Tex. Woman's Univ. v. Rodriguez

• Decision Date: 15 December 2022
• Docket Number: 02-22-00278-CV
• Parties: Texas Woman's University, Appellant v. Jody T. Rodriguez, Appellee
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

1

Texas Woman's University, Appellant v. Jody T. Rodriguez, Appellee

No. 02-22-00278-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth

December 15, 2022

On Appeal from the 431st District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 21-9471-431.

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Bassel and Wallach, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Dabney Bassel, Justice.

I. Introduction

This is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a partial plea to the jurisdiction in an employment-discrimination and retaliation case. See Tex. Civ. Prac. &Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8). Appellant Texas Women's University (TWU) seeks to have this court reverse the trial court's order and render "dismissal of [Appellee Jody T. Rodriguez's] equitable claim under the Texas [c]onstitution and dismiss[al] with prejudice [of] Appellee's associational discrimination claim." Under the unique circumstances presented here, in which the record demonstrates that the trial court concurrently lifted its stay on discovery when it denied TWU's partial plea to the jurisdiction, we conclude that the pleadings do not contain sufficient facts to affirmatively demonstrate the trial court's jurisdiction but also do not affirmatively demonstrate incurable defects in jurisdiction. Accordingly we reverse the portion of the partial plea order that denies TWU's partial plea and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.^[1]

II. Factual and Procedural Background

A. The Pleadings and the Pleas to the Jurisdiction

In Rodriguez's original petition, she set forth the facts underlying her claims of discrimination and retaliation:

A.... Rodriguez was employed by TWU at all times relevant to this lawsuit before she was wrongfully terminated.

B.... Rodriguez started employment at TWU in November 2013, and she began working at the Jane Nelson Center for Women's Leadership in July 2016.

C. [Rodriguez's] most recent position at the Jane Nelson Center was Manager - Events and Student Programs.

D. At all times [Rodriguez] was employed at the Jane Nelson Center, she received excellent performance evaluations.

E. While employed at TWU, [Rodriguez] has also been the parent, sole[ ]provider[,] and caregiver for her minor daughter, who is a person with a disability.

F. During her employment at TWU, [Rodriguez] received association accommodations due to her relationship with a person, her daughter, who has a disability.

G. On March 26, 2020, the Center for Women Entrepreneurs ("CWE") announced a $1 million grant to help women[-]owned businesses in Texas recover from the pandemic, and CWE awarded 100 women[-]owned businesses $10,000 each.

H. [Rodriguez] was asked to assist in evaluating applications by searching a Taxable Entity website; she was asked to review the grant awardees to try to identify their ethnicity/race; and she advised her supervisors that she could not identify ethnicity/race information simply by looking at a person or learning their name.

I. Around this time of the announced $1 million grant, Shannon Mantaro notified employees at CWE that they would start working remotely.

J. Mantaro made clear to employees that as long as they were working, Mantaro did not care where the employees worked from remotely.

K. Sometime in the March 2020 time period, CWE staff received a group email, advising that during the official work day, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, with the exception of a one[-]hour lunch period, that employees were to remain logged into [S]kype to document their working hours.

L. On April 1, 2020, . . . Mantaro was promoted, Tracy Irby was promoted, and Irby became [Rodriguez's] supervisor.

M. Shortly after these April 1, 2020 promotions, [Rodriguez] had a telephone conference with Irby, who wanted information on how [Rodriguez] had previously been accommodated in her use and reporting on her usage of leave time[] by Mantaro.

N. Irby said she wanted to make sure she understood how the approval process had worked with . . . Mantaro, so she would know how to approve . . . Rodriguez's leave time.

O. In response, [Rodriguez] told Irby that Mantaro had allowed her to make up time she needed off, either after regular work hours or on weekends in order not to exhaust sick time and/or vacation time.

P. [Rodriguez's] daughter's therapeutic riding sessions occurred from time to time during regular work hours and [Rodriguez] would drive her daughter and then work during the sessions.

Q.... Irby did not advise [Rodriguez] that any changes would be implemented to [Rodriguez's] work schedule, nor to the way [Rodriguez] was to report her time to Irby prospectively.

R. On July 1, 2020, by email from Irby, [Rodriguez] was told her June 2020 timesheet was rejected, although April and May timesheets submitted with the same information were approved.

S. Although Irby never advised [Rodriguez] she would need to make different arrangements for her daughter's therapeutic sessions, Irby advised that she would not allow [Rodriguez] to make up any time missed if the time was covered under FMLA.

