Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. DeMoranville
| Decision Date | 10 May 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-1135,95-1135 |
| Citation | 933 S.W.2d 490,39 Tex. Sup.Ct. J. 638 |
| Parties | 74 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1795, 39 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 638 SPECIALTY RETAILERS, INC., Three Beall Brothers 3, Inc., and Palais Royal, Inc., Petitioners, v. Lorraine DeMORANVILLE, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Glenn W. Patterson, Houston, for Petitioners.
Robert E. Newey, Houston, for Respondent.
The question before us is whether the plaintiff Lorraine DeMoranville timely filed an employment discrimination claim with the Texas Commission on Human Rights. Because DeMoranville filed her complaint more than 180 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, we hold that her claim is time-barred. We reverse in part the judgment of the court of appeals, 909 S.W.2d 90, and render judgment in favor of the petitioners.
In reviewing this summary judgment proceeding, we accept evidence favoring the nonmovant, DeMoranville, as true. Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex.1985). She was employed by Palais Royal, Inc. for a number of years as a buyer and later as a vice-president. Specialty Retailers, Inc. (SRI) purchased Palais Royal and Three Beall Brothers 3, Inc. (Beall), merged the two companies, and reorganized their employment structure. DeMoranville accepted a demotion to a position as a buyer and was placed under the supervision of Susan Bee. DeMoranville alleged that Bee discriminated against her by favoring younger workers while continually criticizing DeMoranville and requiring her to work after hours, thereby creating a hostile work environment and causing DeMoranville stress and strain.
DeMoranville's psychologist sent a letter to John Chipperfield, Senior Vice President of Human Resources for SRI, recommending that DeMoranville stop work temporarily due to stress. Immediately thereafter, on April 8, 1991, DeMoranville took medical leave from her job. When her condition did not improve, she applied for short-term disability.
On May 10, 1991, Chipperfield informed DeMoranville that she was being replaced as a buyer. He also told her that, according to company policy, she would be fired if her leave lasted longer than one year. DeMoranville did not return to work and she was terminated on either April 8, 1992 (according to DeMoranville) or May 1, 1992 (according to petitioners).
On June 2, 1992, DeMoranville filed an age discrimination complaint with the Texas Commission on Human Rights, alleging that Bee and the petitioners discriminated against her on April 1, 1992. She then filed suit seeking redress for intentional infliction of emotional distress, age discrimination, and various other causes of action. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all counts. DeMoranville appealed the trial court's judgment only with regard to her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and age discrimination.
The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's summary judgment on DeMoranville's emotional distress claim and its summary judgment in favor of Susan Bee on the age discrimination claim. However, it reversed the judgment on the age discrimination claim with respect to SRI, Beall, and Palais Royal. The court of appeals held that there was a fact issue concerning the timeliness of DeMoranville's complaint because the termination of DeMoranville's employment in May 1992 could be considered an act of discrimination, and therefore her complaint to the TCHR filed on June 2, 1992, would be timely. 909 S.W.2d at 93-94. SRI, Beall and Palais Royal seek review of that decision.
Texas law requires that a complaint of unlawful employment practices be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Texas Commission on Human Rights within 180 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. Acts 1983, 68th Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 7, § 6.01(a), 1983 Tex.Gen.Laws 37, 50, repealed by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 269, § 5(1), 1993 Tex.Gen.Laws 987, 1273 (). This time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional. Schroeder v. Texas Iron Works, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 483, 485-86 (Tex.1991). Because one purpose of the Commission on Human Rights Act is to bring Texas law in line with federal laws addressing discrimination, federal case law may be cited as authority. Acts 1983, 68th Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 7, § 1.02(1), 1983 Tex.Gen.Laws 37 (repealed by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 269, § 5(1), 1993 Tex.Gen.Laws 987, 1273 (); Stinnett v. Williamson County Sheriff's Dep't, 858 S.W.2d 573, 576 (Tex.App.--Austin 1993, writ denied).
The court of appeals failed to distinguish between an act of continuing discrimination and an effect of past discrimination. The United States Supreme Court has held that in discrimination cases, " '[t]he proper focus is upon the time of the discriminatory acts, not upon the time at which the consequences of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Kroger Co.
...TCHRA is interpreted in a manner consistent with federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. See Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. DeMoranville, 933 S.W.2d 490, 492 (Tex.1996); see also Elstner, 659 F.Supp. at 1345. "In analyzing Plaintiff's claims under the Texas Commission on Human Rig......
-
Vollemans v. Town of Wallingford
...Services, Inc., 471 N.W.2d 105, 107-108 (Minn.1991); Weber v. Moses, 938 S.W.2d 387, 393 (Tenn.1996); Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. DeMoranville, 933 S.W.2d 490, 492-93 (Tex.1996); Clarke v. Living Scriptures, Inc., 114 P.3d 602, 604-605 (Utah App.2005); Hinman v. Yakima School District No. ......
-
Igal v. Brightstar Information Technology
...scheme than presented here. See Johnson & Johnson Med., Inc. v. Sanchez, 924 S.W.2d 925, 929 (Tex. 1996); Specialty Retailers v. DeMoranville, 933 S.W.2d 490, 492 (Tex. 1996); Schroeder v. Tex. Iron Works, 813 S.W.2d 483, 486 6. The Legislature amended Section 311.034 in 2005, after the fil......
-
Lohn v. Morgan Stanley Dw, Inc.
...interpreted in a manner consistent with federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination. Id. (citing Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. DeMoranville, 933 S.W.2d 490, 492 (Tex.1996)). The analysis of a plaintiff's claims under the TCHRA is identical to that applied to claims brought under Tit......
-
Disability Discrimination
...533, 536 n.5 (5th Cir. 1995); NME Hosps., Inc. v. Rennels , 994 S.W.2d 142, 144 (Tex. 1999); Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. DeMoranville , 933 S.W.2d 490, 492 (Tex. 1996); Caballero v. Central Power & Light Co. , 858 S.W.2d 359, 361 (Tex. 1993); Gomez v. Vertex Aero., LLC , 2008 Tex. App. LEX......
-
Employment Relationship Defined
...the TCHRA. See M.D. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Inst. v. Willrich , 28 S.W.3d 22, 24 (Tex. 2000); Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. DeMoranville , 933 S.W.2d 490, 492 (Tex. 1996); Department of Human Servs. v. Hinds , 904 S.W.2d 629, 636-37 (Tex. 1995); but see Cox & Smith Inc. v. Cook , 974 S.W.2d 2......
-
Age Discrimination
...v. Specialty Retailers , Inc ., 909 S.W.2d 90 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, writ granted), rev’d in part on other grounds , 933 S.W.2d 490 (Tex. 1996); City of Austin v. Gifford , 824 S.W.2d 735, 742 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no writ). 2. Exempt Employees The TCHRA, like the ADEA, doe......
-
Discrimination Based on National Origin, Religion, and Other Grounds
...discrimination should be construed in a manner consistent with federal precedent and regulations under Title VII. See DeMoranville , 933 S.W.2d at 490, 492. Under Title VII, the EEOC has established a somewhat broader definition of national origin discrimination to include “denial of equal ......