Texas Parks and Wildlife Department v. Nancy Gallacher, 03-14-00079-CV

Nancy Gallacher (appellee) worked for Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) and alleged retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) after complaining about supervisor Wagner’s treatment to Deputy Director Jim Lopp in Sept. 2010.
Gallacher requested 320 hours from TPWD’s Sick Leave Pool on Nov. 3, 2010 for open‑heart surgery; Wagner approved only 160 hours and informed her approval might be limited pending business needs.
TPWD’s Sick Leave Pool policy names a Sick Leave Pool Administrator (Rebecca Gonzales) as responsible for eligibility and approval; TPWD’s EEOC position described the administrator as having authority to determine eligibility.
Wagner admitted he probably did not have authority to alter an employee’s sick‑leave request after reviewing the policy; Gonzales testified she could have granted the full 320 hours if properly submitted.
Wagner emailed about termination procedures on Nov. 23, 2010 and sent a termination letter dated Nov. 29, 2010 (termination effective Dec. 17, 2010). Gallacher contends adverse actions occurred within weeks of Wagner learning of her complaint.
Procedural posture: Appellee moved for rehearing arguing the court of appeals erred in holding the trial court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction over her retaliation claim because she produced evidence sufficient to create a fact question on causation and departure from policy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff established prima facie retaliation under TCHRA sufficient to defeat TPWD’s plea to the jurisdiction	Gallacher says she produced evidence that TPWD departed from its sick‑leave policies (supervisor altered request) and that a "very close" temporal link (≈1–1.5 months) exists between her complaint and adverse acts	TPWD argued decisions were within supervisor Wagner’s discretion and no causal link based on temporal gap	Court of appeals ruled trial court lacked jurisdiction (i.e., plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence); appellee asks rehearing to reverse that ruling

Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for considering evidence on plea to jurisdiction: take evidence favorable to nonmovant and resolve doubts in nonmovant’s favor)
Ackel v. Nat’l Communications, Inc., 339 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2003) (prima facie causation for retaliation requires a low threshold at the prima facie stage)
Gee v. Principi, 289 F.3d 342 (5th Cir. 2002) (focus on final decisionmaker when assessing causation)
Anderson v. Coors Brewing Co., 181 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 1999) (three‑month interval alone may be insufficient to show causation; shorter intervals can suffice)
Long v. Eastfield Coll., 88 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 1996) (discussing causation standards in employment claims)
Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (court should not delve into merits when deciding jurisdictional pleadings)
San Antonio Water Sys. v. Nicholas, 441 S.W.3d 382 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (retaliation claims can survive despite a substantial gap when defendant retaliates at the first opportunity)
Pardo‑Kronemann v. Jackson, 601 F.3d 599 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (discussing temporal proximity and retaliation causation)