Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center-El Paso v. Loretta K. Flores, 612 S.W.3d 299

Flores was a long‑time administrator at Texas Tech Univ. Health Sci. Ctr.–El Paso, serving as director in the president’s office after a 2013 institutional reorganization.
In 2015 President Lange reorganized his office, eliminated the director position, created a new assistant‑to‑the‑president role, and appointed Vanessa Solis (mid‑30s) to that role without posting the job.
Flores was reassigned to the provost’s office as an executive associate, placed at a lower salary range than her prior director pay; she was 59 at the time.
Flores sued under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (age discrimination). The trial court denied the university’s plea to the jurisdiction; the court of appeals affirmed.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding Flores failed to present legally sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that age was a motivating factor, so sovereign immunity was not waived and the claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Flores was “replaced” by a significantly younger employee	Solis assumed Flores’s duties and effectively replaced her	Lange eliminated the director job and created a different assistant position; Solis did not take Flores’s full duties	No replacement: duties and authority were not sufficiently similar to show Solis took Flores’s job
Whether Flores was treated less favorably than a similarly situated younger employee	Flores and Solis were similarly situated; Solis was promoted/raised while Flores was demoted/paid less	They held different jobs, supervisors, responsibilities; not similarly situated	Not similarly situated; disparate‑treatment theory fails
Whether Flores offered direct evidence of age discrimination (e.g., retirement comments)	Lange told Flores he didn’t want her to retire and favored younger employees	Remarks were stray/neutral about retirement and not tied to the adverse action	Comments insufficient as direct evidence of age‑motivated action
Whether the TCHRA waives sovereign immunity here (jurisdiction)	TCHRA waives immunity if plaintiff creates a genuine fact issue on discrimination	Waiver requires sufficient evidence to create a fact issue; Flores has none	No waiver: Flores failed to establish a prima facie case, so claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (legal framework for burden‑shifting in discrimination claims)
Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (burden shifts to defendant only after plaintiff proves prima facie case)
Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 544 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. 2018) (sovereign immunity waiver requires sufficient evidence to create fact issues)
Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) (circumstantial/direct evidence standards; prima facie elements)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Rincones, 520 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2017) (prima facie requirements vary with circumstances)
AutoZone v. Reyes, 272 S.W.3d 588 (Tex. 2008) (fourth element: replaced by younger or treated less favorably than similarly situated)
Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr. at Hous. v. Rios, 542 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. 2017) (sovereign immunity principles for state entities)
Quantum Chem. Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2001) (discussion of evidence that an employee was replaced)