C o ry ’s s u i twa s fi l edu n d er t h e AD E A, a fe d er al s t at u t e m ak i n g i tu n l aw fu l t o “d i s ch ar ge 1 any individual or otherwise discr iminate ag ainst any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileg es of e mploy ment, beca

use of suc h individ u al ’s age.” 29 U.S.C.A. § 623(a) (1) ( West 2008). Cory does not raise a par allel claim under the state-la

w equivale nt to the A D E A , th e T e xa s Co mm is s io n o n H u ma n Ri g h ts A c t ( T CH RA). S ee Tex. L ab. Code Ann. §§ 21.001-.556 (West 2006). Howeve r, there should be no prac tical distinction i n our ana ly sis here, as we turn to analog ous fede ral lawfor guidance in claims under the T CHRA. Se e W al- Ma rt S tor es, In c . v . Ca nc ho la , 121 S.W .3d 735, 739 (Tex. 2003). State courts have conc urre nt jurisdiction over claims under the ADEA. See 29 U.S.C.A. § 626(c)( 1) (West 2008). 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 9 -00 098 -CV

SyndyS. C or y , A ppe lla nt

v. Brady Ind ependent School District , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF MCCULLO CH COUNTY , 198TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2008 069 , HO NORAB LE EMI L KARL P ROH L , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Sy ndy Cory appea ls f

rom the trial cour

t’s order g ranting summary

judgme nt in favor of appe llee B rady

I ndepende n t School District in Cory ’s suit alleg ing e mploy ment discrimination

on the basis of ag e. See 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-634 (W est 2008 & Supp. 2009) ( Ag e Discr imination in Employ

ment Act (A DEA))

. We affir m the trial court’ s order

. 1

BACK GR OUND Cory beg an her

employ ment with Bra dy

I SD in 1988 a s a cler

k in the administrative of fi c e s. I n 1 99 9, sh e be c a me a se c re tary in th e mai nten anc e and tr ans po rt a tio n d e pa

rtme nt,2

wher e she ultimately repor ted to both the transpor

tation director a

nd the maintenanc e dire ctor of the district. I n Marc h 2006, a new transportation director, L arr y Sellers, was pr omote d to replac e the outgoingdirec tor.

T h e f a c ts s u r r o u n d in g Co ry and Sellers’ s working relationship are lar g ely undisputed. Soo n a ft e r S e lle rs be cam e trans po rt a tio n d ir e c tor , Co ry c omp la ine d to the dis tr ic t su pe ri nte nd e nt, Ste ve Mc Carn , th a t sh e and Se lle rs c ou ld n ot g e t alo ng in the of fi c e e nv ir on me nt. Th e se c omp la int s prompted McCar

n to hold a meeting with Cory and Sell er s o n Au g ust 9, 2006, for the purpose of discussi n g wa y s to improve their re lationship. On September 5, 2006, Sellers issued two wr itten d i s ci p l i n ar y

war nings to Cory , both of which a ppear in the rec ord. Sellers indicated on the disciplinary

forms that the fir st warningwas ba sed on “r ude beha vior” a nd “insubordination” a

nd that the second war

ning was based on “purpose ly not doing assig nments in timely [m anner ]” a nd the fa c t th a t Co ry

pla c e d th e fi rs t di sc ipl ina ry fo rm in h e r p ur se be for e a llo wi ngMc Carn to r e vie w i t. Cory maintained in her

deposition te s t i mony

that there was no ba sis for Sellers’s a lleg ations of rudene ss, insubordination, or inten t i onal fa ilure to complete a ssignments in a timely manner , and further explained that she had place d the first disciplinary form in her pur se in order to preve nt other pe op le fr om s e e ingit b e fo re sh e ha d a c ha nc e to dis c us s it wi th Se lle rs . Cor y and Se lle rs too k th e ir dis pu te re g a rd ingthe dis c ipl ina ry wa rn ing s to Mc Carn ’s of

fi c e , w he re ano the r m e e tin g wa s h e ld i n an attempt to improve the pa rties’ wor king r elationship. O nS e p t e mb e r

