### 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 OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
DON NA IN DEP END ENTSC 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 rta t L aw N o . 6 of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza App ellant , Donn a Ind epe nde nt Sch ool District (“Donna I SD”), files th is interlocuto ry appeal ch all eng ing the tr ial co urt’ s d enia l o f its pl ea to the jur is dic ti on i n a s uitfil ed by appel lee , M ar ia Con cepc ion R odr ig uez
. By a s ing le is sue, D onna I SD co ntends thatthe tr ial co urt l ack s s ubj ect -mat ter j ur is dic ti on bec ause Rod ri g uezfail ed to ex hausther admini strati v e re medies

. W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i n par t and r ev erse and render in par t. I. B A CKGRO UND From 1970 to 2006, Rod ri g uez w or ked for Don na ISD i n s ev er al posi ti ons inc lud ing
ass is tant super int endent for c ur ri cul um and a ss is tant super int endent for c ampus suppo rt

.T he p ower s and dut i es exe r ci sed b y t he T exas Com m i ssi on o n Hum an Ri ght s hav e si nce b een 1 tra n s fe rr e d to th e C i v i l R i g h ts D i v i s i o n o f t h e T e x a s W o rk fo rc e C o m m i s s i o n
. T EX

. L AB

. C OD E A NN

. § 21

. 0015 (V ern on 20 06 ). 2 On Se pte mb er 6, 200 3, she f iled a gri evance alleging that Don na IS D discriminate d against her by pa y ing he r less th an o the r assistant su perint end ent s, w ho a re ma le. Th e gri evance
w as deni ed i n December of 2003. Nev erthel ess , on Apr il 5, 2004, the D onna I SD sc hool board v oted to i ncrease Ro d rigu e z’s sal ar y to match that of the ot her as si sta nt supe rinten den ts. Rod ri g uezsu bseq uentl y fil ed a formal charg e of di sc ri minat ion on M ay 27, 2004 w it h the Te x as Com mission on Hum an Rights (“TCHR”)

. The ch arge, or comp laint, a lleged in 1 per ti nent par

t that “I [R odr ig uez ] hav e been dis cr imi nated ag ain st becau se of my sex
. The other D eputy Super int endent is a mal e. A mal e i n a c ompar abl e pos it ion has r ecei v ed $10,000 mor e i n s ala ry y et ha s few er

r espon si bil it ies .” Rod ri g uezalle g ed in t he c omplai nt that thi s dis cr imi nati on w as “[ c]o nti nuous and [o]ng oin g .” The c omplai nt al so all eg ed, i n the alt er nati v e, t hat R odr ig uez w as the v ic ti m of race and ag e di sc ri minat ion and that she had bee n retaliat ed a gainst beca use sh e d id not sup port th e po litical camp aigns of mem bers of Donna ISD’s board o f

trustee s. After w ait ing the re q uired ti me per iod , s e e T EX
. L AB
. C OD E A NN
. § 21. 208 ( Ver non 2006) , R odr ig uezfil ed th e under ly ing law sui t ag ain st Don na ISD on D ecember 1, 2005. H er origi nal pe tition rep eat ed th e allegation s of discriminat ion m ade in the griev ance and TCHR charge and requested dam ages and atto rney’s fees. Donn a ISD f iled a plea to the jurisdiction on July 6, 200 7, arguing that Rod rig uez “did not e x hausther

admi nis tr ati v e r emedie s w it hin the re q uis it e ti me per iod as re q uired by the TCH RA [Tex as Commi ss ion on Human Ri g hts Ac t]. ” Spec ific all y , D onna I SD arg ued t hat, becau se Rod ri g uez’s T CH R compl ain t w as filed mor e tha n 180 day s a fter h er i nit ial g ri ev ance, the compl ain t w as unti mely and the tr ial courttherefor e lack ed jur is dic ti on to hear Rod ri g uez ’s su it

. See i d. § 21 .20 2(a) (Vernon 200 6). On S eptember

18, 2008, Rod ri g uez filed a re spons e to Don na ISD ’s pl ea, a rg uin g3

in par t that “P lai nti ff

ti mely fil ed her co mplai nt w it hin 180 day s o f sev er al spec ifici nst ances and fil ed s uitw it hin tw o y ears o f the l asti nst ance as re q uired by l aw .” Ro d rigu e zdi d not spec ify i n the re spons e w hic h “ spec ifici nst ances ” of dis cr imi nati on oc cur re d w it hin the 180 day s p ri or

to her fil ing the compl ain t w it h the TCH R. H ow ev er , sh e d id a ttac h to the
re spons e a t ra nsc ri pt of her depos it ion tes ti mony

tak en on Apr il 11, 2007. At the d eposi ti on, Rod ri g uezac know led g ed th at t he Apr il 5, 2004 pay ra is e inc re ased her sal ar y to the l ev el of the ot her

m ale super int endents , but she stated that she cons ide re d thi s p ay rais e to be ins uff ic ien t, as ev ide nced by the follo w ing ex chang e: Q

