Sunshine Jespersen v. Sweetwater Ranch Apartments and CNC Investments, LTD, LLP
390 S.W.3d 644
Tex. App.2012Background
- Jespersen was hired Feb. 29, 2008 as a leasing agent for CNC, which managed Sweetwater Ranch.
- Jespersen signed a lease for an apartment at Sweetwater Ranch in March 2008 with a discount tied to her CNC employment.
- She learned she was pregnant with twins and received medical notes requiring time off and restrictions on walking.
- Jespersen sought reduced hours and medical leave; CNC treated extended medical leave as resignation barring FMLA coverage, affecting rehiring.
- After staffing changes, Jespersen allegedly faced non-reinstatement, rent changes, and the apartment was allegedly locked and abandoned by her.
- Jespersen filed suit alleging lease breaches, pregnancy/disability discrimination, 92.0081 violations, and later breach-of-contract claims; defendants moved for summary judgment and sought their fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination claims (pregnancy/disability) | Jespersen asserts direct/circumstantial evidence of pregnancy/disability discrimination. | Appellees contend she did not show a prima facie case or pretext; reasons were non-discriminatory. | No jury issues; court affirmed summary judgment for appellees on discrimination claims |
| Section 92.0081 violation (lockout) claim | Jespersen alleges lockout and failure to post required notice under 92.0081. | Evidence shows abandonment before locks; no tenant status at change of locks. | Affirmed summary judgment for appellees; no 92.0081 violation |
| Breach of contract (Jespersen claims) & counterclaim | Jespersen argues she complied with the lease; defendants breached by lockout and overcharges. | CNC asserts Jespersen breached by actions (pets, notice, fees); damages proven as a matter of law. | Affirmed summary judgment; Jespersen liable for breach; damages determined at hearing |
| Attorney's fees | Appellees improperly sought fees for discrimination claims and failed to disclose calculations. | Lease provision permits prevailing party to recover fees; no requirement to comply with Chapter 38 demands here. | Affirmed award of attorney's fees to appellees |
| Costs (videotaped depositions) | Costs for depositions not recoverable as court costs under statute. | Costs fall within litigation costs under the lease; not limited to §31.007 costs. | Affirmed award of costs related to depositions |
Key Cases Cited
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (direct vs. circumstantial evidence framework for discrimination)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext framework; burden shifts to show real discriminatory motive)
- Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2002) (circumstantial evidence analysis in discrimination)
- AutoZone, Inc. v. Reyes, 272 S.W.3d 588 (Tex. 2008) (Texas case applying McDonnell-Douglas to disability claims under TCHRA)
- AKB Hendrick, LP v. Musgrave Enters., Inc., 380 S.W.3d 221 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (contract-based fee recovery; contract terms control fee entitlement)
- Gumpert v. ABF Freight System, Inc., 312 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (contrast between litigation costs and court costs)
- McCoy v. Tex. Instruments, Inc., 183 S.W.3d 548 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (employer's honest belief in nondiscriminatory reasons not necessarily pretext)
- Little v. Republic Refining Co., 924 F.2d 93 (5th Cir. 1991) (employer's reasons need not be perfect; discriminatory motive required)