law-discrimination-in-emplyment  under Texas statutory law fka TCHRA | EOO EEOC

The TCHRA was intended to “provide for the execution of the policies of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and its subsequent amendments.” Id. § 21.001(1). Accordingly, we look to federal
precedent for interpretive guidance. See Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473,
476 (Tex. 2001).

Discrimination

Under section 21.051 of the labor code, an employer may not discriminate against or discharge an
employee based on "race, color, disability, religion, sex, national origin, or age." (32) The Texas
Legislature modeled chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code after federal law for the express purpose of
carrying out the policies of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its subsequent amendments. (33)
Consequently, when reviewing an issue in a proceeding brought under chapter 21, we may look not only to
cases involving the state statute, but also to cases interpreting the analogous federal provisions. (34)

In discrimination cases brought under the Texas Labor Code, a prima facie case of discrimination is made
by showing that the plaintiff (1) is within a protected group, (2) was adversely affected or suffered an
adverse employment action, and (3) was treated less favorably than similarly situated members outside the
protected class. (35) In addition, in order to prove causation, the plaintiff must establish that national origin
"was a motivating factor for an employment practice, even if other factors also motivated the practice,
unless [national origin] . . . is combined with objective job-related factors to attain diversity in the
employer's work force." (36) To establish a prima facie case of discrimination involving a failure-to-promote
claim, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) she belongs to a protected group under Title VII; (2) she applied for
and was qualified for the position sought; (3) she was not promoted to the position sought, i.e, she
suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) her employer promoted an employee to the position
sought by the plaintiff who was not a member of the protected class. (37)

After the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the employer to
articulate legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for any allegedly unequal treatment. (38) After the
employer articulates legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove
that the employer's articulated reasons are a mere pretext for unlawful discrimination. (39) Although the
burden of production shifts, the burden of persuasion remains continuously with the plaintiff. (40)
09-0473          
MARGARET VILLARREAL v. DEL MAR COLLEGE; from Nueces County; 13th district (13-07-00119-CV,
___ SW3d ___, 03-26-09 pet. denied July 2009) (
employment law, national origin discrimination claim,
retaliation, definition of adverse employment action)(summary judgment for defendant employer affirmed)


09‑0796  
JERRY GUMPERT AND MARTIN COYNE v. ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., BARRY SIRCY,
TOMMY WALKER, ROBERT GRAVES, GEORGE WARREN, PERRY WAYNE MIDDLEBROOK, RICHARD
CRAWFORD, RICHARD FISER, DAN NOONKESTER, RICHARD MARTINEZ, RICHARD PASSMORE AND
LEONARD ESNER; from Dallas County; 5th district (05‑07‑01717‑CV, 293 SW3d 256, 05‑20‑09, pet
denied Nov. 2009)(
defamation claim fails, civil conspiracy likewise in the absence of underlying tort) (same-
sex harassment, employment retaliation claim)