the University of Texas at El Paso v. Diana Ruiz Esparza, 510 S.W.3d 147

Background

Diana Esparza worked as a UTEP staff interior designer from 1999 until termination in Sept. 2013; her employment history included warnings and suspensions starting in 2008.
Esparza previously sued UTEP twice: a 2010 federal Equal Pay Act suit (dismissed for lack of proper comparators) and a 2012 TCHRA suit (dismissed in part; this Court affirmed dismissal of her disparate-pay claim but reversed other discrete claims).
While the 2012 TCHRA appeal was pending, UTEP placed Esparza on indefinite administrative leave (Sept. 10, 2013), gave notice of intent to terminate, and terminated her on Sept. 20, 2013; she filed administrative charges in Oct. 2013 and Feb. 2014 alleging discrimination and retaliation and sued in county court (Nov. 18, 2013) for national-origin discrimination (Count I), age discrimination (Count II), and retaliation (Count III).
UTEP filed an amended plea to the jurisdiction relying on prior judgments, Esparza’s deposition, and discrimination charges; it argued (1) issue preclusion barred claims about comparable employees, (2) Esparza’s petition failed to plead prima facie TCHRA claims, and (3) retaliation lacked causation given time gaps.
The trial court denied the plea; on appeal the Texas Court of Appeals (El Paso) rejected collateral estoppel as to termination claims, held the pleading failed to give fair notice and remanded to permit repleading, and declined to dismiss the retaliation claim on the jurisdictional record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior suits preclude litigation now (issue preclusion)	Esparza: prior cases differ in scope; present suit concerns termination/post-termination hearing and different comparator class	UTEP: prior final judgments resolved lack of similarly situated comparators, so Esparza cannot establish a prima facie TCHRA claim	Court: Overruled UTEP’s Issue One — issue preclusion does not bar current termination-based comparator inquiry because comparator pool differs from prior pay-focused suits
Whether Esparza’s petition pleads a viable TCHRA claim (pleading sufficiency)	Esparza: petition and incorporated facts support claims for age, national origin, and retaliation	UTEP: counts are conclusory and fail to plead McDonnell Douglas prima facie elements; thus jurisdiction is lacking	Court: Sustained Issue Two — petition insufficiently particular; remand for Esparza to replead with factual basis for prima facie elements (but not dismissed with prejudice)
Whether retaliation claim fails as a matter of law for lack of causation	Esparza: protected activity may include her timely notice of appeal, which was close in time to leave/termination; post-termination hearing denial could also be retaliatory	UTEP: temporal gaps and the fact that the hearing occurred after termination negate causation; jurisdictional evidence forecloses retaliation claim	Court: Overruled Issue Three in part — remanded to allow repleading; declined to conclusively hold post-termination hearing non-actionable given lack of jurisdictional evidence about UTEP’s procedures

Key Cases Cited

San Antonio Water Sys. v. Nicholas, 461 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. 2015) (state entities generally immune absent legislative waiver)
Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for plea to the jurisdiction and when jurisdictional evidence may be considered)
Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) (TCHRA waiver requires pleading facts that state a claim; must plead prima facie elements)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (elements for disparate-treatment prima facie case)
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2013) (retaliation requires but-for causation)
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (definition of adverse employment action)
City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (standard for resolving jurisdictional fact questions)