Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Carlotta Howard
429 S.W.3d 782
Tex. App.2014Background
- Howard worked for DFPS starting July 30, 2007 as a Human Services Tech III; duties included driving, transporting children, and office tasks.
- December 2008 accident left Howard with back and neck injuries, anxiety, and pain; she exhausted sick leave and used FMLA leave.
- After accident, DFPS reorganized; Howard was in a unit led by Ogle, who later coordinated with regional office for possible termination.
- Howard sought workers’ compensation and attempted to return to work in phases; doctors provided limited return-to-work notes.
- In October 2011, Howard filed suit alleging disability discrimination under Tex. Labor Code ch. 21 and failure to reasonably accommodate; DFPS filed a plea to the jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied the plea; DFPS appeals, arguing Howard failed to raise a prima facie disability claim or a viable accommodation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability existed at termination (prima facie)? | Howard had ongoing back spasms and pain indicating impairment. | Howard lacked a disability at termination; evidence showed improvement. | Genuine issue of material fact on disability at termination. |
| Reasonable accommodation viable? | Four hours per day using annual leave could be a reasonable accommodation. | Driving remains essential; four hours cannot cover essential functions. | Department disproved ability to perform essential functions with accommodation; accommodation claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. Mission Consolidated Indep. Sch. Dist., 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) (establishes prima facie framework for discrimination under Tex. Labor Code ch. 21)
- Davis v. City of Grapevine, 188 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006) (defines prima-facie elements and substantial limits concept)
- Miranda v. Texas Parks & Wildlife, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (lays out jurisdictional proof standard for pleadings in waivers of immunity)
- Unifund CCR Partners v. Watson, 337 S.W.3d 922 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (governs burden when defendant challenges jurisdictional facts)
- City of Dallas v. Heard, 252 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (addresses burden shifting in jurisdictional context)
- Thomann v. Lakes Reg’l MHMR Ctr., 162 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (disability-determination framework in Texas courts)
- LeBlanc v. Lamar State College, 232 S.W.3d 294 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2007) (defines essential functions and impact on accommodation analyses)