HOUSTON – A Texas appeals court recently reversed the trial court's decision to deny a plea from the University of Houston's in a discrimination lawsuit, finding that the plaintiff's claims lacked merit.
According to court documents, plaintiff Kate Kingsbury filed a lawsuit (No. 14-22-00861-CV) against the University of Houston (UH). Kingsbury and another student, Luca Oliva, had applied for a tenure-track position at the University of Houston (UH). Kingsbury, initially not selected as a finalist, received a late interview after another candidate withdrew. During the interview process, a comment by Kingsbury offended a committee member, Dr. Elizabeth Farfán-Santos, leading to complaints and investigations. Farfán-Santos filed an Equal Opportunity Services (EOS) complaint, triggering parallel investigations. UH completed the hiring process, and Oliva was selected as the highest-ranked candidate.
In December 2021, Kingsbury sued UH for discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging UH favored Oliva as a "person of color" during the hiring process. UH filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court initially denied. UH appealed, arguing that the trial court should have granted the plea to the jurisdiction on three grounds: Kingsbury's discrimination claim lacks validity, her retaliation claim cannot be sustained, and her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is barred by governmental immunity.
The court analyzed each of UH's issues. Regarding the discrimination claim, the court found that there was no direct evidence of race or national-origin discrimination and no indirect evidence to support such a claim. The court concluded that Kingsbury did not show that Farfán-Santos's alleged bias impacted the hiring decision, and UH had legitimate reasons for selecting the chosen candidate. Therefore, the trial court erred in not dismissing Kingsbury's discrimination claim.
In regards to the retaliation claim, the court found that Kingsbury failed to establish a causal link between her protected activity and any adverse employment action. The court concluded that Kingsbury's complaints did not lead to the alleged denial of proper consideration of her application, and UH had legitimate reasons for its actions. Consequently, the trial court erred in not dismissing Kingsbury's retaliation claim.
Regarding the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, