# IN THE SUPREME COURT O F TEX AS

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

### N O



### . 11-0644

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

## T E X A S 

## C O M M IS S IO N O N 

## H U M A N 

## R IG H T S 

## , T E X A S 

## W O R K F O R C E 

## C O M M IS S IO N 

## ,

D A V ID 

## P O W E L L 

## , A N D 

## R O B E R T 

## G O M E Z 

## , P E T IT IO N E R S 

## ,

v
. 

## M A R IL O U 

## M O R R IS O N 

## , R E S P O N D E N T



### .

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4



### O N 

### P E T I T I O N F O R 

### R E V I E W F R O M T H E 

### C O U R T O F 

### A P P E A L S F O R T H E 

### T H I R D 

### D I S T R I C T O F 

### T E X A S

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4



### P ER CURIAM
I n Casteel , we he ld that error is presumed ha

rmful and a new tria l is required w hen a tr ial 1



### court submits a broad- form liability question containing both va lid a nd invalid the ories of liability
b ec au s e the appellate court cannot determine whether the jury relied on an invalid theory

. I n t h i s employ er reta liation case , a broa d -f o rm j ury question allowed the jury to find liability based on a leg al theory that was jurisdictionally barr ed and thus could not support liability

. As in Casteel , we

cannot deter

mine whe t h er t h e jury relied on the invalid theory

. Acc ording ly , we reve rse the judgme nt of the cour

t of appe als and re mand the ca se for a new trial.

C r o w n L i f e I n s

. C o

. v

. C a s t e e l , 2 2 S

. W

. 3 d 3 7 8 , 3 8 9 ( T e x
. 2 0 0 0 )

. 1

### Marilou Morrison beg an her employ ment with the Texas Commi ssion on Human Rights (TCHR) in 1991 and af

ter sever al promotions ultimately rea ched the highe st-ranking investiga tor 2 

### position. During her employ ment, TCHR’s lo n g-t i m e ex ecutive direc tor retire d. Acc ording to Morrison, the new executive direc tor made derog atory comments to her about her rac e and reje cted

more qualified minority job applicants in favor of hiring white employ ees. After Morrison applied
but was not chosen for a team leade r position the following y ear , she reque sted TCHR’s information
rela ted to the denied promotion. There was conflict betwee n Morrison and her colleag ues and supervisors for over two y ear s, culminating in a “severe act of threa t and intimi dation” that 3


### Morrison alleg edly perpe t ra t ed on Vickie Covington, the employ ment investiga tions manag er.
TCHR terminated Morr ison’s employ ment.
Morris o n filed a char g e of discrimination with the Equal Employ ment Opportunity
Commi ssion (EEOC), which included sever al bases for discrimination but did not include the denied promotion. Morrison then sued TCHR for reta liation. At trial, counsel and various witnesses
discussed the denied promotion. During the jury char g e co nfer ence , the trial court proposed the following question on liabilit y :
Did the Texas Commi ssion on Human Rights (TCHR) take adver se pers o nn e l a c ti o n s ag ainst Marilou M orrison because o f h er o pposition to an unlawful discriminatory prac tice?

A t a l l r e l e v a n t t i m e s M o r r i s o n w o r k e d f o r T C H R

. H o w e v e r , i n 2 0 0 3 , t h e L e g i s l a t u r e a b o l i s h e d T C H R a n d 2

m o v e d i t s d u t i e s t o t h e T e x a s W o r k f o r c e C o m m i s s i o n ’ s C i v i l R i g h t s D i v i s i o n
. A c t o f J u n e 1 8 , 2 0 0 3 , 7 8 L e g
. , R

. S

. , c h

. 3 0 2 , 2 0 0 3 T e x
. G e n
. L a w s 1 2 7 9 , 1 2 7 9

- 8 1

.

T C H R a l l e g e d M o r r i s o n h a d n o t m e t a v e r a g e m o n t h l y c a s e c l o s u r e r a t e s a n d t h a t s h e h a d v i o l a t e d T C H R 3 p r o t o c o l b y f

a i l i n g t o n o t i f

y h e r s u p e r v i s o r b e f

o r e l e a v i n g t h e o f

f i c e
. 2

### The char g e did not define “adve rse personne l actions.” TCHR objected, arg uing the broad- form

submissi on improperly commingle d adver se personnel actions. Specific ally , TCHR objected that
the term adver se personne l actions would allow the jury to find liability without unanimity beca use
there wer e multipl e occur renc es the jury could view as adver se personne l actions. TCHR tender ed

a liability question that focuse d solely on the termination. The trial court denied the objection. The jury found TCHR liable for reta liation and awa rded $300,000 in compensa tory damag es. After posttrial hear ings, the trial court enter ed a judgme nt r einstating Morrison to her position and awa rding
her $300,000 in compensa tory damag es, $300,000 in attorney ’s fee s, and other equitable reme dies.
On appea l, TCHR arg

ued, inter alia , that the jury char g e allowed a finding of liability based

on invalid leg al theories. The court of appea ls conclude d that TCHR wai v ed i t s o bjection. 346 4


