HOUSTON - Yesterday, the First Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling granting the city of Houston’s plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and hostile work environment.
The lawsuit was brought by Christina Drew, who was employed by the city’s Department of Neighborhoods as a code enforcement officer trainee.
According to the First Court’s opinion, one of Drew’s co-workers allegedly sexually assaulted her, leading her to report him. A couple of months later, she reported that other employees were spreading rumors about her at work. Soon after, she voluntarily resigned her employment and filed a charge with the EEOC.
When Drew sued the city, the city answered and filed a plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment. At the conclusion of a hearing, the trial court granted the city’s plea, stating it was doing so based on timeliness. The court also signed an order granting the city’s plea, as well as its motion for summary judgment.
On appeal, Drew argued that the trial court erred, and that she exhausted her administrative remedies by filing her charge of discrimination within 180 days of her resignation.
Conversely, the city argued that the trial court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Drew’s claims because she did not timely file her administrative complaint. The city also argued that Drew did not raise a fact issue on jurisdiction because the continuing violation doctrine does not apply, and she was not constructively discharged.
The First Court agreed with the city, finding that Drew failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.
“Because the continuing violation doctrine does not apply and Drew was not constructively discharged, Drew failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies,” the opinion states. “We therefore hold that the trial court did not err by granting the City’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing Drew’s claim. We overrule Drew’s issue related to the plea to the jurisdiction. We need not address Drew’s remaining issues related to summary judgment.
“We affirm the trial court’s judgment.”
Case No. 01-22-00212-CV