### NUM BER 13-09- 0066 0-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
CITY OF C ORP US CH RIST I, A pp ellan t,
v . LOR A L . PORTE LLA , A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom 94t h Dist rict C ou rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d G arza M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel lan t C ity

of Cor pus Chr is ti ( the Ci ty ) appeal s f ro m the tr ial court 's deni al of its plea to the ju risdiction in a gende r discri min ation and retaliation case f iled by appellee Lora L. P ortel la. See T EX
. L AB
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 21.051, 21.055 (V er non 2006)

. By one is sue, thePur suant t o t he wor k shar i ng a gr eem ent bet ween t he EE O C and t he T W C , t he ch ar ge was 1 i n v e s t i g a t e d b y t h e E E OC. 2 City conte nds th at th e trial court erred in den y ing i ts plea beca use Po rtella failed to ex hau st he r a dm i ni s trat i v e rem ed i es ; th us , i ts g ov er nm en ta l i mmu ni ty w as n otw ai v ed . W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND Acc ordin g to her

peti ti on, i n J une and Ju ly 200 8 , Po rt ell a c omplai ned t o the C ity abo ut be ing subjecte d to harassm ent and gende r discrimina tion by her ma le supe rv isor. In Octo ber 2008, a citiz en filed a com plaint w ith the City alleging tha t she ha d see n Porte lla pu bl i c l y k i s s i ng a nd b eh av i ng i na pp rop r i at el y w i th a n on - C i ty

e mp l oy ee d ur i ng w or k
- ti me and by a C ity v ehi cl e. The Ci ty

i nv estiga te d t h e c itiz en's co mplai nt an d on Oct ober 6, 2008, dis charg ed Por

tel la. After her di sc harg e, P ortel la filed a c harg e of di sc ri minat ion and re tal iat ion w it h the Equal Em ploymen t Opp ortun ity Co m m is s ion (EEOC) and the T exas W orkforce Commi ss ion ( TW C)

. The E EOC se nt a letter to Por tel la dated Ma rc h 3, 2009, re q uest ing 1 sp e cif ic info rm a ti o n re gard in g h e r a lle gat io n s. T h e EE OC 's le tt e r pro vide d th e fo llo wing: Pu rs uan t to the Comm ission's proce dura l reg ulatio ns un der 29 CFR 160 1.1 8(b) an d t h e EEO C Complian ce Manu al, Sect ion 4. 4, w hich require y o u r coo pera tion in th e con ductof its inv estigation , the Comm ission w ill dis mis s your

ch arg e of emplo y ment di sc ri mination for fai lure to coope ra te and i ss ue yo u a N o tice of Ri g ht t o Sue letter i f y ou fail to prov ide the re q uest ed i nformati on by Apr il 2, 2009. Acc ord i n g t o t h e E E O C ' s M a rc h 3 l e t t e r , t h e C i ty ' s re s p o n s e t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s r ais ed by Porte lla state d th at he r discharge w as ba sed o n the City 's inv estigation of a citiz en's Oct ober 2008 compl ain t. On Ma rc h 24, 2 009, the E EOC se nt a sec ond l etter to Por tel la. In t hat l etter , the EEOC summar iz ed the Ci ty 's respon se and as ked Por tel la to s ubmitany3

new doc umenta ti o n i n s uppor t of her pos it ion , i ncl udi ng names and other i nformati on
re g ardin g any

rebutt al w it ness es, "no l ater than Apr il 3, 2009." In a letter

date d Apr il 8, 2009, and rec eiv ed bythe EEOC on Apr il 17, 2009— after the dea dlines se t by the EEOC—Po rtella p ro vid e d informa tion request ed in th e EEO C's March 3, 2009 letter. Porte lla f iled no add itiona l docum ent ation or informa tion in resp onse to th e EEO C's M arch 24 , 200 9 lette r. On A pr il 15, 2009, the EEOC adv is ed Port ell a that the C ommis si on had deter mined to di smi ss her

ch arg e of emplo y ment di sc ri minat ion . In rel ev ant part , the EEO C' s A pr il 15 le tt e r st a te d th e fo llo wing: Our rev iew of y our ch arg e i ndi cat e s th a t i t i s v er y unl ik ely thatfurth er investig ation w ill esta blish a vi olatio n of the law s we e nforce. Th e available evidence is insu f

f icient to esta blish tha t y our sex or retaliat ion w ere facto rs in y our employ ment ex per ien ces
. The av ail abl e ev ide nce w as summar iz ed in a M arch 24, 2009 C ommis si on l etter to y ou. Y ou fail ed to prov ide a re spons e to that letter