### S.W .3d 838, 848. Be cause we hold that TCHR did not waive its objection and error is presumed,

we r ever se and r emand f

or a ne w trial.
“When a s i n g le broad- form liability question err oneously commingle s valid and invalid liability theories an d t h e appellant’ s objection is timely and specific , the err or is harmful when it

cannot be deter

mined whether the improperly submitt ed theories formed the sole basis for the jury ’s finding .” Crown L ife Ins. Co. v. Casteel , 22 S.W .3d 378, 389 (Tex. 2000).
We first addre ss whether T C HR p re serve d err or. Texas Rule of Civil Procedur e 274 provides, “[a] party objecting to a char g e must point out distinctly the objectionable matter and the

g rounds of the objection. Any complaint as to a que stion, definition, or instruction, on account of

T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a l s o r e d u c e d M o r r i s o n ’ s c o m p e n s a t o r y d a m a g e a w a r d t o $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 , p u r s u a n t t o t h e 4

s t a t u t o r y c a p i n s e c t i o n 2 1

. 2 5 8 5 ( d ) ( 1 ) o f t h e T e x a s L a b o r C o d e
. 3 4 6 S

. W

. 3 d 8 3 8 , 8 5 3

. 3

### any defe ct, omission, or fault in pleading , is waived unless specific ally included in the objections.”

T E X



### . R. C I V



### . P. 274. I t is essential that the trial court is put on notice of the complaint “timely and plainly .” State Dep’ t of

Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Payne , 838 S.W .2d 235, 240–41 (Tex. 1992). The jury was a sked:
Did the Texas Commi ssion on Human Rights (T CH R) ta k e a d v erse personne l actions aga i n s t Marilou M orrison because of her oppositi on to an unlawful discriminat o ry prac tice?
The char g e did not define “adve rse personne l a ctions.” Morrison first contends that TCHR’s only objection to the liability question was that it could result in a non-unanimous v er d i ct. Morrison 5



### arg ues the trial court could n o t b e ex pecte d to g lean from the lang uag e of TCHR’s objection that
there was a potential Casteel issue. We disag ree
. During the char g e confe renc e, TCHR arg ued that
the char g e lumped TCHR’s differ ent actions toge ther, that the case was “re ally , about reta liation and termination,” and that it would not be possible to deter mine what adver se acts would form the basis of the jury ’s verdict. This is the problem we identified in Casteel –commingling valid and invalid
theories of liability in a broad- form question. 22 S.W .3d at 388. This is espec ially true g iven that,
from the outset of the underly ing proce eding , the scope of what adver se personne l actions could form
the basis of the suit was a contentious issue. As we have rec ently stated, Casteel err or may be

prese rved without specific ally mentioning Casteel

. See Thota v. Y oung , 366 S.W .3d 678, 691 (Tex. 2012) (“[Appellant] did not have to cite or ref ere nce Casteel specific ally to prese rve the rig ht for the appellate court to apply

the pre sumed harm a

naly sis . . . .”).

C o m b i n i n g d i f

f e r e n t t h e o r i e s f

o r r e c o v e r y u n d e r o n e q u e s t i o n d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i n v a l i d a t e a c h a r g e
. S e e 5 T e x

. D e p ’ t o f H u m a n S e r v s

. v

. E

. B

. , 8 0 2 S

. W

. 2 d 6 4 7 , 6 4 9 ( T e x
. 1 9 9 0 ) ( “ B r o a d

- f o r m q u e s t i o n s r e d u c e c o n f l i c t i n g j u r y a n s w e r s , t h u s r e d u c i n g a p p e a l s a n d a v o i d i n g r e t r i a l s
. ” )

. 4

### Morrison al s o arg ues TC HR was required to reque st a correc t question or i nstruction (and

that its proposed question was not cor rec t). We disag ree . We require only objections, not corr ect questions, to prese rve Casteel err or. See, e.g. , Romero v. KPH Consol., Inc. , 166 S.W .3d 212,
228–29 (Tex. 2005)

. Despite not ha ving the burden to tender a corr ect question, TCHR submitt ed

a proposed question that would only allow a finding of liability based on Morrison’s termination—ag ain indicating to the Court the over- broad nature of the question. We conclude the
tri al court was sufficie ntly put on notice and awa re of TCHR’s objection. See T E X