2 7 , 2 0 0 6 , M c C a

r n c a l l e d an o t h e r m e e t i n g w i t h S e l l e r s an d C o r y, during which he a sked them to disc uss w ay s to c reate a positive work e nvironment, identify are as of c on c e rn , a

nd c ome up wi th s olutio ns to r e so lve the ir c on fl ic ts. McC arn the n in str uc te d b oth Sellers an d C o ry

to contact him one we ek later and provide a status update on the ir working3

re la tio ns hip . Se lle rs and Cor y e a c h d id s o b y

e ma il a

nd bo th i ndic a te d th a t th e ir

wo rk ingre la tio ns hip wa s im pr ov ing , a lth ou g h Se lle rs c on tin ue d to have c on c e rn s. At thi s p oin t, Cory had not y et ra ised any

alleg ation of employ

ment discrimination, based o n age o r an y other p r o t e c t e d c a t e g o r y. On Octobe r 27, 2006, Cory sent McCarn a letter re questing that the two disciplinary

wa rn ing s f ro m Se lle rs be re mov ed f ro m he r f ile . Co ry fu rt he r s ta te d th a t Se lle rs ha d v e rb a lly hara ssed her

on sever al occ asions and that she believed that B rady I SD is not “conce rned a

bout the discrimination that is taking plac e.” Cory did not clarify

whether she wa s ref

err ing to discr imination based on a g e, g ender , or some other protec ted categ ory . Up on re c e ipt of the le tte r, Mc Carn imm e diate ly c a lle d a mee tin g wi th Cor y to d isc us s he r a lle g a tio ns . H e the n s e nt h e r a fo rm a l r e sp on se on

Oc tob e r 3 1, 20 06 , s ta tin g , in re le va nt p a rt :

I n y our letter you used two words that I had not pre viously hear d from y ou. First y ou used the wor d “har assment” . . . . In the third para g raph y o u mentioned being “conc erne d about discrimination that is taking pla ce.” . . . Iwant y ou to know that throug h all of our discussions I perc eived the workingrelationship between y ou and Mr. Sellers as c onfrontational, but was not made aw are , until thi s point, that y ou perc eived these actions as ha rassment or disc rimination.

McCarn a lso informed Cory that he had r eviewe d her pe rsonnel file a nd that th e complained-of disciplinary

war nings did not appe ar in the file. He then promised “to conduct a full investig ation int o th e sit

uatio n” and

to p ro vid e Cor

y wi th a wr itt e n r e po rt

of his fi nd ing s. Ov e r t he ne xt thr e e da

y s, Mc Carn c on du c te d a

n inve sti g a tio n in to C or

y ’s c omp la int s, interviewingtwent y em p l oy ees in the ma intenance and tra nsportation depar

tment about Se lle rs ’s wo rk

pla c e de me ano r and tr e a tme nt of e mpl oy e e s and a bo ut S e lle rs and

Cor y ’s re la tio ns hip in particular . Whil e multiple em p l o y ees indicated that they had hea rd ar g uments betwee n SellersMcC arn’ s n ote s f ro m th is m e e tin g , a s w e ll a s th e Se pte mbe r 2 7th me e tin g , a

pp e a r i n 2 the re cord. 4 and Cory esca late int o shouting on the part of Sellers, Cory , or both parties, none of the intervie wee s sug g ested that Sellers ha d hara ssed or discr iminated ag ainst Cory in a ny way . Upon completing the inve s ti g a ti o n , M c Ca

r np r e p ar e d

a w r itte nr e p o rt s umm ar iz in g h is f in d in g s an d

c o n c lu d in g th a t no ha ra ssm e nt o r d isc ri min a tio n h a d o c c ur re d. Cor y re c e ive d a

c op y of thi s r e po rt
. On No ve mbe r 7 , 2 00 6, Mc Carn cal led a no the r m e e tin g wi th C or y and Se lle rs to discuss way s to resolve their c onflicts. At Cory ’s re quest, another employ ee in the centr al office of Br ady I SD was pre sent at the meet i n g. During the meeting , Cory reque sted that she be pr ovided 2 with a written job desc ription, and Sellers ag ree d to develop one f rom which both par

