408 S.W.3d 467
Tex. App.2013Background
- WPI terminated Barbour (age 50s) and Barbour sued under TCHRA alleging age discrimination.
- Jury found in Barbour’s favor with back pay, benefits, and compensatory damages; trial court applied caps per Tex. Lab. Code §21.2585(d)(1).
- Court awarded Barbour attorney’s fees; Barbour sought a multiplier enhancement under §21.259.
- WPI appealed on sufficiency of evidence and exhaustion of administrative remedies; Barbour cross-appealed on multiplier authority.
- Trial court awarded fees using lodestar without multiplier; appellate court affirmed
- Montalvo, Barbour’s supervisor, made age-related comments; termination occurred Nov 15, 2006; HR not involved in termination decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barbour proved age was a motivating factor in termination | Barbour: direct evidence shows age bias via Montalvo’s comments | WPI: no direct link; evidence insufficient to show age was motive | Yes; evidence shows age bias and proximity to termination supports discrimination finding |
| Whether Barbour exhausted administrative remedies before suit | Barbour exhausted remedies; EEOC charge put employer on notice of age claim | WPI: insufficient scope of EEOC charge | Barbour exhausted remedies; jurisdiction upheld |
| Whether trial court could apply a multiplier to attorney’s fees under §21.259 | El Apple I permits multiplier in exceptional circumstances | El Apple I allows multiplier only in exceptional cases; not shown here | No multiplier; fee award affirmed on lodestar basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d 438 (Tex. 2004) (mandatory exhaustion of administrative remedies before suit under TCHRA)
- City of Waco v. Lopez, 259 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. 2008) (exhaustion and scope of administrative charge under TCHRA)
- AutoZone, Inc. v. Reyes, 272 S.W.3d 588 (Tex. 2008) (direct evidence and authority of manager over termination)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1983) (framework for proving discrimination via burden shifting)
- Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) (two methods of proving discriminatory treatment under TCHRA)
- El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2012) (lodestar method; possible enhancements in exceptional circumstances)
- Baritz/Poindexter style cited, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (illustrative on arbitration or evidentiary standards)
- Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2006) (liberal construction of administrative complaints beyond label)
- Canchola v. Sam Houston State University, 121 S.W.3d 317 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2008) (standard for proving discrimination under TCHRA)