Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Earl Pearson
15-25-00037-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 23, 2025Background
- Earl Pearson, an African-American and former Chief of Enforcement at the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC), was terminated in July 2017 during a broad overhaul of TABC leadership following significant public and legislative scrutiny.
- Pearson sued TABC for race discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), alleging that his firing was motivated by race and not performance.
- TABC claimed his termination was part of a broader leadership change unrelated to race and moved for summary judgment based on sovereign immunity and lack of evidence of discrimination.
- Pearson’s primary evidence was his own declaration, recounting comments allegedly made by two TABC officials that implied his firing was racially motivated.
- The trial court denied TABC’s Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motion for Summary Judgment, and TABC appealed, arguing the declaration was inadmissible and, even if considered, insufficient to support Pearson’s claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Plaintiff’s Declaration | Declaration includes admissible testimony of discriminatory motive by TABC officials | Declaration contains inadmissible hearsay, lacks personal knowledge, is a sham, and includes legal conclusions | Trial court overruled objections and admitted, TABC appeals (no appellate ruling yet) |
| Sufficiency of Evidence of Discrimination | Declaration shows direct evidence; enough to show genuine issue of material fact | Statements are non-probative "stray remarks" by non-decisionmakers; summary judgment warranted | Trial court found the evidence sufficient, denied summary judgment (appeal pending) |
| Plea to the Jurisdiction & Sovereign Immunity under Chapter 21 | Plaintiff’s claim fits within TCHRA’s waiver of immunity as there’s evidence of discrimination | No genuine issue of fact means immunity not waived; court lacks jurisdiction | Trial court denied plea, holding sufficient evidence presented (appeal pending) |
| Pretext for Termination | TABC’s reasons for termination were inconsistent/pretextual, as shown by statements and circumstances | Legitimate, non-discriminatory reason: leadership overhaul, no similarly situated non-minorities treated better, statements unreliable | Trial court found pretext issue material, denied summary judgment (appeal pending) |
Key Cases Cited
- Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 544 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. 2018) (failure to establish pretext defeats subject matter jurisdiction in TCHRA cases)
- AutoZone, Inc. v. Reyes, 272 S.W.3d 588 (Tex. 2008) (stray remarks insufficient to raise fact issue on discrimination)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for employment discrimination claims)
- City of Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. 1995) (standard for appellate review of evidentiary rulings at summary judgment)
- Kerlin v. Arias, 274 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. 2008) (affidavits must establish personal knowledge to be legal summary judgment evidence)
- Staheli v. University of Mississippi, 854 F.2d 121 (5th Cir. 1988) (party opponent admissions must be within scope of employment and agency)