or return the call.
Brewer filed an EEOC Charge in February 2009 (race discrimination and retaliation), received a right-to-sue, sued in Feb 2010; later abandoned all claims except retaliation; College moved for no-evidence and traditional summary judgment and a plea to the jurisdiction on the harassment claim.
The trial court granted the plea and summary judgment; the court of appeals affirmed, ruling Brewer failed to raise fact issues on adverse action and causation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brewer showed adverse employment actions causally linked to her protected complaints	Brewer: questioned, threatened, isolated by co-workers; sent home without pay and demoted to janitorial duties after internal complaint; ultimately let go in Dec 2008	College: questioning/ostracism are not materially adverse; demotion/suspension occurred in Aug 2008 (before sexual-harassment complaint); she was not terminated in Dec 2008 (asked to return in Jan 2009 but declined)	Held for College: Brewer failed to raise fact issues that adverse acts were materially adverse or causally connected to protected activity; summary judgment affirmed

Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. 2010) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (credit nonmovant evidence and inferences on summary judgment)
Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2006) (no‑evidence summary judgment burden shifting)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (materially adverse standard for retaliation)
Quantum Chem. Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2001) (burden-shifting and showing motivating factor under TCHRA)
Navy v. College of the Mainland, 407 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (but-for causation requirement for retaliation)
Farroux v. Denny’s Rests., Inc., 962 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997) (affidavit contradicting prior deposition testimony must explain inconsistency)
Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2004) (procedure when both no-evidence and traditional motions are filed)