. Y ou al so faile d to prov ide the infor mati on req uest ed in the Comm ission's March 3, 20 09 le t t e r t o y ou. W hile no t inhe rently cont ro ll ing i n our

dec is ion , we a lso note the lac k o f directev ide nce of discrimina tion a nd th e lack of w itnesse s wh o c o uld provide spe cif ic infor mati on to su ppor

t your cl aims of dis cr imi nati on. Enclo sed w ith the lette r w as the EEOC's "Dismissa l and Notice of Rig hts" form d ate d April 15, 2 009. The EEOC ex pla ine d that it dis mis sed Por tel la' s cl aim and c los ed i ts file on th e charg e bec ause itw as unabl e to re sol v e her compl ain t. The EEOC is sued the fol low ing deter minat ion : Base d upon it s i nv est ig ati on, t he EE OC i s u nable t o c o n cl ude t hat t he infor mati on obtai ned est abl is hes v iol ati ons of t he sta tutes

. This doe s not certif y thatthe resp ond ent[the City] is in com pliance with th e statu tes. No findi ng i s made as to any o th e r issue s t hat mi g ht be co nst ru ed as hav ing been rais ed by

thi s c harg e. In ad dition , the EEOC informe d Porte lla of her r ight to file a law suit against th e City w ithin nin ety days o f her re cei pt of the noti ce.G ove rnm en t al i m m un i t y pro t ec t s po l i t i c al s ub di vi s i on s of t he S t ate, w hi l e s ove rei gn i m m un i t y refers 2 to th e S ta te 's i m m u n i tyfro m s u i t a n d l i a b i l i ty

. T ex
. Tec h U ni v . H ea l th S c is
. C tr. v. W ard , 280 S. W

. 3d 3 45, 348 ( T ex. A pp. –Am ar i l l o 2008, pet

. den i ed) ( ci t i ng W i chit a Falls St at e Hosp. v. Tayl or , 1 0 6 S .W .3 d 6 9 2 , 6 9 3 n .3 (T ex
. 20 03 ))

.

E v id e n c e s u b m itte d b y th e p a r t ie s i n c lu d e d c o p ie s o fth e fo ll o w in g : (1 ) p a g e 3 o fth e C ity 's 3 i nv est i gat i on r epor t ; ( 2) t he EE O C ' s Febr uar y 9, 2009 not i ce t o t he T W C t hat t he EE O C ha d rec ei v ed Por t el l a' s char ge a nd woul d be i nv est i gat i ng i t ; ( 3) an E E O C c ha rge det ai l i nqui r y f or m wi t h no t es da t ed D ecem ber17, 200 8; ( 4) t he EE O C ' s Apr i l 15, 2009 l et t ert o Por t el l a ad v i si ng h er , am ong ot hert hi ngs, t hat t he E E O C ha d d eterm i ne d t o d i s m i s s he r ch arg e o f em pl oy m en t disc ri m i na t i on ; (5) P ort el l a' s i nterrog atory r esponse pr ov i di ng t he n am e of t he f r i end she st opped t o see on O ct ober3, 200 8; ( 6) t he EEO C ' s M ar ch 3, 2009 l et t ert o Por t el l a r equest i ng i nf or m at i on r egar di ng h eral l egat i ons; ( 7) t he EEO C ' s M ar ch 24 , 200 9 l et t er to P o r te lla s u m m a r iz in g th e C ity's r e s p o n s e a n d r e q u e s tin g a d d itio n a l in f o r m a tio n , ifa n y; ( 8 ) P o r te lla 's A p r il 8, 2 0 0 9 r e s p o n s e t o t h e EE O C' s M a r c h 3 l e t t e r ; a n d ( 9 ) t h e EE O C' s Ap r i l 1 5 , 2 0 0 9 d i s m i s s a l a n d n o t i c e of rig h ts d o c u m e n t i n fo rm i n g P o rte l l a th a t th e E E O C w a s c l o s i n g it s f i l e a n d p ro v i d i n g h e r n o ti c e o f h e r rig h t t o s u e
. 4 On A pr il 28, 2009, Por tel la filed su itag ain st the Cit y co ntendi ng sh e w as dis cr imi nated ag ain st in v iol ati on of sect io n 2 1 .0 5 1 of the l abor co de. See id. § 21. 051 (p ro hib it ing di sc ri minat ion based on ra ce, col or , dis abi li ty , re li g ion , nat ion al or ig in, ag e, or
sex ). Po rt ell a al so cl aimed the Ci ty retal iat ed ag ain st her

