Texas Commission on Human Rights v. Morrison
346 S.W.3d 838
Tex. App.2011Background
- Morrison filed suit against the Commission, TWC, Powell, and Gomez for retaliation and discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA).
- After trial, the jury awarded Morrison back pay and past/future compensatory damages; court later awarded back pay, compensatory damages, future benefits, reinstatement, and attorney's fees.
- Morrison had a long state service history and, as Investigator V, issued findings of cause or no cause in discrimination cases.
- Powell, who became executive director in 2001, was accused of racist remarks and discriminatory hiring practices; other witnesses corroborated alleged racial bias.
- Morrison alleged a January 2003 termination following a disputed January 17, 2003 counseling meeting; she claimed retaliation for her discrimination complaints.
- The legislature subsequently abolished the Commission and transferred duties to the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC); Morrison later sought retirement and Social Security benefits after termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instruction preserved error about liability theories | Morrison argues the charge allowed liability on invalid theories. | TWC contends the objection did not raise the specific theory now asserted. | Issue waived; no preservation of the argued theory. |
| Whether the damages cap under §21.2585 applies to compensatory damages | Morrison contends cap does not apply or is misplaced. | TWC argues cap applies and the employer is the Commission. | Cap applies; compensatory damages reduced to $50,000 for the Commission. |
| Whether the future benefits award improperly included capped damages and duplications | Future benefits were intended as front pay, not duplicative damages. | Potential double counting with future compensatory damages; miscalculation possible. | Future lost retirement and Social Security benefits reduced by $25,000; award adjusted to $229,880. |
| Whether reinstatement is permissible and feasible alongside front pay | Reinstatement should be available where feasible to remedy harms. | Front pay typically substitutes for reinstatement when not feasible. | Reinstatement is permissible and feasible; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ancira Enter., Inc. v. Fischer, 178 S.W.3d 82 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005) ( Damages cap and sovereign immunity context cited)
- Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 253 S.W.3d 653 (Tex.2008) (TCHRA immunity and employer status)
- Jones v. City of Dallas, 8 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. 1999) (Immunity from liability is an affirmative defense; must be pleaded)
- O'Dell v. Wright, 320 S.W.3d 505 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2010) (Damages cap waiver in some contexts; governmental entity issues noted)
- Shoreline, Inc. v. Hisel, 115 S.W.3d 21 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2003) (Damages cap interaction with government defendants noted)
- Vance v. Union Planters Corp., 279 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2002) (Damages cap applicability to employer under immunity framework)
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d 438 (Tex.2004) (TCHRA model; federal analogy cited)
- Giles v. General Elec. Co., 245 F.3d 474 (5th Cir. 2001) (Front pay vs reinstatement; equitable considerations)
- City of DeSoto v. White, 288 S.W.3d 389 (Tex.2009) (Statutory damages cap interpretation)