HOUSTON - Today, the First Court of Appeals reversed a ruling denying the city of Houston governmental immunity from claims brought against it for sexual harassment and retaliation.
According to the First Court’s opinion, Evernecca Carter started working for the city’s Solid Waste Management Department in June of 2018. By August, a supervisor began sending her inappropriate text messages. Following an incident, Carter filed a charge alleging sex discrimination with the EEOC and reported the supervisor’s conduct to the city’s Office of Inspector General.
Carter was transferred and claims her coworkers gossiped and ostracized her. She also had to work mandatory overtime, which caused her to develop knee problems. Her supervisors refused to submit a workers’ compensation claim for her.
After Carter received her right-to-sue notice from the EEOC, she filed this lawsuit against the city, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and workers’ compensation retaliation, the opinion states.
The city filed a combined plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment, claiming governmental immunity. The trial court granted the city’s combined plea and motion as to the workers’ compensation retaliation claim but denied it as to the sexual harassment and retaliation claims.
On appeal, the city argued Carter failed to establish a waiver of its governmental immunity.
The First Court agreed with the city, reversing the trial court’s order denying the plea and dismissing Carter’s claims for lack of jurisdiction.
“Because we conclude Carter did not raise a fact issue as to her retaliation claim and did not allege sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case of actionable hostile work-environment sexual harassment against her governmental employer, governmental immunity has not been waived,” the opinion states. “Thus, the trial court erred in denying the City’s plea to the jurisdiction.
“We therefore reverse the trial court’s order denying the City’s plea to the jurisdiction and render judgment dismissing Carter’s claims for lack of jurisdiction.”
Case No. 01-22-00453-CV