for fil ing a c omplai nt ag ain st her super v is or by assi g nin g her cer

tai n job dutie s and di sc harg ing her from her empl oy ment. See id . § 21.055 (p ro hib it ing emplo yers f rom re tal iat ing ag ain st thei r employ ees for
e n gagi n g in p ro te ct e d ac ti vitie s su ch as op p o sin g a d isc rim in a to ry p r a ct ice , m a kin g a charge, or f iling a com plaint ). T he Ci ty answered Portella's suit generally den y ing her claim
a n d ra is in g, in t e r a li a , t h e a f f ir m a t ive d e fe n s e o f

go ve rn m e n t a l i m m u n it y. 2 The Ci ty then fil ed i ts ple a to the j ur is dicti on bas ed on immuni ty from s uitand
ex haust ion of admini strati v e remedie s. In re spons e, P o rt e lla noted thatthe EEOC had det ermin ed n ot that she failed to exhaust her adm inistrative rem edie s, butonly tha t it did not k now w hat happened and adv is ed her of he r ri g ht to file sui t ag ain st the C ity . After the Cityre pl i ed , th e tr i al c ou rt de ni ed t he C i ty ' s p l ea t o th e j ur i s di c ti on
. Th i s i nt er l oc ut ory 3 appeal foll ow ed. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 51. 014( a) (8 ) (V er non 200 8)S p e c i fi c a l l y , t h e C i ty a s s e rts th a t P o rte lla f a ile d to c o o p e ra te w i th th e E E O C b y re fu s i n g to 4 pr ov i de t he n am e of a n eyew i t nes s t o t he O c t ober 200 8 i nc i dent and t o ot her w i s e c ooper at e i n t he E E O C ' s i nv es t i gat i on. 5 (a ll o win g fo r

in t e rl o c u t o ry a p p e a ls f ro m a ru li n g o n a p le a t o t h e ju ri s d ic t io n b y a gov ernm ent al unit). II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW W e revi ew a trial court's ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction un der a de novo stand ard of rev iew

. Se e T

e x. Dep't

of Par ks & Wildli fe v . M ir anda , 1 3 3 S

. W

. 3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 6 (T e x. 2004)

. The pla int iff bea rs the burden of al leg ing facts aff ir mati v ely demonst ra ti ng the tr ial
cour t' s jur is dicti on to hear a cas e. Id

. W e cons tr ue the p lea din g s l ibe ra ll y i n fav or of the ple ader , l ook to t he pl eader's i ntent , and ac ceptas tr ue th e factual al leg ati ons in the ple adi ng s. Id . a t 2 2 8 ; see City of S an Antoni o v . Bu tler , 1 3 1 S

. W

. 3 d 1 7 0 , 1 7 4 (T e x. App.–S an Ant oni o 2004, pet. deni ed)

. If the g ov er nmental enti ty 's pl ea to the jur is dicti on chal len g es the e x is tenc e of ju ri sdi cti onal facts , w e consi der rele v ant e v ide nce submi tted by the parties w hen nece ssary to resolve the jurisdiction al issues raised , as the trial court is req uired to do. M

ir anda , 133 S.W .3d a t 227 ; Bl and Indep. Sch. D is t. v. Blue , 34 S.W .3d 547 , 554 (Tex. 2000 ). III . D I S CUS S I ON By i ts sol e iss ue, the Ci ty

contends that the tri al cour t erred in den y ing i ts ple a to the jur is dicti on bec ause Por tel la faile d to full y

ex hausther

admi nis trati v e remedie s w hen s he ref used to coop erate w ith the EEOC's inv estigation

. T h e City asserts tha t beca use 46

Por tel la did not compl y

w it h the prereq uis it es to f il ing a sui t under chap ter 21 of the l abor
c o d e , t h e Ci ty h a s n o twa ive d go ve rn m e n t a l i m m u n it y. "T he [ T e xas Com mission on Hum an Rights Act (CHRA)] . . . estab lishes a 'c ompre h e n si v e admi nis trati v e rev iew syste m,' under

w hic h the ' ex haust ion of admini strati v e remedie s i s a mandato ry prereq uis it e to fili ng a c iv il acti on al leg ing v iol ati ons of the C HRA.' " Hof

fm ann- La R oche, Inc. v. Zeltwanger , 144 S.W .3d 4 38, 4 46 ( Tex . 200 4) (qu o ti n g Schr

oeder v. Tex. Iron W

or ks, Inc ., 81 3 S. W .2 d 48 3, 4 85 , 48 8 ( Tex

. 19 91 ) )

