### NUM BER 13-09- 0018 5-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS
T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS
C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG

DON NA IN DEP END ENT SC HOO L DIST RIC T, A pp ellan t,

v . M A RIA C ONC EPC ION ROD RIGU EZ , A pp ellee.

On a p p ea l f ro m th e C o u n ty C o u rt a t L aw N o . 6 of H ida lgo C ou nt y , T exas .


## D I S S E N T I N G ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON
B ef o re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G ar za , a n d V el a D is se n ti n g Memo ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la
I di ss ent f ro m t h e m a jori ty ’s opi nio n onl y w it h r espec t t o the hol din g that the tr ial court did not err in den y ing D onn a ISD’s plea to the ju risdiction as it rela ted to Rodriguez’ s Apr il 5, 2004 pa y

r ais e. That clai m, if ther e i s o ne, i s u nti mely bec ause the p ay

r ais e w as not ref eren ced in he r comp laint an d is, in f act, n o dif f ere n t f rom th e claims p rev iously2

ass er ted i n the September 16, 2003 g ri ev ance. R odr ig uez ’s r espon se to t he pl ea to the jur is dic ti on does not sta te or ev en s ug g est that sh e is compl ain ing about the Apr il 5, 2004
pay r ais e. In fact , t he p a y ra ise wa s b ro ug ht up by co unsel for t he s chool di str ic t dur ing depos it ion

. The major it y

co rr ect ly

hol ds that the cont inu ing v iol ati on doc tr ine does not appl y to her clai m s b ecau se she w as alerte d tha t “she w as con tinua lly paid less th an m ales in equiv alen t positio ns beca use of her sex , age, and race,” but she did not f ile a claim wi thin 180 day s o f the gr iev ance. Y et, the major it y holds that her compla int w it h r eg ar d to the p ay raise w as time ly

e v en tho ugh it is the sa me cla im—th at she w as paid le ss than her ma le
count er par

ts. As author it y , t he maj or it y ci tes tw o c ases for t he propos it ion that a s uit fil ed pur suant
to t he TCH RA

may be based upon cl aims m ade in the disc ri minat ion complai nt, as w ell as any f a ct u a lly r ela ted c lai ms t hat c oul d r eason abl y be e x pect ed to g ro w out of the
in ves ti g ati on of the char g e. See John son v. Hoe chst Celan ese Corp ., 127 S. W .3d 8 75, 878 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2004, no p et) ; Thom as v. Cl ayt on Will

iam s E ner gy, Inc ., 2 S.W .3d 7 34, 7 38 (Tex . App.–H oust on [14th Di st. ] 1999, no pet. ). I n Thom as , defendant

ur g ed th at pl ain ti ff

had n o t ex haust ed hi s a dmini str ati v e r emedie s w it h r espec t t o a

re tal iat or y di sc har g e c lai m. Id. at 738. T he co urt held that the pla intif f ’s retaliation claim

ar ose becau se the p lai nti ff fil ed a pr esumabl y

timel y co mplai nt, and i t w as unnec ess ar y for pla int iff to file an addi ti onal compl ain t w it h re g ar d to the re tal iat ion cl aim that ar ose out o f the o ri g ina l compl ain t. Id. H er e, Rod riguez pr esent ed no ar g ument w it h r eg ar d to anIn f a c t, R o d r ig u e z d id n o t f ile a b r ie f in th is C o u r t, s o s h e a c tu a lly m a k e s n o a r g u m e n ts o n a p p e a l. 1 3 unti mely r etal iat ion cl aim ar is ing from a ti mely f ile d c o m p lai nt. Johns on , on the o ther 1 hand, seems to employ the cont inu ing v iol ati on th eor y

. See Johns on , 127 S.W .3d at 779 (s tati ng that Johnson indi cat ed on the c omplai nt t hat t he di sc ri minat ion w as a c onti nui ng act ion betw een O cto ber 1997 and Ap ri l 1998)

. T h e m a jor it y co rr ect ly

r eje cte d the appl ic ati on of that theo ry her e, s o Johns on does not suppo rt the major it y ’s hol din g

. Thus, I re spec tfull y

di ss ent b ecaus e the “p ay ra is e” co mplai nt i s n ot di ff er ent fr om Rodriguez’ s earlier comp laint th at she w as di s c ri min ate d against be cause she w as pa id les s t hat o ther

mal e s u p e ri ntenden ts. R odr ig uez fil ed her g ri ev ance on Sep tember 16, 2003, compl ain ing of sal ar y di spar it y

. At t he l ates t, she w as aw ar e of the all eg ed discrimina tory practice of salary disparity on t hat d ate

. S he d id not f ile suit, howev er, unt il 254 day s l ater

. The fact that on Apr il 5, 2004, she felt t her e w as cont inu ed di spar it y does
not r ev iv e her

othe rw is e unt imel y

cl aim. Pu rs uant to s ect ion 21.2 02 of the Tex as Labor Cod e, R odr ig uez ’s co mplai nt o f s a lary di spar it y

w as lat e. See T EX

. L AB

. C OD E A NN . § 21.202 (V er non 200 6)

. The tr ial co urt s houl d hav e di smi ss ed th e ac ti on for lac k o f jur is dic ti on.

RO SE VELA J u s t i c e

Di ss enti ng M emora ndum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 1 7th d ay

of September , 200 9.