Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Albert Olguin
03-16-00323-CV
| Tex. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- Albert Olguin received a TCHRA "right to sue" letter on May 4, 2015 and filed suit on June 29, 2015 against the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC).
- HHSC was not served with the suit until July 20, 2015—more than 60 days after Olguin received the right-to-sue notice.
- Tex. Lab. Code § 21.254 requires a claimant to bring a civil action within 60 days after receipt of a right-to-sue notice.
- HHSC moved to dismiss via a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing Olguin failed to satisfy the 60-day statutory prerequisite and therefore the trial court lacked jurisdiction.
- Olguin argued the 60-day requirement is not jurisdictional as to government defendants and urged equitable defenses (due diligence/tolling) to excuse late service.
- HHSC contends Texas Gov’t Code § 311.034 makes statutory prerequisites jurisdictional for suits against governmental entities, so neither filing alone nor equitable excuses can cure lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Olguin) | Defendant's Argument (HHSC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 60-day deadline in Tex. Lab. Code § 21.254 is jurisdictional for suits against a governmental entity | The 60-day rule is not jurisdictional as to governmental defendants; filing within 60 days suffices and equitable defenses can apply | The 60-day rule is a jurisdictional statutory prerequisite under Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.034 and both filing and service must occur within 60 days | The court should treat the 60-day deadline as jurisdictional for suits against governmental entities (per HHSC’s argument) |
| Whether filing the suit alone (without service) within 60 days satisfies § 21.254 | Filing alone is sufficient if done within 60 days | Both filing and service are required within 60 days to bring suit against a governmental entity | Service as well as filing must be completed within the 60-day period to preserve jurisdiction against a governmental entity |
| Whether equitable defenses (tolling, due diligence, relation back) can cure noncompliance with the 60-day deadline against a governmental entity | Equitable doctrines should toll or excuse late service when due diligence shown | Equitable defenses cannot overcome jurisdictional statutory prerequisites under § 311.034 | Equitable defenses do not apply to jurisdictional prerequisites; jurisdiction cannot be conferred by tolling or similar doctrines |
| Remedy when the 60-day jurisdictional prerequisite is missed | Allow late service or apply equitable relief to reach merits | Dismiss for want of jurisdiction | Missed jurisdictional deadline requires dismissal for lack of jurisdiction (HHSC seeks reversal and dismissal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Prairie View A&M Univ. v. Chatha, 381 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. 2012) (statutory prerequisites to suit against governmental entities are jurisdictional when required before filing)
- In re United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 307 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2010) (distinguishing Labor Code filing deadlines and noting § 311.034 makes certain prerequisites jurisdictional for governmental defendants)
- Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 253 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2008) (Legislature consents to TCHRA suits only when statutory procedures are met)
- Little v. Tex. Bd. of Law Exam’rs, 334 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) (60-day deadline is a jurisdictional prerequisite in suits against a governmental entity)
- Heart Hosp. IV, L.P. v. King, 116 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003) (failure to meet a statutory filing deadline for review of agency action is a jurisdictional defect not cured by tolling)