### . R. A P P



### . P. 33.1(a) (1)( A); Thota , 366 S.W .3d at 690 (“[W] e have long favor ed a common sense application of

our proce dural rul es that serve s the purpose of the rules, rathe r than a technica l application that rig idly promotes form ove r substance .”). Having deter

mined TCHR proper ly prese rved its Casteel complaint, we turn to whether the
broad- form question on liability allowed a finding on invalid theories, there by trig g ering Casteel’s presumption of har m
. Texas Rule of Civil Procedur e 277 states that “[i] n all jury case s the court shall, whene ver fea sible, submit the cause upon broad- form questions,” but this does not c rea te an
inflexi ble mandate. Casteel , 22 S.W .3d at 388. A broad- form q u es t i o n cannot be used to “put
befor e the jury issues that have no basis in the law or the evidenc e.” Romero , 166 S.W .3d at 215.
When a jury question contains both valid and invalid theories, “[an] appellate court cannot deter mine
whether the jury based its verdic t on an improperly submitt ed invalid theory ,” and thus rema nd for
retria l is the only

option. Casteel , 22 S.W .3d at 388.
TCHR arg ues that the char g e improperly allowed the jury to base liability on M orrison’s
denied promotion. The denied promotion was not part of Morrison’s EEOC claim, which is a

5

### prer equisite to suit ag ainst a g overnme ntal entity such as TCHR. See T E X



### . G O V 

### ’ T 

### C O D E 

### § 311.034;

In re United S

ervs. Auto Ass’n , 307 S.W .3d 299, 308 (Tex. 2010); Hoffmann-La Roche , Inc. v. Zeltwanger , 144 S.W .3d 438, 446 (Tex. 2004). Whil e evidenc e of the denied promotion had some
rele vance in the underly ing proce eding , and TCHR conce des as much, it could not proper ly form the basis for liability . Be cause the jury question allowed liability for “ adver se per sonnel ac tions,” the jury could have improperly

found liability

based upon the denied pr omotion. Morrison contends, how ever , that no invalid theory was direc tly submitt ed to the jury , and
the mere possibili ty the jury may find liability based on an invalid theory does not constitute harm.
Howeve r, when a broad-for m q u es t i o n al lows a finding of liability based on an invalid theory , an
appea ling party does not have to prove that the jury actua lly relied on the invalid theory

. Casteel , 22 S.W .3d at 388. The ve ry char acte ristic of broa d-for m submission preve nts pa rties or the Court
from knowing for cert ai n what theory the jurors relied upon. I nstead, the court must reve rse and

rema nd for retria l beca

use the harm occur s when the appell ant is unable to proper ly prese nt its

arg uments on appea l due to the nature of the question. T h e h ar m t o T CHR is not that the jury 6



### rea ched the wrong verdic t, but rathe r that TCHR has been prohibited from demonstrating on appea l
that the jury ’s verdic t was based upon the invalid leg al theory

. See id

. (noting that “it is possible that
the jury based [t he defe ndant’s] liability solely o n o n e or more of these err oneously submitt ed

S e e C a s t e e l , 2 2 S

. W

. 3 d a t 3 8 8 ( “ [ W ] h e n a j u r y b a s e s a f i n d i n g o f l i a b i l i t y o n a s i n g l e b r o a d

- f o r m q u e s t i o n t h a t 6

c o m m i n g l e s i n v a l i d t h e o r i e s o f l i a b i l i t y w i t h v a l i d t h e o r i e s , t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s o f t e n u n a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e f f e c t o f t h i s e r r o r
. . . . T o h o l d t h i s e r r o r h a r m l e s s w o u l d a l l o w a d e f e n d a n t t o b e h e l d l i a b l e w i t h o u t a j u d i c i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t
a f a c t f i n d e r a c t u a l l y f

o u n d t h a t t h e d e f

e n d a n t s h o u l d b e h e l d l i a b l e o n p r o p e r , l e g a l g r o u n d s
. ” )

.

6

### theories. At any rate , it is impossibl e for us to conclude that the jury ’s answe r was not based on one

of the improper ly

submitt ed theor ies”). 7



### I n conclusion, TCHR timely objected to the question at issue, which allowed the jury to find liability based on an invalid leg al theory

. There fore , we presume harm. Id .; T E X



### . R. A P P



### . P. 44.1(a) , 61.1. Wit hout hear ing oral ar gu m en t , T E X



### . R. A P P



### . P. 59.1, we reve rse the court of appea ls’ 8 

### judgme nt and re mand the ca se to the trial cour t for a ne w trial.

OP INION DELIVERED: Augus t 31, 2012

M o r r i s o n a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o u p h o l d t h e v e r d i c t a g a i n s t T C H R

. W e e x p r e s s l y 7

r e j e c t e d t h i s a r g u m e n t i n C a s t e e l

. 2 2 S

. W

. 3 d a t 3 8 8

. T h e i s s u e i s n o t t h e l a c k o f e v i d e n c e b u t t h e i n a b i l i t y o f T C H R t o d e m o n s t r a t e h a r m c a u s e d b y t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e j u r y t o f i n d l i a b i l i t y b a s e d o n a n i n v a l i d l e g a l t h e o r y
.

I n l i g h t o f o u r d i s p o s i t i o n , w e d o n o t r e a c h T C H R ’ s r e m a i n i n g a r g u m e n t s
. 8
7