HOUSTON (SE Texas Record) — Discrimination allegations filed before a longtime Harris County probation officer was denied a promotion does not, on its own, prove the promotion denial was linked to the claims, a state appeals court said in a ruling issued April 18.
In its 45-page opinion, Texas First District Court of Appeals affirmed a Harris County court's previous ruling that appellant Ronald Smith didn't make his case in his retaliation lawsuit under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act.
"Because Smith failed to present evidence raising a fact issue as to whether a causal link existed between his protected activity, i.e., the filing of his 2008 and 2012 EEOC charges, and Harris County’s adverse employment action, i.e., the June 2015 denial of a promotion to Smith for the Intake screening supervisor position, we conclude that Smith cannot establish his prima facie case for retaliation," the court said in its opinion. "Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in granting Harris County summary judgment."
Texas First District Court of Appeals Justice Julie Countiss
| txcourts.gov
Smith had challenged a previous Harris County 334th District Court judge's summary judgment in favor of the county in his retaliation lawsuit under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA).
Appeals Justice Julie Countiss wrote the opinion in which Chief Justice Sherry Radack and Justice Gordon Goodman concurred.
Smith, a Harris County juvenile probation department probation officer since 1996, alleges a "lesser qualified employee" got a promotion after Smith twice filed Equal Employment Opportunity Commission discrimination charges, once in 2008 and again in 2012. Smith subsequently filed his claim under the TCHRA, according to the background portion of the appeals court's opinion.
"Harris County answered, generally denying Smith's allegations and asserting additional defenses," the opinion said. "Harris County then filed a combined no-evidence and matter-of-law summary-judgment motion, asserting that to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Smith was required to show: (1) he had engaged in a protected activity, (2) he suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link existed between Smith’s protected activity and the adverse employment action."
Harris County also argued there was no evidence that linked Smith’s two EEOC discrimination charges with the county's decision to not promote him.
Smith argued that circumstantial evidence existed to show a causal link between the EEOC discrimination charges and the county's decision in 2015 to deny him he promotion. Smith also said the county failed to follow its own hiring policy when it failed to promote him.
"The trial court, without specifying the ground, granted Harris County summary judgment on Smith’s retaliation claim," the appeals court's opinion said.
The appeals court noted that Smith's claim arising from his from the 2012 EEOC charge was dismissed more than a year before Smith didn't get the promotion.
"And Smith presented no evidence that the June 2015 denial of the promotion was, as alleged, the 'first opportunity' that Harris County had to retaliate against him," the opinion said.