X

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 this accelerated appeal, appellant, Texas Tech University, challenges the trial court’s order denying its plea to the jurisdiction and granting injunctive relief in favor of appellee, Stephen Finley. Finley was terminated from his employment at Texas Tech University on Nov. 7, 2003. Following his termination, he filed suit against Texas Tech alleging claims of age discrimination and retaliation. Texas Tech subsequently filed a plea to the jurisdiction contending the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Finley failed to timely file a discrimination complaint with the Texas Workforce Commission-Civil Rights Division (TWC-CRD) within 180 days after the date the “alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” Texas Labor Code �21.202(a). Under �21.202, Finley must have filed his discrimination complaint no later than May 5, 2004. In response to the plea, Finley asserted his discrimination complaint was timely mailed to the El Paso Area Office of the EEOC in a letter dated March 10, 2004. He further claimed he completed a charge questionnaire in April 2004 which supplemented his initial complaint. On March 10, 2006, the court held a hearing on the plea. At the hearing, Texas Tech contended that Finley’s discrimination complaint was untimely because the formal charge of discrimination on file with the TWC-CRD was dated July 26, 2004, 83 days after the 180-day deadline. In response, Finley introduced into evidence, without objection, two letters, one from the El Paso EEOC and one from the TWC-CRD, stating that his March 10 correspondence was received on April 5, 2004, that it fulfilled the requirements of a complaint, and his complaint was timely filed. Following the hearing, on March 21, 2006, the trial court signed an order denying the plea to the jurisdiction. The order also prohibited Texas Tech from contacting either agency in further attempts to interfere with their previous findings. HOLDING:That portion of the trial court’s order prohibiting Texas Tech University from further contact with the EEOC and the TWD-CRD is reversed and the court renders judgment dissolving that portion of the trial court’s order awarding Stephen Finley injunctive relief; in all other respects, the order is affirmed. The record contains a fourteen-page letter addressed to the EEOC-El Paso Area Office dated March 10, 2004, and file-stamped April 5, 2004. The first sentence of the letter reads “I would like to relate to you a charge of employment discrimination (based on age and possibly other factors) against Texas Tech University.” As evidenced by the correspondence admitted at the March 10, 2006 hearing, Finley’s March 10 complaint letter was received by the EEOC on April 5, 2004, and satisfied the requirements of a timely filed complaint. Furthermore, the TWC-CRD confirmed by letter that, because complaints filed with the EEOC are automatically dually filed with the TWC-CRD upon receipt, the March 10 letter was properly filed within the 180-day statute of limitation. Also attached to the pleadings is a charge questionnaire, file-stamped April 23, 2004, summarizing the complaints made in the March 10 letter. Texas Tech argues the July 26, 2004, charge of discrimination contained in the TWC-CRD’s certified file is the “formal complaint” which initiated the administrative process. Similarly, Texas Tech contends the EEOC’s actions indicate the agency did not consider Finley’s complaint timely filed until the July 26 charge. The July 15, 2004, letter from the EEOC, which Texas Tech contends supports its position that the administrative process had not yet begun, reveals the July 26 charge is actually the perfected charge prepared by the EEOC. The record reflects 1. the EEOC received Finley’s initial complaint on April 5, 2. Finley completed an initial charge questionnaire on April 23, 3. the EEOC prepared a perfected charge which it mailed to Finley on July 15, 4. Finley reviewed and returned the perfected charge to the EEOC on July 26, and 5. The perfected charge was forwarded to Texas Tech within ten days pursuant to �21.201(d). The court finds no merit in Texas Tech’s contention that the administrative process was not initiated until the July 26 charge was filed. Finley requested injunctive relief in his second response to the plea to the jurisdiction. Yet, by his pleadings, he did not seek a temporary restraining order or temporary injunction pursuant to Rules 680 and 681 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. However, because the trial court’s order places restrictions on Texas Tech and is made effective immediately, it functions as a temporary injunction and is void because, among other reasons, the order failed to set bond and failed to include a date for a trial on the merits as required by Rules 683 and 684. OPINION:Don H. Reavis, J.; Reavis and Campbell and Hancock, 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.