NUMBER 13-17-00480-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
SANTA ROSA INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant,
v.
JESUS F. RODRIGUEZ JR., Appellee.
On appeal from the 357th District Court
of Cameron County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
Santa Rosa Independent School District (SRISD), appellant, challenges the trial
court’s denial of its plea to the jurisdiction on appellee Jesus F. Rodriguez Jr.’s disability
discrimination suit. See TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 21.051 (West, Westlaw 2017 through 1st
C.S.). By a single issue, SRISD argues that the trial court erred in finding it had
jurisdiction over Rodriguez’s claims when he “failed to produce evidence necessary to
create a fact issue on the prima facie elements of such claims.” We reverse and render
judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
Rodriguez was a probationary first-year school teacher at Jo Nelson Middle School
in Santa Rosa beginning in September 2015. On January 22, 2016, Rodriguez suffered
a stroke and notified SRISD the same day. He did not return to work that semester and
was notified by letter dated May 17, 2016 that his employment was terminated at the end
of his contract. No reason was stated.
Rodriguez filed a timely charge of disability discrimination with the Texas
Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division which granted him a right to sue letter in
January 2017. Rodriguez filed suit in March 2017. SRISD does not challenge
Rodriguez’s exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Rodriguez’s first amended petition alleged that SRISD illegally discriminated
against him on the basis of disability and that the superintendent decided to recommend
that Rodriguez be terminated in February 2016. See id. SRISD filed a general denial
and a plea to the jurisdiction challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction and seeking dismissal
of Rodriguez’s petition. SRISD’s plea attached evidence that challenged Rodriguez’s
prima facie case. Rodriguez responded to the plea and included evidence of his own.
SRISD filed a reply and a post-hearing letter brief. The trial court denied SRISD’s plea
to the jurisdiction. SRISD filed this interlocutory appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
CODE ANN. § 51.104(a)(8) (West, Westlaw 2017 through 1st C.S.).
2
II. PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION
SRISD argues that the trial court erred because Rodriguez did not produce
evidence in support of his prima facie case.
A. Standard of Review
Governmental units, including school districts, are immune from suit unless the
state consents. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex.
2004). The labor code waives immunity if the plaintiff alleges conduct within the purview
of the statute. TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 21.051(1). Under the Texas Labor Code, an
employer “commits an unlawful employment practice” if it discharges an individual
“because of . . . disability.” Id.
“A jurisdictional plea may challenge the pleadings, the existence of jurisdictional
facts, or both. When a jurisdictional plea challenges the pleadings, we determine if the
plaintiff has alleged facts affirmatively demonstrating subject-matter jurisdiction.” Alamo
Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 544 S.W.3d 755, 770 (Tex. 2018); Miranda, 133 S.W.3d
at 227–28. If the plea challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, we must consider
evidence when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional facts. Clark, 544 S.W.3d at 770.
If we consider evidence relating to the plea to the jurisdiction, a plaintiff must raise “at
least a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 771. “[W]e must take as true all evidence
favorable to the plaintiff, indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts
in the plaintiff’s favor.” Id. But “we cannot disregard evidence necessary to show
context, and we cannot disregard evidence and inferences unfavorable to the plaintiff if
reasonable jurors could not.” Id. Once a defendant challenges the plaintiff’s case with
3
evidence, as here, “the jurisdictional inquiry focuses on the evidence and whether the
plaintiff can create a fact issue.” Id. at 785. “In a suit against a governmental employer,
the prima facie case implicates both the merits of the claim and the court’s jurisdiction
because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v.
Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629, 635 (Tex. 2012). If the evidence raises a fact issue, the trial
court cannot grant the plea to the jurisdiction. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228.
B. Prima Facie Case of Disability Discrimination
The elements of a disability discrimination case are that the employee: (1) has a
disability, (2) was qualified for the job, and (3) suffered an adverse employment decision
because of his disability. Green v. Dallas Cty Schools, 537 S.W.3d 501, 503 (Tex. 2017).
SRISD does not challenge Rodriguez’s disability, but challenges two parts of his prima
facie case: (1) whether he is a qualified individual with a disability and (2) the causal
relationship between his disability and the decision to terminate Rodriguez’s probationary
contract.
Rodriguez argues that between the time of his stroke and his termination, SRISD
had no basis to terminate his employment other than his disability. SRISD argues that it
produced evidence to support a non-discriminatory motive to terminate Rodriguez:
Rodriguez’s alleged misconduct that was memorialized in a January 12, 2016 memo from
the principal at Jo Nelson Middle School to the district superintendent. According to the
memo, Rodriguez mishandled his interactions with multiple students on January 6, 2016
during math benchmark testing. At least one female student complained of unwanted
4
attention and hugging that made her uncomfortable. 1 According to the memo, the
principal recommended to the superintendent that Rodriguez’s teacher contract be
terminated immediately. The memo states that the principal talked with Rodriguez and
advised him that he was suspended with pay until further notice and would receive
confirmation from the superintendent in writing.
Rodriguez does not address his suspension or the allegations of misconduct as a
basis for his termination. He denies that he knew anything about plans to terminate his
employment until he received SRISD’s letter in May 2016. Rodriguez does not deny that
he met with his principal or that they discussed the misconduct outlined in the principal’s
memo to the superintendent.
When an employer articulates a legitimate reason to terminate a plaintiff’s
employment, the employer eliminates any presumption of discrimination created by the
plaintiff’s prima facie showing, and the burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to show that
the employer’s stated reason was a pretext for discrimination. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d at
635. Rodriguez did not attempt to rebut SRISD’s claim that the reason for his termination
was misconduct. A “plaintiff can usually provide sufficient evidence of discriminatory
intent by showing that the employer’s proffered reason for the adverse action is false.”
1 According to the memo, the math benchmark, a practice test to determine student knowledge
was held on January 6, 2016. Rodriguez approached a group of students after the test and began to talk
to them about self-defense and pressure points in the human body. He asked for volunteers to
demonstrate. Rodriguez demonstrated on two students, one of whom was female. Another female
student claimed that Rodriguez called on her to volunteer, but she refused. He “proceeded towards her
and pinched her behind her leg close to her behind.” Other students confirmed that they witnessed one or
more of these interactions. One female student alleged that “Rodriguez calls her ‘Mi Amor,’ winks at her
and hugs her randomly telling the class, ‘I really love this girl.’” Rodriguez admitted discussing self-defense
and pressure points. He further admitted that he demonstrated on one male student, but he denied
touching any of the girls. He admitted that he allowed students to lay on the floor after the test.
5
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 141–49 (2000). Because
Rodriguez did not produce evidence to raise a fact issue regarding his employer’s motive,
the trial court erred by denying SRISD’s plea to the jurisdiction. See Clark, 544 S.W.3d
at 784–85. We sustain SRISD’s single issue.
III. CONCLUSION
We reverse the trial court’s order denying the plea to the jurisdiction and render
judgment dismissing Rodriguez’s claims for lack of jurisdiction.
GINA M. BENAVIDES,
Justice
Delivered and filed the
6th day of December, 2018.
6