. [ D o n n a I S D ’ s c o u n s e l ] [Y ]ou’ re say ing that the [Do n n a ISD] boar d [of truste es] never gave y ou what y ou wanted . Isn’t that w h a ty o u w a n t e d , fo r t h e m t o i n c r e a s e y our sal aryequal to Agapito [Nav arro, the othe r male ass is tant super int endent] ? A. [ Rod ri g uez ] No. Q. W hat d id y ou w ant? A. No. I w anted for th e bo a rd to tak e i nto cons ide ra ti on th at my

y ears o f ex per ience as ass is tant super int endent w er e a l ot g rea te r than Ag api to N av ar ro ’s and w hy sho u ld I be broug ht up to meet him at hi s s ala ry w h e n I w as w ay bey ond [ his ] y ears o f ex per ien ce[ ?] Q. So y ou w an te d mo r e mo ne y t ha n hi m? A. I w anted more— I—I thi nk I des er v ed more money th an h i m. Q. Oka y
. So w hen they gav e y ou a sal ar

y i ncrease, y ou’ re sa y ing y our

req u e st—yo u r—

y our co mplai nt w as de nied beca use t h e y didn’t giv e y ou m ore money ev en thoug h they g av e y ou—t hey met t he s a la ry? A. My co mplai n t was den ied bec ause I w as ask ing for $10, 000. They

di d notg iv e me $10 ,000. Q. Oka y
. And here itshow s prob abl y they g av e y ou about $6,000? A

. P ro b a b ly. Q. So you w ant ed four m ore tho usan d do llars?R od ri gu ez di d n ot fi l e a n a pp el l ate bri ef. 2 4 A. At tha t time , y es. The tr ial cour

t deni ed Don na ISD ’s ple a to the jur is dic ti on on Nov e m b e r 24 , 2 0 08. This int er loc utor

y appeal follo w ed. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 51.014( a) (8 ) 2 (V er non 200 8) ( per mitt ing appeal from i nter loc utor y order g ra nti ng or deny ing a pl ea to the jur is dic ti on by

a g ov er nmental uni t) , § 101.001 (3 )( B ) (V er non 200 5) ( defini ng “ g ov er nmental unit” to inclu de a schoo l district). II. D I S CUS S I ON A
. St and ard o f Rev iew W e revi ew a trial court’s ruling on a plea to the juri sdiction und er a de no v o stan dard of rev iew

. See T

ex. Dep 't of Par

ks & Wildli fe v . M ir anda , 133 S.W .3d 217 , 226 (Tex. 2004 ). T he plaint if

f b ears the b urde n of

a lleging facts af

f irmatively

dem onst rating the trial court’s jur is dic ti on to hear a c ase. Id. W e const rue the p lead ings liberally in favor of th e plea der, loo k t o the pl eader ’s i ntent , and ac ceptas tr ue the f act ual al leg ati ons in the p lea din g s. Id. at 22 8; see City of S an An to n io v. But ler , 131 S.W .3d 170 , 174 (Tex. App. –Sa n Ant onio 2004, pet. deni ed)

. If a pl ea to the jur is dic ti on c hal len g es the e x is tenc e of ju ri sdi cti onal fa c t s , we co n s id e r r e le va n te vid e n c e su b m it t e d b y t h e p a rt ie s wh e n n e c e s s a ry t o re s o lve the j ur is dic ti onal i ss ues ra is ed, as the tri al cour t is r eq uired to do. Mi

ra nda , 133 S.W .3d a t 227; Bl and Indep. Sch. D is t. v. Bl ue , 34 S. W .3d 547 , 554 (Tex. 2000 ). B. A pp licab le L aw The TCH RAp r o h i b i t s a n e mp l o y e r fro m d i s c h a rg i n g o r i n a n y o t h e r w ay d is c ri m in a t in g a ga in s ta n e m p lo ye e b e c a u s e o f t h e e m p lo ye e ’s ra c e , co lo r, d is a b il it y,
re li g ion , s ex , nat ion al or ig in, or ag e. T EX
. L AB
. C OD E A NN
. § 21 .0 51 (Verno n 20 06). Adher ing to le gisl ati v e i ntent , Tex as cour ts hav e l ooked to federal l aw i n i nter pr eti ng the TCH RA ’s prov is ion s. See NME Hosps. , Inc. v. Ren nels , 994 S.W .2d 142 , 144 (Tex. 1999 ). Before sui ng an e mploy er i n s tate co u rt , an emplo y ee mus t ex hausthi s o r her adm in is tr ati v e r emedie s b y first fili ng a c omplai nt w it h the TCH R w it hin 180 day s o f the5

