NUMBER 13-17-00480-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

SANTA ROSA INDEPENDENT

SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant,

v.

JESUS F. RODRIGUEZ JR., Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 357th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

Santa Rosa Independent School District (SRISD), appellant, challenges the trial 

court’s denial of its plea to the jurisdiction on appellee Jesus F. Rodriguez Jr.’s disability 

discrimination suit. See TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 21.051 (West, Westlaw 2017 through 1st 

C.S.). By a single issue, SRISD argues that the trial court erred in finding it had 

jurisdiction over Rodriguez’s claims when he “failed to produce evidence necessary to 
2

create a fact issue on the prima facie elements of such claims.” We reverse and render 

judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Rodriguez was a probationary first-year school teacher at Jo Nelson Middle School 

in Santa Rosa beginning in September 2015. On January 22, 2016, Rodriguez suffered 

a stroke and notified SRISD the same day. He did not return to work that semester and 

was notified by letter dated May 17, 2016 that his employment was terminated at the end 

of his contract. No reason was stated.

Rodriguez filed a timely charge of disability discrimination with the Texas 

Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division which granted him a right to sue letter in 

January 2017. Rodriguez filed suit in March 2017. SRISD does not challenge 

Rodriguez’s exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Rodriguez’s first amended petition alleged that SRISD illegally discriminated 

against him on the basis of disability and that the superintendent decided to recommend 

that Rodriguez be terminated in February 2016. See id. SRISD filed a general denial 

and a plea to the jurisdiction challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction and seeking dismissal 

of Rodriguez’s petition. SRISD’s plea attached evidence that challenged Rodriguez’s 

prima facie case. Rodriguez responded to the plea and included evidence of his own. 

SRISD filed a reply and a post-hearing letter brief. The trial court denied SRISD’s plea 

to the jurisdiction. SRISD filed this interlocutory appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. § 51.104(a)(8) (West, Westlaw 2017 through 1st C.S.).
3

II. PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION

SRISD argues that the trial court erred because Rodriguez did not produce 

evidence in support of his prima facie case. 

A. Standard of Review

Governmental units, including school districts, are immune from suit unless the 

state consents. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex. 

2004). The labor code waives immunity if the plaintiff alleges conduct within the purview 

of the statute. TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 21.051(1). Under the Texas Labor Code, an 

employer “commits an unlawful employment practice” if it discharges an individual 

“because of . . . disability.” Id.

“A jurisdictional plea may challenge the pleadings, the existence of jurisdictional 

facts, or both. When a jurisdictional plea challenges the pleadings, we determine if the 

plaintiff has alleged facts affirmatively demonstrating subject-matter jurisdiction.” Alamo 

Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 544 S.W.3d 755, 770 (Tex. 2018); Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 

at 227–28. If the plea challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, we must consider 

evidence when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional facts. Clark, 544 S.W.3d at 770. 

If we consider evidence relating to the plea to the jurisdiction, a plaintiff must raise “at 

least a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 771. “[W]e must take as true all evidence 

favorable to the plaintiff, indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts 

in the plaintiff’s favor.” Id. But “we cannot disregard evidence necessary to show 

context, and we cannot disregard evidence and inferences unfavorable to the plaintiff if 

reasonable jurors could not.” Id. Once a defendant challenges the plaintiff’s case with 
4

evidence, as here, “the jurisdictional inquiry focuses on the evidence and whether the 

plaintiff can create a fact issue.” Id. at 785. “In a suit against a governmental employer, 

the prima facie case implicates both the merits of the claim and the court’s jurisdiction 

because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. 

Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629, 635 (Tex. 2012). If the evidence raises a fact issue, the trial 

court cannot grant the plea to the jurisdiction. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228.

B. Prima Facie Case of Disability Discrimination

The elements of a disability discrimination case are that the employee: (1) has a 

disability, (2) was qualified for the job, and (3) suffered an adverse employment decision 

because of his disability. Green v. Dallas Cty Schools, 537 S.W.3d 501, 503 (Tex. 2017). 

SRISD does not challenge Rodriguez’s disability, but challenges two parts of his prima 

facie case: (1) whether he is a qualified individual with a disability and (2) the causal 

relationship between his disability and the decision to terminate Rodriguez’s probationary 

contract. 

Rodriguez argues that between the time of his stroke and his termination, SRISD 

had no basis to terminate his employment other than his disability. SRISD argues that it 

produced evidence to support a non-discriminatory motive to terminate Rodriguez: 

Rodriguez’s alleged misconduct that was memorialized in a January 12, 2016 memo from 

the principal at Jo Nelson Middle School to the district superintendent. According to the 

memo, Rodriguez mishandled his interactions with multiple students on January 6, 2016 

during math benchmark testing. At least one female student complained of unwanted 
5

attention and hugging that made her uncomfortable. 1 According to the memo, the 

principal recommended to the superintendent that Rodriguez’s teacher contract be 

terminated immediately. The memo states that the principal talked with Rodriguez and 

advised him that he was suspended with pay until further notice and would receive 

confirmation from the superintendent in writing. 

Rodriguez does not address his suspension or the allegations of misconduct as a 

basis for his termination. He denies that he knew anything about plans to terminate his 

employment until he received SRISD’s letter in May 2016. Rodriguez does not deny that 

he met with his principal or that they discussed the misconduct outlined in the principal’s 

memo to the superintendent. 

When an employer articulates a legitimate reason to terminate a plaintiff’s 

employment, the employer eliminates any presumption of discrimination created by the 

plaintiff’s prima facie showing, and the burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to show that 

the employer’s stated reason was a pretext for discrimination. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d at 

635. Rodriguez did not attempt to rebut SRISD’s claim that the reason for his termination 

was misconduct. A “plaintiff can usually provide sufficient evidence of discriminatory 

intent by showing that the employer’s proffered reason for the adverse action is false.” 

 

1

 According to the memo, the math benchmark, a practice test to determine student knowledge

was held on January 6, 2016. Rodriguez approached a group of students after the test and began to talk 

to them about self-defense and pressure points in the human body. He asked for volunteers to 

demonstrate. Rodriguez demonstrated on two students, one of whom was female. Another female 

student claimed that Rodriguez called on her to volunteer, but she refused. He “proceeded towards her 

and pinched her behind her leg close to her behind.” Other students confirmed that they witnessed one or 

more of these interactions. One female student alleged that “Rodriguez calls her ‘Mi Amor,’ winks at her 

and hugs her randomly telling the class, ‘I really love this girl.’” Rodriguez admitted discussing self-defense 

and pressure points. He further admitted that he demonstrated on one male student, but he denied 

touching any of the girls. He admitted that he allowed students to lay on the floor after the test.
6

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 141–49 (2000). Because 

Rodriguez did not produce evidence to raise a fact issue regarding his employer’s motive, 

the trial court erred by denying SRISD’s plea to the jurisdiction. See Clark, 544 S.W.3d 

at 784–85. We sustain SRISD’s single issue. 

III. CONCLUSION

We reverse the trial court’s order denying the plea to the jurisdiction and render 

judgment dismissing Rodriguez’s claims for lack of jurisdiction. 

GINA M. BENAVIDES,

Justice

Delivered and filed the

6th day of December, 2018.