621 S.W.3d 323
Tex. App.2021Background
- Amanda Sims worked for Tarrant County College District (TCCD) ~3 years with above‑average reviews and an excellence award; she disclosed she is a lesbian while serving on a diversity committee.
- After disclosure, Sims alleges hostile treatment by her supervisor (including negative religious comments about homosexuals), an administrative audit that cleared her prior PayPal handling of vendor fees, placement on administrative leave April 4, 2019, and termination July 1, 2019.
- Sims sued in Dallas County asserting sexual‑orientation discrimination, retaliation under the Texas Whistleblower Act, and claims under the Texas Constitution seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- TCCD filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) provides the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination/retaliation and that sovereign immunity bars Sims’ Whistleblower Act and constitutional claims.
- The trial court denied the plea. On appeal, the court considered whether the TCHRA covers sexual‑orientation discrimination post‑Bostock, whether that forecloses the Whistleblower Act claim, and whether Sims’ constitutional claims overcome sovereign immunity for jurisdictional purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the TCHRA prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation? | Sims: TCHRA does not include sexual orientation, so her claim is not solely statutory under TCHRA. | TCCD: TCHRA’s prohibition on discrimination "because of sex" (and gender‑stereotyping doctrine) brings related claims within the TCHRA. | The court follows Bostock and Chatha: read TCHRA’s "sex" to include sexual‑orientation and transgender status; Sims’ claim properly brought under TCHRA. |
| Does the availability of a TCHRA remedy bar Sims’ Whistleblower Act claim? | Sims: She pled retaliation for reporting sexual‑orientation discrimination and invoked the Whistleblower Act. | TCCD: TCHRA is the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination/retaliation; Whistleblower Act does not waive immunity for discrimination‑based retaliation. | The court held the TCHRA remedy forecloses relief under the Whistleblower Act; Whistleblower claims dismissed. |
| Do Sims’ Texas Constitution claims overcome sovereign immunity and support jurisdiction? | Sims: Constitutional guarantees (Texas Bill of Rights) allow suits for equitable/injunctive relief and preempt statutes; she seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. | TCCD: (argued later) Sims failed to plead a protected property interest or sufficient comparator facts—insufficient to waive immunity. | The court affirmed denial of plea as to constitutional claims: Sims alleged facts creating a genuine issue of material fact, and she sought equitable/injunctive relief permissible under the Texas Constitution. |
| Did Sims impermissibly venue‑shop by filing in Dallas County? | Sims: Venue proper under Whistleblower Act §554.007(b) because counties are in the same council of governments. | TCCD: Argued venue shopping. | Court rejected venue‑shopping argument; venue and jurisdiction are distinct and not dispositive here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for reviewing plea to the jurisdiction)
- Prairie View A & M Univ. v. Chatha, 381 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. 2012) (TCHRA should be interpreted to conform with Title VII where language is analogous)
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) (Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of sex” includes sexual‑orientation and transgender status)
- City of Waco v. Lopez, 259 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. 2008) (TCHRA enacted to address workplace discrimination and retaliation; outlines exclusivity of statutory remedies)
- Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 544 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. 2018) (plaintiff must establish genuine issue of material fact to overcome jurisdictional challenge)
- City of Beaumont v. Bouillion, 896 S.W.2d 143 (Tex. 1995) (Texas Constitution authorizes suits against political subdivisions for equitable or injunctive relief for Bill of Rights violations)