Texas Tech University v. Stephen Finley

Citation: Not availableDocket: 07-06-00111-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 15, 2006; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Texas Tech University appeals a trial court’s order that denied its plea to the jurisdiction and granted injunctive relief to Stephen Finley, following Finley’s termination on November 7, 2003. Finley alleged age discrimination and retaliation, but Texas Tech argued that his discrimination complaint was untimely, having not been filed within the required 180 days as mandated by Texas Labor Code § 21.202(a). Texas Tech contended that the formal charge with the Texas Workforce Commission-Civil Rights Division (TWC-CRD) was filed on July 26, 2004, well past the May 5, 2004 deadline.

In response, Finley claimed he timely mailed his complaint to the EEOC on March 10, 2004, and submitted a charge questionnaire in April 2004 that supplemented his initial complaint. During a hearing on March 10, 2006, Finley presented evidence indicating that his correspondence was received on April 5, 2004, which the EEOC and TWC-CRD acknowledged as fulfilling the complaint requirements.

The trial court ruled against Texas Tech’s plea, affirming Finley’s timely filing and prohibiting Texas Tech from contacting the EEOC or TWC-CRD regarding interference with their findings. Texas Tech’s argument on appeal focused on the alleged error of the trial court in denying the plea, which was reviewed de novo, considering both pleadings and relevant evidence regarding jurisdictional facts. The court affirmed the denial of the plea but reversed the injunction against Texas Tech concerning future communications with the agencies. Under Texas law, a claimant must exhaust all administrative remedies before pursuing a civil action for employment discrimination.

An aggrieved employee must file a complaint with the EEOC or TWC-CRD within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice, as mandated by Tex. Lab. Code Ann. 21.201-.202. This deadline is both mandatory and jurisdictional, meaning failure to comply results in a loss of subject-matter jurisdiction for Texas trial courts. In this case, Finley claims his complaint was timely filed, supported by a letter to the EEOC dated March 10, 2004, and stamped received on April 5, 2004, which detailed his age discrimination allegations against Texas Tech University. The TWC-CRD confirmed that Finley's EEOC filing was automatically dually filed with them, meeting the 180-day requirement.

Texas Tech disputes this, asserting that the formal complaint began with a July 26, 2004, charge, which they claim the EEOC did not consider timely until that date. However, the evidence shows that the July 26 charge was a perfected charge based on Finley's initial complaint. The timeline indicates that Finley submitted his initial complaint on April 5, completed a charge questionnaire by April 23, and the EEOC prepared the perfected charge on July 15, which Finley returned on July 26. This process complies with the Labor Code's distinction between an original and perfected complaint. Texas Tech's argument that earlier documents should be disregarded due to the absence of a certified record from the TWC-CRD lacks supporting authority.

The Texas Workforce Commission - Civil Rights Division (TWC-CRD) clarified that for filing requirements under Texas Labor Code § 21.201, the timeliness of a complaint is determined by when it is received by the EEOC. In Finley's case, a complaint was received on April 5, 2004, which was within the statutory time limit, thus establishing the trial court's jurisdiction. Texas Tech's first issue regarding the timeliness of the complaint is overruled. 

Regarding the second issue, Texas Tech argued that the trial court erred by enjoining it from contacting the EEOC or TWC-CRD. The trial court's order, which denied the plea to the jurisdiction and imposed restrictions on Texas Tech, was effectively a temporary injunction. However, it was deemed void as it did not meet procedural requirements, such as setting a bond and scheduling a trial date. Consequently, Texas Tech's second issue is sustained, the portion of the trial court's order prohibiting contact is reversed, and that aspect of the injunctive relief is dissolved. The remaining parts of the order are affirmed.