. To compl y w it h the ex haust ion req uirement, an empl oy ee mus t ( 1) fil e a c o m p la in t w it h the EEOC w ithin 18 0 days of the alleged discri min ato ry act an d (2) allow the EE OC to dism iss the c omplai nt or

resol v e the co mplai nt w it hin 180 d a y s b efore fil ing su it

. Rice v. Rus sel l- Stanley, L.P ., 131 S.W .3d 510, 513 (Tex . Ap p. W aco 2004, pet. deni ed) ; seeT EX
. L AB
. C OD E A NN . §§ 21.201- .202, 21.2 08 ( Ver non 200 6) ; see als o Gal leg os v. Johns on , N o. 13- 07- 00603- CV , 201 0 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 1330, at * *37- 38 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti F eb. 25, 2 010, no pet . h. ) (mem. op.)

. A pla int iff's enti tl ement to a r ig ht- to- sue letter si g nal s t hat she has sat is fied the e x haust ion req uirement. See Rice , 131 S.W .3d a t 512 ( hol din g that

" iti s t h e e n t it le m e n tt o t h e ri gh t -t o -s u e le t t e r t h a te xh a u s t s t h e co m p la in a n t ' s a d m in is t ra t ive
re medies ," noti ts poss ess ion ); Cit y o f Ho u s to n v

. F le tcher , 6 3 S

. W

. 3 d 9 2 0 , 9 2 3 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2002, no pet.) (e x pla ini ng that "[t] he s tatut e c ertai nly su ppor ts an i nter pretati on tha t th e r ig ht- to- sue letter i s n oti ce of ex haust ion , notactual ly par t of
ex haust ion "); see als o Gal leg os , 201 0 T ex. Ap p. LEXIS 13 30, at *38 . Additio nally, the suit must be fil ed no lat er

than two y ears a fter t he or ig ina l compl ain t i s fil ed. See T EX
. L AB
.7

C OD E A NN . § 21. 256 (Vernon 200 6); Rice , 131 S.W .3d a t 513 ; see a lso Gallegos , 201 0 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 1 330, at * *37- 38. The rele v ant e v ide nce submi tted by the par ti es in thi s c ase, see Mi ra nda , 133 S.W .3d a t 227 ; Blue , 34 S.W .3d at 554, establ is hes that the EEOC recei v ed, i nv est ig ated,
a n d re s o l v e d P o rt e l l a ' s t i me l y - fi l e d c o mp l a i nt. S e e Rice , 131 S.W .3d at 513 . Portella all ow ed th e EEOC to re sol v e the compl ain t w it hin the re q uis it e ti me per iod before fili ng su it

. See i d. Al thoug h Por

tel la' s w ri tten respon se w as filed after the deadl ine s s et by the EEOC and w as not c onsi dered as par t of i ts inv estiga ti o n , th e EEO C nonethe les s made i ts deter minat ion co nsi der ing the ev ide nce that w as proper ly before it

. Base d on that
ev ide nce, the EEOC di smi ss ed Por tel la' s charg e of

employ ment di sc ri minat ion

. The r ig htto-sue notice indicate d tha t the EEOC h a d failed to resolv e Porte lla's comp laint. T his noti ce ev ide nced Por

tel la' s e nti tl ement t o the r ig ht- to- sue letter w hic h, i n effect , ex haust ed h e r admini strati v e remedie s. See Rice , 131 S.W .3d a t 512 ; F letcher , 6 3 S

. W

. 3 d 923. Fi nal ly , Po rt ell a fil ed her su itw it hin two y ears after the c omplai nt was filed

. See T EX
. L AB
. C OD E A NN . § 21.256; Rice , 131 S.W .3d a t 513

. By its argumen t, the City is asserting that coo pera tion is required in orde r to comp ly
w it h the ex haust ion of re medies req uirement. The C ity reli es on City of Waco v . Lop ez
. 259 S.W .3d 1 47, 1 49- 50 ( Tex . 200 8)

. In Lopez , the plaint if f f iled a w histleb low er claim in
w hic h he all eg ed th at he w as fire d i n re tal iat ion for re por ti ng ra ce and ag e di sc ri minat ion ag ain st him. Id

. Lopezdi d not , howev er , fil e a c omplai nt w it h the C HRA. Id . Instead, Lopez ele cte d to charact er iz e his cl aim as a w his tl ebl ow er cl aim and b ypa ss the admini strati v e proces s. Id. at 152 -55. T he su prem e cou rt conclud ed th at the claim fellT h e C ity a ls o p r o v id e s q u o te s f r o m f e d e r a l c a s e s in s u p p o r t o fits a r g u m e n t t h a t c o o p e r a tio n s h o u ld 5 b e a fa c to r to c o n s i d e r i n a re v i e w o f e x h a u s ti o n o fa d m i n i s tra ti v e re m e d i e s
. See Shikl es v. Spr int / U nit ed Mg mt

