Texas Department of State Health Services v. Amy W. Rockwood
468 S.W.3d 147
Tex. App.2015Background
- Rockwood was a medication nurse for the Texas Department of State Health Services from Dec 1, 2008 to Oct 14, 2009.
- She was reassigned within Seguin Hall on Aug 1, 2009 and began seeking ergonomic workplace accommodations for back pain.
- Rockwood requested an ergonomic evaluation and accommodations (stool and mats) around Aug 5–11, 2009; Fritz, the safety officer, and supervisor Oyibo were involved.
- Severe incidents on Sept 2, 2009 raised safety concerns; Rockwood was placed on paid leave on Sept 4, 2009 and subsequently terminated Oct 13, 2009.
- Rockwood pursued a sick-leave pool request (Oct 5–9, 2009) and appealed; she filed EEOC and Texas Commission on Human Rights Act claims after denial.
- The trial court denied the Department’s plea to the jurisdiction; on appeal, the court affirmed in part (retaliation and reasonable accommodation) and reversed in part (disability discrimination) and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie disability discrimination pled? | Rockwood alleged disability and qualified status; Rockwood. | Department contends no disability or qualification existed. | Disability discrimination claim dismissed for lack of qualification evidence. |
| Whether Rockwood established a prima facie case of retaliation? | Rockwood’s protected activity (accommodation request) linked to termination. | Department argues no adequate causal link. | Temporal proximity (about one month) sufficient to raise a fact issue on causation. |
| Whether reasonable accommodation claim survives jurisdiction? | Department failed to engage in good-faith interactive process. | Arguments about process not disputed. | Fact issue on failure to provide reasonable accommodation; plea to jurisdiction as to this claim denied. |
| Scope of interlocutory review in TCHRA case? | Prima facie elements and conclusive negation are reviewable. | Broader McDonnell Douglas steps not within interlocutory review. | Court limited review to prima facie elements and conclusive negation; remaining steps deferred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) (recognizes two alternative methods of proving discrimination (direct or McDonnell Douglas))
- Davis v. City of Grapevine, 188 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006) (describes burden-shifting and pretext for discrimination)
- Hagood v. County of El Paso, 408 S.W.3d 515 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013) (interactive process requirement; good-faith exploration)
- Tex. Dept. of Fam. & Protective Servs. v. Howard, 429 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (reasonable accommodation elements and standing)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (jurisdictional pursuit under governmental immunity)
- Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2006) (interlocutory appeal and authority to review jurisdiction)
- Amsel v. Tex. Water Dev. Bd., 464 Fed. Appx. 395 (5th Cir. 2012) (causal link via temporal proximity in retaliation)