709 S.W.3d 500
Tex.2024Background
- Loretta K. Flores, an employee at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center–El Paso since 1993, applied for the newly created chief-of-staff position in 2016.
- Flores, over age 40, was not selected; instead, Amy Sanchez, age 37, was hired after interviews with both candidates.
- Flores alleged age discrimination under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code, claiming Sanchez’s selection was motivated by age bias.
- The university asserted Sanchez was the more qualified candidate due to her auditing and accounting experience.
- The trial court denied the university’s plea to the jurisdiction; the court of appeals affirmed on the age discrimination claim, finding a fact issue on pretext.
- The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed whether the university’s immunity from suit was waived, focusing on whether Flores presented sufficient evidence of pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of Sovereign Immunity | Flores alleged facts sufficient to show a violation of Chapter 21, waiving immunity | No genuine fact issue shown; no violation, so immunity not waived | Immunity not waived; case dismissed |
| Genuine Issue of Pretext | Age was a motivating factor; stated reasons were not credible | Chose Sanchez due to superior qualifications in auditing and finance, job requirements matched | No reasonable evidence of pretext; no fact issue |
| Use of Subjective Criteria | University relied on subjective or previously unmentioned qualifications | Job description included finance duties; Sanchez’s background matched documented requirements | No support for claim of shifting criteria |
| Age-Related Interview Comment | Lange’s question regarding age supports inference of discriminatory motive | Question was rhetorical, contextual, not evidence of intent to discriminate | Not evidence of discrimination in these circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center–El Paso v. Flores, 612 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2020) (addressed prior age discrimination claims by Flores, setting immunity and burden standards)
- Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 544 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. 2018) (clarified burden-shifting and immunity analysis for employment discrimination under Texas law)
- Quantum Chem. Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2001) (held that discrimination need only be a motivating factor, not the sole factor, for liability under Texas law)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Canchola, 121 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. 2003) (discussed the application of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (set federal standards on proving pretext and inferential discrimination in employment cases)