The Second Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff who resigns cannot prove an adverse employment action when the only evidence of constructive discharge was forthcoming investigation
Special contributing author Laura Mueller, City Attorney for Dripping Springs
Univ. of North Tex. Sys. v. Lisa Barringer, No. 02-19-00378-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth September 10, 2020) (mem. op.).
In this discrimination case, the plaintiff sued the University for age discrimination after resigning from her position. The Court of Appeals held that she had failed to provide sufficient evidence of constructive discharge for his resignation and dismissed the case.
The plaintiff was a University employee who was placed on paid administrative leave prior to an investigation related to her lack of preparation for a scheduled presentation wand inappropriate comments. After being placed on paid administrative leave, she resigned. After she resigned, she filed a claim with the EEOC/Texas Workforce Commission which issued a right to sue letter. She filed suit and University filed a plea to the jurisdiction. The trial court denied the plea and the University appealed.
An age discrimination claim under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) requires showing that the individual has suffered an adverse employment action. Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629, 636 (Tex. 2012). Proof of constructive discharge, where an employee reasonably feels compelled to resign, can demonstrate an adverse employment action. Baylor Univ. v. Coley, 221 S.W.3d 599, 604–05 (Tex. 2007). “But potential disciplinary action, investigations into alleged work-place violations, or work-place criticisms are insufficient alone to cause a reasonable person to resign.” Also, personality conflicts or arguments are insufficient to create proof of constructive discharge. The Court of Appeals held the plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient, reversed the denial of the plea, and dismissed the plaintiff’s case.
If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consists of Justices Kerr, Birdwell, and Womack. Opinion by Justice Womack.