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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more