Opinion ID: 895233
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Election of Remedies Provision

Text: The Workers Compensation Act discussed briefly above expressly provides that its remedies for injured workers are exclusive. [65] The exclusivity of the statutory remedy is not as clear-cut in today's case because the TCHRA lacks an express exclusivity provision. However, the exclusivity of the statutory scheme can fairly be implied. [66] The TCHRA does have a provision styled Election of Remedies, which states: A person who has initiated an action in a court of competent jurisdiction or who has an action pending before an administrative agency under other law or an order or ordinance of a political subdivision of this state based on an act that would be an unlawful employment practice under this chapter may not file a complaint under this subchapter [governing administrative proceedings] for the same grievance. [67] This provision does not mandate that all common-law causes of action, no matter how inconsistent with the statutory remedy, are preserved. First, the title of the section carries no weight, as a heading does not limit or expand the meaning of a statute. [68] Second, the provision does not state that all alternative common-law remedies are preserved; it purports to limit relief under the statute rather than preserving or extending relief available under the common law. [69] Third, as we recognized in Lopez, the provision must be read against the backdrop of extensive and overlapping state and federal anti-discrimination statutes. Its obvious purpose, read in this context, is to provide that if a plaintiff files a federal cause of action under Title VII or another federal anti-discrimination statute, or brings a local grievance as expressly allowed under the TCHRA, [70] she cannot bring a duplicative claim under the TCHRA. As Lopez explained: In the realm of employment discrimination litigationwhere federal, state, and local governments individually declare their opposition to unlawful discriminationSection 21.211 merely means a plaintiff cannot file an administrative complaint with the CHRA after having already (1) filed a lawsuit under a federal or local anti-discrimination measure covering the same conduct or (2) begun administrative proceedings with the EEOC or local enforcement entities based on the same conduct. This provision does not manifest a legislative intent that retaliation suits premised on discriminatory conduct by a public employerand thus undeniably covered by the CHRAcan be maintained under the Whistleblower Act instead. Such an interpretation would undermine the CHRA's express purposes. The election of remedies language simply means that a claimant can pursue a remedy for discrimination under federal law or under grievance-redress systems in existence at the local level, but pursuing either of these options precludes later initiating a CHRA complaint. [71] Hence, Section 21.211 does not authorize all common-law causes of action covering the same conduct addressed by the TCHRA, including those that would undermine the Act or render it a dead letter.