all eg ed di sc ri minat or

y ac t. Schroe der v. Tex. Ir on W orks, Inc. , 8 1 3 S

. W

. 2 d 4 8 3 , 4 8 5 (T e x. 1991) ; see T EX
. L AB
. C OD E A NN
. § 21. 2 0 2 (a). I n order to compl y

w it h the ex haust ion
re q uirement, an empl oy ee mus t: (1) f il e a compl ain t w it h the TCH R w it hin 180 day s o f the all eg ed di sc ri minat or

y ac t; (2 ) all ow

the T CHR t o d is mis s t he c omplai nt or r esol v e the compl ain t w it hin 180 day s before f il ing suit ; and ( 3) fil e s uitno l ater than tw o y ears a fter t he compl ain t i s fil ed. See T EX
. L AB
. C OD E A NN . §§ 21 .20 1-.20 2, 21 .20 8, 21 .25 6 (Verno n 20 06). The par ti es ag re e tha t t he TCH RA ’s l imi tati ons per iod i s mand ator y and jur is dic ti onal

. See Spe cialty Re ta ilers, Inc. v. DeMoranville , 933 S.W .2d 490 , 492 (Tex. 1996 ) ( per curiam ); Schroe der v. Tex. Iron W orks, Inc. , 813 S.W .2d 483, 486 (T e x. 19 91) ; but s ee D ubai P e t r o le u mC o
. v

. K a zi , 1 2 S. W .3 d 71 , 7 6 -7 7 ( T e x. 20 0 0 ) (o verru lin g Mi ngus v. W

adley , 115 Tex . 551 , 285 S.W . 108 4 ( Tex . 192 6) “ to t he extent itch ar act er iz ed the pl ain ti ff ’s fail ur e to est abl is h a s tatut or

y pr er eq uis it e as j ur is dic ti onal ”) ; W al-Mart S tores, Inc. v. Canch ola , 64 S.W .3d 5 24, 5 34 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2001) , re v’ d on other

gr ounds , 121 S.W .3d 7 35 (Te x . 200 3) (q uest ioning w het her T CHRA’s requireme nts are jurisdiction al af ter Duba i but not res olv ing the is sue) ; Kingv. Tex. Dep’ t of Hum an Se rvs. , 2 8 S

. W

. 3 d 2 7 , 3 1 & n
. 1 (T e x. App .–A ustin 2 000 , no pe t.) (same ). W hen a charg e i s t imel y f il ed as to one ac t of di sc ri minat ion , t he “ cont inu ing v iol ati on” doct ri ne ex pands the sc ope of those dis cr imi nator

y ev ents that are acti onabl e, as long as one of the ev ents occurs w it hin the 180- day per iod

. W

al-Mart Stores v. Davis , 979 S.W .2d 3 0 , 41 (T e x. Ap p .–Au st in 1 9 9 8 , pe t. d e n ie d ) (ci ti n g Gl ass v. Pet ro -T ex Che m ic al Cor

p. , 757 F. 2d 1554 , 156 0- 61 ( 5th C ir . 198 5) ). Thi s d oct ri ne appl ies w hen an unl awful empl oy ment pr act ic e mani fests it sel f o ver time, r ather than as a s er ies of dis crete a cts

. Id. at 41- 42 (ci ti n g W ebb v. Car

dio thor acic S ur ger y A ss ocs . of

N . T ex. , P. A. , 139 F.3d 53 2, 53 7 (5th Cir. 1998) ). U nder

thi s do ct rine, a pl ain ti ff mustsh ow

“ an org ani z ed s cheme lea din g to and inc lud ing a presentv iol ati on, s o tha t i t is the cumul ati v e ef fect of the di sc ri minat or

y pract ic e, rathe r than a ny discrete occurrence , tha t gi v es rise to the cause of acti o n .” Davis v. Autona ti on U SA C or

p. , 226 S .W .3d 4 87, 493 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Dist.] 20 06, no pe t.).6

