Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS: In January 1982, Gabrelle Navarrete, appellee, was hired by El Paso County and throughout the years, received several promotions; her last position was assistant director of facilities and entertainment. On May 19, 2003, Appellee was informed that due to a reduction in force, her position was going to be eliminated. At the discretion of the director of the coliseum, Brian Kennedy, eight positions out of 25 full-time positions at the coliseum were eliminated and five new positions were created. Although the reason for the reduction in force was to save money, Kennedy hired new employees, including the daughter of an assistant coliseum director, and increased the pay of two other coliseum employees. The new positions created that were originally held by appellee and another employee, Kelly Heidtman, were the only two positions that listed a lower salary than before. Appellee’s position was re-titled assistant director of the coliseum. Appellee applied for this new position but was not rehired. The appellee asserted a gender discrimination claim and a retaliation claim. The appellant filed a combined plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment. After holding a hearing, the trial court denied appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction. HOLDING: The court reverses the denial of the plea to the jurisdiction and renders judgment dismissing appellee’s retaliation claims against appellant for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court dismisses as moot appellee’s motion to dismiss appeal for want of jurisdiction. After reviewing appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction, the court finds that the substance of the plea to the jurisdiction questions appellee’s failure to exhaust her administrative remedies, and an appeal from such a denial grants jurisdiction for this court to consider. The court finds that appellant used the proper procedural vehicle to confer jurisdiction on this court to consider this appeal. A suit under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act is limited to claims made in the discrimination complaint and “factually related claims that could reasonably be expected to grow out of the Commission’s investigation of the charge.” The appellee’s administrative charge filed with the EEOC office alleged that unlawful employment practices had been taken against her based on her sex. The charge contained no allegations regarding unlawful employment practices being taken against her based on the information she provided to Heidtman which is the basis of her retaliation claim alleged for the first time in her First Amended Petition. In this case, the retaliation claims could not be expected to grow out of appellee’s charge. As such, the court finds that appellee failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to her retaliation claims and as such, is precluded from raising them for the first time in her first amended petition. For this reason, with respect to the retaliation claim, the trial court is without jurisdiction to consider this claim. OPINION: Barajas, C.J.; Barajas, C.J., McClure and Parks, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.