ties could work t o d ev el op a more compre hensive de scription. L ater that same da

y , Sellers cr eate d a wr itten d o c u m e n tt i t l e d , “ T r an s p o rt a t i o nS e c r e t ar y’ s J o b D e s c r i p t i o n , ” an d p r o v i d e d i tt o C o r y. On May 3, 2007, Sellers notified McCar n that he did not believe Cory was fulf illing the duties outlined in her job de scription. McCarn asked Sellers to document the job duties that we re

n o tb ei n g fu l fi l l edan d

o nJ u n e 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 , S el l er s p ro v i d edM cC arnwi t h a m em o ra n d u m s t at i n g: Sy ndy Cory has not met the duties of he r job descr iption out-li ned Nov. 7, 2006. 1: Conti nuously

updatingthe PC Bus prog ram did not beg in until Feb. 2007. 2 : C h an g e d

o nh e r o w n , S tu d e n tR i d e r s h i p C o u n tf r o m T h u r s d ay t o W e dn e s d ay. 3: Has not downloade d computer data on to CD[] s to save vital info. 4: H a s n ot h e lpe d in

fi nd ingsu

bs tit ute dr ive rs e xce pt o n a

c ou ple of oc c a sio ns . Other of fice proce dures that have bee n reque sted from he r have not occur red:Cor y ’s su it d id n ot r a ise a

g e nd e r- dis c ri min a tio n c la im. 3 5 Sending me ssag es to me by the way of e-mail. (P.O. Requests, This pare nt called, Coa ch has c alled, and ha s a question about next week’ s trip, etc...). Ihave a sk e d tha t ce rt a in re po rt s be se nt to me thr u e- ma il a s an atta c hme nt. This has not occur

red. On many occa sion s Sy

n d y r e f uses to follow verba l instructions. S he dema nds that Iwrite them down f

or her

. U p o n r e c e i p to f

t h i s m e m o r an d

u m , M c C ar

nm a d e t h e d e c i s i o nt o t e r m i n a t e C o r

y. Cor y wa s p ro vid e d w itha

te rm inatio n le tte r o n J un e 19 , 20 07 , sta tin g the iss ue s li ste d in S e l l e r s ’ s m e m o r an d

u m t o M c C ar

n . T o r e p l a c e C o r

y a s t r an s p o rt a t i o nd e p art m e n ts e c r e t a r y, B ra dy I SD h ir e d B arb ara

John so n, a

wo man a pp ro xima te ly

fi ve mon ths old e r tha

n Cor y . B ra dy I SD p r e s e n t e d a c o p y o f J o h n s o n ’ s dr i v e r ’ s l i c e n s e , i n c l u d i n g h e r d a t e o f b i rt h , a s s u m m a r

yjudgme nt evidence

.

Following her te rmination, Cory filed a g rieva

nce w ith the Equal Employ ment Op p o rt u n i t y

C o m m i s s i o n(E E OC ), as s er t i n g t h at Br ad y I S D f o s t er eda h o s t i l e w o rk environment and te rm inate d h e r b a se d o n a g e and g e nd e r. Th e EE OC dis mis se d he r co mpl a int s and pr ov ide d he r w ith

a rig ht-to-sue letter. Cory then filed the prese nt suit ag ainst Br ady I SD, al l egi n g em p loy ment d is c r im in a ti o nu n d e r

th e A DEA. Brady

I SD filed both traditional and no-e vidence motions for 3 summary judgm en t an d the trial cour t gr anted summary

judgme nt in favor of

Br ady I SD without specify ing the g round on which it wa s g rante d. This appea l followed.

STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW Summary judgmen t s ar e re viewed de novo. Va le nc e Op e ra tin g Co . v . D or se tt , 16 4 S. W.3 d 6 56 , 6 61 (T e x. 20 05 ). To pr e va il on a moti on fo r sum mary jud g me nt, the mov ant m us tI n her a ppellate br ief, C o ry d oes not raise a spec ific point of er ror r eg ardingher hostile- 4 wo rk -e nv ir on me nt c la im, bu t app e ars to a sse rt that th e “ ho sti le and

of fe ns ive wo rk inge nv ir on me nt” she endur ed at B rady

I SD is evidenc e to suppor t her c laim that the stated re asons for he r termination we re pr e te xtua l. 6 show that there is no issue of m at er i al fac t and that it is entitl ed to judg ment as a matter of law

. TX Far W

est, Ltd. v. Texas Inv

s. Mgmt., Inc

. , 127 S.W .3d 295, 301 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004,

no pe t.) . E vid e nc e fa

vo ra ble to t he no n- mov ant i s tak e n as tr ue and e ve ry re a so na ble inf e re nc e mus t be indulg ed in favor of the non- movant and any doubts resolved in its favor. Id. A n o- e vid e nc e mot ion

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt mus t be g ra

nte d if the mov ingpa

rt y

asser ts that there is no evide nce of one or more essential elem ents of a c laim or defe nse on which the non-movant would have the burden of proof at trial, and the non-movant fails to produce more tha n a sc int ill a of su mma ry -j ud g me nt e vi den c e ra isi nga g e nu ine iss ue of

ma te ri a l f

a c t on tho se

e le me nts
. Te x. R. C iv. P. 1 66 a (i ); Cox Tex. Newspapers, L.P. v. Pe nick , 219 S.W .3d 425, 432-33 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, pet. denied).

I f the order gra

nting summ ary judgme nt does not specify the ground or g rounds on which the tria l court relied for its ruling , we will af firm the summary

judgme nt if any

of the theor ies advanc ed by

the movant ar e mer itorious. Carr v. Brasher , 776 S.W .2d 567, 569 (Tex. 1989).

DI SCU SSIO N I n her sole iss u e o n appeal, Cory arg ues that the trial c ourt err ed in g ranting summary j u dg ment beca

use she of

fer ed prima f

acie evidenc e of discr imination and cre ated a fac t iss ue on wh e the r B ra dy

I SD’ s st a te d no nd isc ri min a tor y re a so n fo r te rm inatin g he r w a s p re te xtua l. 4 A plaintiff in an e mploy

ment-discrim i n ation suit must first prese nt evidence of a prima fa cie c ase of

discrimination before the issue of nondiscr iminatory re asons for te rmination,The Suprem e C o u rt “h as not definitively decide d whether

the evidentiar

y framework of 5 [ McD onnell Douglas ], ut iliz ed in Title VI Icase s is appropriate in the ADEA context.” Gross v. FBL Fi n. Se rv s. , __ U.S. __, 129 S. C t. 2343, 2349 (2009). Howe ver, b ec au s e t h e S upreme Court has ne ve r d e te rm ine d that th e c omp on e nts of a pr ima fa c ie c a se of

dis c ri min a tio n a s d e sc ri be d in Mc Do nn e ll D o ugla s ar e not applica ble to an ADE A claim and ha s previously assumed without decidingthat the McD onnell Douglas fr amewor k is applicable, see, e .g. , Ree ves v . Sanderson Pl um bin g P ro ds

. , 530 U.S. 133, 142 (2000), we will a pply it he re. See al

so Ba ue r v . A lbe ma rle Corp. , 1 69 F .3 d 9 62 , 9 66 (5 th C ir . 1 99 9) (r e qu ir ingpla int if f in AD EA c a se to es ta

bli sh pr ima

fa c ie case of discrimination as desc ribed in Mc Do nn e ll Douglas ). For purposes of the ADEA, any individual ove r the ag e of 40 is a member of the prote cted 6 class. See 29 U.S.C.A. § 631(a) ( West 2008). There is no dispute that Cory was ove r the a g e of 40 at all times releva

nt to the present suit. 7 prete x tual or not, ca

n even be addre ssed. S

e e R a y th e o n Co

. v . H

e rn andez , 5 4 0 U. S

. 44, 50 n.3 (2 0 0 3 ) ( ci t i n g McD onnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973))