The focus is on w hat e v ent s houl d, i n fair ness and l og ic , hav e al erted t he av er ag e l ay person to ac t t o protec t hi s o r her r ig hts

. W al- Ma rt Sto re s , 9 7 9 S. W .2 d at42 (cit in g W ebb , 139 F. 3d at537; Glass , 757 F.2d at 156 1). C. A nal ysis Rod ri g uezfil ed her TCH R compl ain t on Ma y 27, 2004, some 254 day s a fter first fili ng her g ri ev ance with D o n n a IS D. The c onti nui ng v iol ati on doc tr ine does not appl y to the cl aims made i n the g ri ev ance becau se Rod ri g uezw as ind is putabl y “ ale rt ed . . . t o ac t t o protec t .

. . her

r ig hts ” at t he ti me she fil ed th e g ri ev ance. See i d. Be cause Rodriguezdid not fil e a compl ain t w it h the T CH R w it hin 180 day s of the g ri ev ance, sh e the re fore fail ed to inv oke the t ri al cour

t’ s jur is dic ti on w it h resp ectto the all eg ati ons cont ain ed in t he g ri ev ance; namely , t hat s he w as cont inu all y pai d l ess than mal es in eq uiv ale nt po si ti ons because of her sex , age , and race. W e concl ude that the tri al cour t erred in den y ing D onna I SD ’s pl ea to t he j ur is dic ti on as i t rela tes to the cl aims made i n R odr ig uez ’s Sept ember 16, 2003 g ri ev ance. How ev er , w e find that Rod ri g uez ’s T CH R compl ain t w as in fact timel y w it h r eg ar d to the c lai ms rela ti ng to Rod ri g uez ’s Apr il 5, 2004 pay ra is e. The pay rais e, w hic h R odr ig uez all eg es w a s i n s u ffi c i e n t , o c c u r r e d o n l y fi ft y - tw o d a y s p r i o r t o t h e d a y R o d r i g u e z fi l ed her compl ai ntw i th t he TC H R

. A l th ou g h R od r i g ue z ’ s TC H Rc om pl ai ntd oe s n ots pe c i fi c all y
re ferenc e the pay

r ais e as an all eg edl y dis cr imi nator y ac t, a s ubseq uent sui t fil ed pursuant to t he TCH RA may be based on cl aims made in the dis cr imi nati on compl ain t as w ell as any “factu ally related claims tha t c ould reason ably be expected to grow out of the [T CHR]’s investiga t io n o f

t he ch arge.” Johns on v . Hoechs t C ela nese Cor p. , 127 S.W .3d 8 75, 8 78 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2004, no p et.) ; Thomas v. Cl ayto n W illiam s Energy, Inc. , 2 S. W .3 d 7 3 4 , 7 3 8 ( T e x. Ap p .– Ho u st o n [ 1 4 th D ist .] 1 9 9 9 , n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g F in e v
. G A F Ch e m. Cor p. , 995 F .2d 5 76, 5 78 ( 5th C ir . 199 3) ). W hether or not Rod ri g uezw as g iv en an ins uff ic ien t pay

r ais e i s a n iss ue th at c oul d “ re asona bly be e x pect ed to g ro w

out of” th e TCH R’ s i nv est ig ati on of Rod ri g uez ’s ini ti al compl ain t that she w as re cei v ing l ess pay than7

a mal e empl oy ed i n a c ompar abl e pos it ion

. See Johns on , 127 S.W .3d a t 878

. Therefore, Ro d r i g u e z ’s T CH R c o m p la in twa s t im e ly— a n d sh e f u ll y e xh a u s t e d h e r a d m in is t ra t ive
re medies —w it h re spec t to the all eg edl y dis cr imi nator y pay rais e. Acc ordin g ly , w e c oncl ude that the t ri al cour

t di d noter r in deny ing Donna ISD ’s plea to the jur is dic ti on as it rela tes to the A pr il 5, 2004 pa y

r ais e. III
. C ONCL US I ON W e rev erse the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment den y ing D onna ISD ’s plea t o the j ur is dic ti on as it re lat es to t he al leg ati ons made by R odr ig uezi n her

Sept ember

16, 2003 g ri ev ance, and
w e rend er judgme nt dism issing the s u it w ith regard to tho se allegation s. Th e trial court’s jud g ment i s a ff ir med w it h r espec t t o R odr ig uez ’s al leg ati ons conc er nin g her Apr il 5, 2004 pay r ais e.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Di ss enti ng M emora ndum Opi nio n by Ju sti ce Ros e Vel a. Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 17t h day

of September , 200 9.