law-age-discrimination | retaliation claims |
employment law | public employment dispute | discrimination in employment |
AGE DISCRIMINATION CLAIM UNDER TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (ANTI-
Under the THCRA:
An employer commits an unlawful employment practice if because of race, color, disability, religion, sex,
national origin, or age the employer:
(1) fails or refuses to hire an individual, discharges an individual, or discriminates in any other manner
against an individual in connection with compensation or the terms, conditions, or privileges of
(2) limits, segregates, or classifies an employee or applicant for employment in a manner that would
deprive or tend to deprive an individual of any employment opportunity or adversely affect in any other
manner the status of an employee.
TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 21.051 (West 2006). The TCHRA also provides:
(a) Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, an unlawful employment practice is established when
the complainant demonstrates that race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability was a
motivating factor for an employment practice, even if other factors also motivated the practice, unless
race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability is combined with objective job-related factors to
attain diversity in the employer’s work force.
(b) In a complaint in which a complainant proves a violation under Subsection (a) and a respondent
demonstrates that the respondent would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible
motivating factor, the court may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief except as otherwise provided by
this subsection, and attorney’s fees and costs demonstrated to be directly attributable only to the pursuit
of a complaint under Subsection (a), but may not award damages or issue an order requiring an
admission, reinstatement, hiring, promotion, or back pay.
Id. § 21.125. Because the TCHRA’s stated purpose is to “provide for the execution of the policies of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its subsequent amendments,” Texas courts apply analogous federal
case law when interpreting the Texas statute. Id. § 21.001(1); Quantum Chem. Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.
W.3d 473, 476 (Tex. 2001).
It has been stated that a prima facie case of age discrimination requires proof that the plaintiff (1) was
within the protected class of individuals aged forty or older, (2) was discharged, (3) was qualified for the
position from which she was discharged, and (4) “was either replaced by someone outside the protected
class, replaced by someone younger, or was otherwise discharged because of her age.” Russo, 93 S.W.
3d at 435; see also Tex.Lab.Code Ann. § 21.101 (West 2006)(limiting age discrimination claims to
individuals who are at least 40 years old). But see O’Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S.
308, 312, 116 S.Ct. 1307, 1310, 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996)(“[T]he fact that [a federal age discrimination]
plaintiff was replaced by someone outside the protected class is not a proper element of the McDonnell
Douglas prima facie case.”).
APPEALS FROM AGE DISCRIMINATION SUITS
DR. NYLA PTOMEY v. TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY; from Lubbock County;
7th district (07-06-00332-CV, 277 SW3d 487, 01-20-09, pet. denied July 2009)
(age discrimination and sex discrimination and retaliation claims rejected)
Appellant, Dr. Nyla Ptomey, appeals a summary judgment granted in favor of appellee Texas Tech
University on each of her claims of unlawful age and sex discrimination and retaliation. Finding by its
traditional motion for summary judgment Texas Tech conclusively proved a legitimate, non-discriminatory
reason for the adverse employment actions of which Ptomey complains and that the evidence does not
raise a fact issue of pretext, we will affirm.
RONNIE R. REBER & ALAN RHEA TODD v. BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC.; from Tarrant County;
2nd district (02-07-00104-CV, 248 SW3d 853, 03-06-08, pet denied July 2008)(labor and employment
law case, age discrimination)
08-0267 DWIGHT HINES AND SHANNON EVERETT v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; from Harris
County; 14th district (14-06-00745-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 02-26-08, pet. denied May 2008)
(employment law, defamation, age discrimination, defamation, employment at will doctrine) (Justice
O'Neill not sitting)
Texas Causes of Action and Defenses | 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams | Texas
Caselaw Topics Pages | Texas Opinions Homepage |