. Where, a s here , 5

a pla int if f r e lie s on cir c ums tanti a l evi de nc e to sup po rt he r cl a im, sh e e sta bli sh e s a pr ima fa c ie c a se of un lawf ul e mpl oy

me nt d isc ri min a tio n b y

sh ow ingthat sh e (1 ) is a me mbe r of a pr ote c te d c la ss, 6 (2) wa s qu al i fi ed for he r position, (3) was subjec t to an adver se employ ment action, and ( 4) wa s repla ced by someone outside the protec ted class. Sh ac k e lfo rd v . D e Loi tte & Tou c he

, LLP , 190 F.3d 398, 404 (5th Cir. 1999). I n the ag e-discr imination conte x t, the fourth fa ctor is slightly modified, so that “the plaintiff must show that ‘she was e ither i) re place d by someone outsi d e t he prote cted class, i i) r e p la c e d b y s o me o n e y o u n g e r , o r ii i) o th e r w is e d is c h ar g e d b e c a

u s e o f [h e r ] a g e .’ The third alternative of this last element applies in cir cumstances wher e the plaintiff is not re place d.” Bauer v. Albem arle Corp. , 1 6 9 F. 3 d 9 6 2 , 9 6 6 (5 t h C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Bodenhe imer v. PP G Indus., Inc. , 5 F .3 d 9 55 , 957 (5 th C ir . 1 99 3) ); see also O’ Connor v. Consolidat ed Coin Caterers Corp. , 517 U.S. 308, 313 (1996) (“B eca use t he ADEA prohibits discrimination on the basis of ag e and not class member ship, the fac t that a repla ceme nt is substantially y oung er tha n the plaintiff is a fa

r more8

reliable indicator of a g e discrimination than i s t h e fact that the plaintiff wa s replac ed by someone outside the protec ted class.” ).

I n the pre sent ca se, the summary -judg ment evidenc e re veals that Cory ’s re place ment was not only

a member of the prote cted c lass, being over the ag e of 40, but wa s actua lly older than Cory . Fur thermore , beca

use Cory was re place d, she ca

nnot establish a prima fa cie c ase by showing that she wa s “otherw ise dischar g ed bec ause of her a g e.” See Armendariz v. Pinkerton Tobacco Co. , 58 F.3d 144, 149 ( 5th Cir. 1995) (distinguishi n g b et ween a “r eplac ement” c ase a nd a “job elimination” case in determining “which ve rsion of the final prong of the prima fa cie c ase a pplies”). E v e ni f C o r y h a d n o t b e e n r e p l a c e d , t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t s h e p r e s e n t e d n o c o mp e t e n ts u m m a ryjudgme nt e vidence that she was discharg ed beca use of her ag e. Her evidenc e consists solely of four essentially identical aff

idavits f rom former

Br ady I SD employ ees, e ach of

which make s conclusory state me nts that Co ry

“ wa s te rm inate d d

ue to he r a g e ” wi tho ut pr ov idi ng any su pp or tin g fa c ts. Th e se aff idavits are insuff

icient to defe at a motion for summary judgme nt. See 1001 M cKinney Ltd. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capit al , 192 S.W .3d 20 , 2 7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (stating that conclusory aff idavits a re insufficient to de feat summary judgme nt). As a result, we hold that Cory has prese nted no evidenc e to support a r equire d element of a pr ima fac ie ca se of a g e discrimination—that she wa s either r eplac ed by someone y oung er,

r e p la c e d b y s o me o n e o u ts id e th e p r o te c te d c la s s , o r o th e r w is e te r mi n a te d o nth e b a s is o f

a g e . We there fore overr

ule Cory ’s issue on appe al and hold that the tria l court did not err in gr anting summary judgme nt in favor of

Br ady I SD.9 CO NC LU SION We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r g ra nti ngsu mma

ry jud g me nt.

___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Waldrop and He nson Affir med Filed: August 31, 2009