TEX AS C OU RT OF AP P EA LS, T HIR D D ISTRIC T, A T A UST IN

NO. 03- 05 -00 499 -CV

Te xa s P ar ks & Wil dlife De par tm e nt , A ppe lla nt

v. Milburn Dearing, Kenneth Head, and Mik e Warr en, Ind ividu ally and on Behalf

of All Others Sim ilarly Situ ated, Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN10286 7 , HO NORAB LE LORA J. LIVINGSTO N , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

C O N C U R

R I N G O P I N I O N
Ijoi n th e ma

jor ity op ini on e xce pt fo r that par t of the op ini on de a lin g wi th t he sin g le filing r ule. Beca use I disag ree that there is curre ntly a basis for

rec og nizi ng , in Texas, a single filing rule for the ty

pe of complaint at issue in this case , I concur in the majority ’s ju d gm en t , b ut
w r i t e s e p ar a t e l y.

Th e majori ty

c on c lud e s th a t th e fe de ra l st a tut or y str uc tur e fo r T itl e VI Ic la ims is simil ar enoug h to the Tex as L abor Code that Texas courts shoul d apply the s ingle filing rule for the purposes of satisfy ing a dminist rative e x haustion req u i re ments in the context of class treatment of individual claims. Howeve r, there is a critica l distinction betwe en the Te x as and f eder al statutory scheme s. Fe dera l law provides that a dminist rative e x haustion may be satisfied by

a cha rg e filed “ by or on behalf of

a p erson claiming to be a g g rieve d.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5( b) (West 2003) (empha sis added). Thus, a fede ral char g e filed on behalf of a class of persons simil arly situated ca

nTex. Parks & W ildlif e De p’t v. De aring , 150 S.W .3d 452 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, 1 pet. denied) , cert de nied , 544 U.S. 960 (2005). 2 sat i s fy fe d er al s t at u t o ry

ex h au s t i o n re qu i re m en t s an d i s co n s i s t en twi t h t h e f

ederal statutory

structure
. The Texas statutory structure does not c ontain a simil ar provision. Under the curr ent Texas statute, a cha rg e must be filed by

the per son ag g rieve d or the “ person’ s ag ent.” See Tex. L ab. Code Ann. § 21.201 (West 2006). Thus, under curre nt Texas law, administrative exhaustion is not satisfied by
a fi lin g me re ly

“ on be ha lf of ” a pe rs on . T he fi lin g mus t be by th e pers on or the pe rs on ’s a g e nt. Other tha n the unsupported state ments in Dearing I , I am not a

war e of any

authority that decla

res 1 a plainti ff seeking to be named a class repr esentative of a putative class to be the ag ent of unnamed cl ass m ember s. Even if a class is ce rtified, the c lass repr esentative serve s as a r e p r es entative
mem b er o f t he cla ss, but he or she is not the ag e nt of the un name d c la ss m e mbe rs . A c la ss
re pr e se ntativ e mus t on ly

be a me mbe r o f t

he c la ss a nd mus t be a de qu a te to r e pres ent the int e re sts of the c lass. Class members neither have to a pprove of a class repr esentative nor ag ree with him or he r. Th e y

a re fr e e to opt- ou t of

the c la ss o r o pt- in a

nd ob je c t e ve ry

ste p o f t he wa y . T he c la ss member/c lass repr esentative relationship i s, in some way s, not entirely define d; however , it is not a princ ipal/ag ent re lationship unless class members make it so.

Wh il e it mi g h t s e e m e f

f ic ie n t o r r e a s o n a

b le f r o m a p o li c y s ta

n d p o in t to c o nsider a sin g le fi lin g ru le fo r the purp os e s of a dmi nis tr ativ e e xha us tio n in the c la ss c e rt if

ica ti on conte xt, Texas courts a re not in a position to judicially incorpora

te such a rule into the labor c ode. Administrative reme dies and the r equire ments for ex hausting those reme dies are cre ature s of statute. Th e statut e s g ov e rn

ho w tho se re qu ir e me nts may be sa tis fi e d. Th e c ur

re nt T e xas s ta tut or

y sc he me3

fo r e xha us tio n o f a dmi nis tr a tiv e re me die s for the ty pe of c la ims a t issu e in thi s ca se re qu ir e s tha t a char g e be f

iled by the per son ag g rieve d or the pe rson’s ag ent. I t does not provi d e fo r a fi ling “ on be ha lf of ” the pe rs on

a g g ri e ve d o r b y

so me on e wh o is s ome thi nglik e a n a g e nt o r s imi lar t o a n a g e nt. A pe rs on se e kin g to be the c la ss re pr e se ntativ e of a pu ta tiv e c la ss i s n ot a n a g e nt f or un name d c la ss members—a

ppare nt, impli ed, or othe rwise—a nd, there fo re, under the Te x as L abor Code, c annot
sa tis fy e xha us tio n r e qu ir e me nts on

be ha lf of a ll o the r m e mbe rs of

a c la ss. Iwould hold that the s i n gl e fi l i ng rule is inconsistent with the curr ent iteration of Texas L abor Code section 21.201 and should not be eng raf ted on the statutory

administrative re medy structure by

judicial decision. I

would also hold that this C ourt’s dec ision on thi s issue in Dearing I is c le arl y e rr on e ou s.

__________________________________________ G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Filed: August 3, 2007