Skip to main content

Intent to Become Pregnant Protected Against Discrimination Under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act

 

South Texas College v. Arriola - Thirteenth District Court of Appeals - Texas


Facts:  Cynthia Arriola (“Arriola”) was hired by South Texas College (“STC”) in March of 2009.  Following her marriage in July of 2017, she informed her coworkers that she was intending to get pregnant.  Afterward, Arriola claimed her coworkers negatively reacted to this news and she was subjected to harassment.   Upon complaining to her supervisor in September of 2017, she was subsequently terminated the following month.  

Arriola subsequently filed suit against STC on the grounds that they had unlawfully discriminated against her in violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”).  Arriola complained that she was discriminated against due to her gender and was discriminated against for engaging in protected activity.

STC filed a plea to the jurisdiction on the grounds that while the TCHRA prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, there was no such protection for a worker “attempting to get pregnant.”  Arriola responded that she had adequately plead a claim for jurisdiction based upon her intended pregnancy.  The trial court, the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County, denied STC’s plea to the jurisdiction.  STC subsequently appealed.

Holding:  On appeal, the sole issued considered by the Court of Appeals is whether the TCHRA protects against discrimination based upon the intent to become pregnant.

As this was a matter of first impression, the Court of Appeals turned to federal court rulings for guidance. Of note, the TCHRA is intended to execute the policies of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In looking at relevant federal cases, a vast majority had held that Title VII prohibits discrimination against women that intended to become pregnant.  Consequently, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the TCHRA could be read to also hold that discrimination based upon an intent to become pregnant is unlawful.

Judgment:  As a matter of first impression, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of STC’s plea to the jurisdiction on the grounds that the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based upon a worker’s intent to become pregnant.

The Takeaway:  While I have not been before the Thirteenth District Court of Appeals before, I have practiced before the 370th District Court for nearly ten years.  From my experience, the trial court Judge from this case has been equitable in hearing both sides of a case before making a ruling.  As the Court of Appeals held here, I think the trial court made the correct ruling, irrespective of the fact that the issues in the case were a matter of first impression.  Considering that the TCHRA is intended to execute the policies of Title VII, looking at federal courts that have considered similar matters was the right call.  Given that federal courts have held Title VII prohibits discrimination upon an intent to become pregnant, I think it was reasonable to reach the same conclusion when considering a discrimination claim brought under the TCHRA.  Whether it could ultimately be held that STC violated the TCHRA is unclear at this point.  However, hearing that a claimant’s discrimination claim lives on is music to the ears of any claimant.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Hinojosa

Date:  February 11, 2021

Opinion:  https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=3fc94730-1260-4be3-b7f0-98fc32088f92&coa=coa13&DT=Opinion&MediaID=c5e42a76-b4a4-4581-bf5b-0bda3578674e

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more