The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas has ruled that the trial court erred in allowing a wrongful dismissal and discrimination suit brought by former employee R.R. to proceed against the City of McAllen, reversing the lower court’s decision and dismissing all claims with prejudice.
The court found that R.R. failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his allegations of age, race, disability discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). It held that the City’s governmental immunity had not been waived and that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Allegations of discrimination and retaliation
R.R., who worked in the McAllen Public Utility water distribution department from 1987 until his termination in December 2018, alleged he was discriminated against due to his age (61 at the time of termination), his disability (workplace injuries to his back, shoulder, and bicep), and his race/national origin (Hispanic/Mexican-American). He also claimed retaliation and hostile work environment.
In an affidavit, R.R. stated that “[d]uring my 31 ½ year career with the City, I faithfully performed my duties with dedication, hard work and undivided loyalty.” He claimed that “[s]hortly after my termination, I was replaced by a younger worker who took over my responsibilities,” and described the City’s stated reason for his termination—alleged unprofessional conduct—as “false, discriminatory and … pretextual.”
The City argued that R.R.’s termination was based on a lengthy disciplinary record, not discriminatory motives. It filed a combined plea to the jurisdiction and summary judgment motion, citing numerous verbal warnings, written reprimands, and suspensions issued to R.R. between 1998 and 2018.
Court finds lack of evidence to support claims
The court found that R.R. did not present sufficient evidence to meet the threshold of a prima facie case for any of his claims under the TCHRA. It held that his affidavit lacked the detail and comparative evidence required to support allegations of discriminatory treatment.
Regarding the age discrimination claim, the court said R.R. “did not allege or state in his affidavit that his replacement was ‘similarly situated’ to him, ‘significantly’ younger than him, or outside the protected class.” Without this, the court concluded that a prima facie case had not been established.
On the race and national origin discrimination claims, the court held that R.R.’s statement that “[o]ther non-Hispanic and/or non-Mexican American employees were treated more favorably” was conclusory and unsupported by facts. “Texas courts have long held that this type of conclusory, factually unsupported statement is insufficient to generate a fact issue,” the court noted.
The retaliation claim also failed. The court found no evidence that R.R. engaged in a protected activity under the TCHRA, such as filing a complaint or participating in a proceeding. His assertion that he was terminated shortly after an on-the-job injury did not qualify as protected conduct.
The court rejected R.R.’s hostile work environment claim, stating that while he alleged his manager made “discriminatory comments,” used foul language, and blamed him for mistakes, these claims were not linked to a protected characteristic, nor shown to be “severe or pervasive” enough to alter the conditions of employment.
Disciplinary record supports employer’s defence
The City submitted an extensive disciplinary record, including seven verbal warnings, seven written reprimands, and five suspensions issued to R.R. during his tenure. Infractions included speeding in a city vehicle, insubordination, unsafe practices, and failure to follow safety protocols.
The court held that this evidence constituted “legitimate, non-discriminatory” reasons for termination and shifted the burden to R.R. to prove pretext. His rebuttal—that the stated reason was false—was deemed conclusory and insufficient. “Rodriguez produced no proof establishing that any of the other behaviors evidenced in that file … were false or pretextual,” the court said.
The court emphasized that pretext must be supported by more than self-serving claims. “[P]retext cannot be established by mere ‘conclusory statements’ of a plaintiff who feels he has been discriminated against,” it noted, citing precedent.
Dismissal of all claims with prejudice
In conclusion, the court ruled that R.R. had not met the evidentiary burden required to overcome the City’s plea to the jurisdiction and summary judgment motion. It reversed the trial court’s ruling and dismissed all claims with prejudice, finding that the TCHRA’s waiver of governmental immunity had not been triggered.
“The trial court erred by denying the City’s plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment,” the court stated.
For more information, see City of McAllen v. Robert Rodriguez Appeal from County Court at Law No. 6 of Hidalgo County (memorandum opinion).