. Co ., 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 0 4 , 1 3 1 4 -1 5 (1 0 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) (h o l d i n g th a t a p riva te s e c to r e m p l o y e e w a s re q u i re d to c o o p e ra te w i th th e E E O C i n o rd e r to e x h a u s t h i s a d m i n i s tra ti v e re m e d i e s ); bu t se e D oe v. O be rw eis D airy , 4 5 6 F .3 d 7 0 4 , 7 0 9 -1 2 (7 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ), cert

. den ied , 5 4 9 U .S . 1 2 7 8 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ( c o n c lu d in g th a t a c h a r g in g p a r ty's f a ilu r e to c o o p e r a te w ith th e E E O C 's in v e s tig a tio n d id n o t b lo c k th a t in v e s tig a tio n o r a s u it a n d n o tin g th a t w h ile
" [ t ] he T ent h Ci r cui t [ i n Shikl es ] acknowl edged t he Supr em e C our t ' s adm oni t i on t hat no r equi r em ent s bey ond t hose i n t he st at ut e sho ul d be i m posed

. . . i t i m posed t hem any way " )

. H owev er , as di scussed abov e, T exas l aw i s cl ea r r eg ar di ng wh en a dm i ni st r at i v e r em ed i es a r e ex ha us t ed u nd ert he f ac t s of t hi s ca se
. Thu s, we n e e d n o t l o o k to fe d e ra l l a w to i n te rp re t t h e s e p ro v i s i o n s
. See T EX
. L AB
. C OD E A NN
. § 21. 001( 1) ( Ver non 2006) (s e tti n g o u t p u rp o s e s o f c h a p te r 2 1 ); Q uant um C hem

. C or p. v. Toennies , 47 S. W

. 3d 473, 47 6 (T ex
. 200 1) ( e x p la in in g th a t, b e c a u s e o n e o f th e p u r p o s e s o f c h a p te r 2 1 is to e x e c u te th e p o lic ie s o f T itle V II o f th e C iv il R i g h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 , fe d e ra l c a s e l a w m a y b e c i te d a s a u th o rit y ); N M EH o s p s ., In c . v . R e n n e ls , 994 S. W

. 2d 142, 144 ( T ex
. 1999) ( adher i ng t o l egi sl at i v e i nt ent , T exas co ur t s hav e l ooked t o f eder al l aw i n i nt er pr et i ng t he s e p rovi s i on s ). 8 "sq uarely

under the CH RA , w hic h prov ide [d] [Lopez 's ] ex cl usi v e s tate sta tutor y remedy ," and t hat L opezco uld "onl y recov er if he s ati sfie[ d] t he req uirements of the C HRA." Id . at 156. Bec ause Lopezhad "not pled a cause of act ion under the CH RA ," had "not inv oked the p ro cedures of t he CH RA to re medy the all eg ed acts of ret ali ati on and dis cr imi nati on," and "the ti me l i mi t s fo r fi l i n g a c h a rg e o r

c o mp l a i n tp u rs u a n tt o t h e p ro c e d u re s s p e c ified in th e CHRA [h a d ] lon g sin ce p a ss e d ," th e co u rt co n clu d e d th a t L o p e z ha d "fa ile d to al le ge
a c lai m for w hic h the C ity 's g ov er nmental i mmunity [had ] bee n w aiv ed." Id

. Lopez address ed th e i ss ue of w hether a c lai mant c oul d el ectbetween t h e H u m a n R ig hts and W his tl ebl ow er

Acts. See id . at 15 3-55 . It did notadd ress coop erat io n a s a f a ctor in d e t e rm in in g wh e t h e r a c la im a n tfa il s t o e xh a u s th e r a d m in is t ra t ive r e m e d ie s
. Ac c o rd in gl y, L op e z has no appl ic ati on i n thi s i nst ance. 5 Un d e r t h e fa c t s o f

t h is ca s e , we co n c lu d e t h a tP o rt e ll a e xh a u s t e d h e r a d m in is t ra t ive
re medies under the CH RA

. Therefore, t he tr ial co urt di d noter r in deny ing the Ci ty 's pl ea to th e jurisdiction b ased on im mu nity f rom su it and ex hau stion o f reme dies. W e overrule the C ity 's so le is sue.9 IV. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt' s o rd er deny ing the Ci ty 's pl ea to the jur is dicti on.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Del iv ered and filed the 25th day of Ma rc h, 20 10.