CORPUS CHRISTI - The 13th Court of Appeals recently reversed a trial court’s order denying a university’s plea to the jurisdiction but remanded the plaintiff’s claim for racial discrimination for further proceedings.
Alfredo Castillo filed suit against the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley.
According to the 13th Court’s Nov. 9 opinion, Castillo, a Hispanic male, was hired as the head athletic trainer at UTRGV on Dec. 4, 2017. Friction between Castillo and the new athletic director arose in March 2020 and his employment was terminated a couple of months later.
Castillo alleges that his termination was pretextual and that the actual reason for his termination was retaliation and racial discrimination. He also included claims for civil conspiracy in his petition based on the underlying claims of retaliation and discrimination, the opinion states.
UTRGV filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which was denied by the trial court, leading the university to appeal.
The 13th Court reversed the trial court’s order denying UTRGV’s plea to the jurisdiction and rendered judgment dismissing Castillo’s claims for retaliation and civil conspiracy for want of jurisdiction.
Justices remanded Castillo’s claim for racial discrimination for further proceedings consistent with their opinion.
“Because Castillo has not alleged legally viable claims for civil conspiracy against UTRGV, Castillo has failed to affirmatively demonstrate the trial court’s jurisdiction over these claims,” the opinion states. “Consequently, the trial court erred when it denied UTRGV’s jurisdictional challenge to Castillo’s conspiracy claims.
“Finally, like Castillo’s retaliation claim, we conclude that remanding these claims for further pleading would be futile.”
The 13th Court agreed with UTRGV that Castillo’s racial discrimination claim was “facially deficient,” but found that his “failure to plead necessary facts to support each element of his discrimination claim is a matter of pleading sufficiency, not an incurable jurisdictional defect,” the opinion states.
Appeals case No. 13-23-00062-CV