T. Irby also advised that [Rodriguez] would be allowed only 2 hours per day that could be made up for work [Rodriguez] missed; Irby said [Rodriguez] could use the lunch hour as one of the hours to make up work.

U. [Rodriguez] told Irby that many appointments could not be scheduled outside work hours, but Irby reiterated that [Rodriguez] was not permitted to make up FMLA[-]covered appointments because FMLA leave is unpaid leave.

V. In July 2020, [Rodriguez] emailed Lisa Taylor in human resources at TWU to ask if she would be allowed to make up time missed as had been allowed by other supervisors, but Taylor said it was up to the department supervisor to decide if the time could be made up.

W. In early August[] 2020, [Rodriguez] spoke with . . . Irby about her reluctance to work in-person on campus due to health concerns and fears of increased risk of exposure to [COVID]-19.

X. Irby responded by expressing her understanding and [by stating that] she would check to see what could be done.

Y. Soon after, [Rodriguez] received an email from . . . Taylor in human resources stating that a disability form completed by a doctor was necessary to accommodate the request to remain as a remote worker.

Z. [Rodriguez] submitted paperwork to her doctor, Jayaraman Ravendrin, M.D., who signed and returned the paperwork to TWU.

AA. Shortly thereafter, [Rodriguez] followed up with . . . Taylor who said TWU had everything necessary to process [Rodriguez's] request for accommodation.

BB. When [Rodriguez] followed up later in September, Taylor said they would get to it when they had a chance, and she emailed a few weeks later saying [Rodriguez's] paperwork was still being processed.

CC. Before she was wrongfully terminated, human resources never accepted[] nor denied [Rodriguez's] physician[-]signed disability paperwork.

DD. On August 11, 2020, most JNIWL and CWE staff returned to campus.

EE. On January 1, 2021, [Rodriguez's] employment with . . . TWU was terminated. FF. [Rodriguez] timely filed a charge of discrimination.

GG. [Rodriguez] received a notice of right to sue from the Texas Workforce Commission on October 14, 2021, which is attached to this pleading.

HH. [Rodriguez] timely filed this lawsuit. II. [Rodriguez] suffered damages due to the illegal discrimination and retaliation. Rodriguez's original petition then set forth the following claims:

A. [Rodriguez] was subjected to illegal discrimination, harassment[,] and unequal treatment by [TWU] and/or by agents and employees due to disability[] because [she] was considered by [TWU] to be disabled[] because of her association with a disabled person, in retaliation for her complaints of illegal discrimination, and/or in response to requests for reasonable accommodation.

B. After complaining of the illegal discrimination, harassment[,] and unequal treatment, [Rodriguez] was subjected to retaliation because of her complaints.

C. After making requests for reasonable accommodation, [Rodriguez] was subjected to retaliation because of her requests.

D. [Rodriguez] suffered damages due to [TWU's] illegal discrimination, harassment, denial of accommodations, and retaliation.

E. [Rodriguez] seeks recovery for her damages suffered due to the illegal discrimination, harassment, denial of accommodations, and retaliation by [TWU].

F. [Rodriguez] seeks reinstatement to her employment with [TWU].

TWU filed an answer asserting various affirmative defenses and also filed a plea to the jurisdiction (hereinafter TWU's initial plea), arguing that "[d]espite her use of certain 'buzzwords' such as discrimination, retaliation[,] and harassment, [Rodriguez's] Original Petition fails to identify or plead any claim or cause of action whatsoever, much less one that the Texas Legislature has clearly and unambiguously waived sovereign immunity thereon."

Rodriguez thereafter supplemented her original petition. In the supplement, she pleaded that "[TWU] is not immune from suit, nor from liability, because the Texas Legislature enacted [Texas Labor Code], Chapter 21, that waives sovereign immunity and waives government[al] immunity for the claims of illegal employment discrimination." Rodriguez further pleaded that her "claims in equity, including for injunctive relief and for reinstatement to employment are allowed by Texas Constitution [Article] I, § 29" and that her "requests for injunctive relief and for reinstatement are allowed by Texas law[] because they are claims in equity against the government and against government officials who acted without legal or statutory authority, which actions are clearly illegal." Rodriguez included a section on injunctive relief in which she pleaded the following:

B. [Rodriguez's] causes of action against [TWU] including her claims under

...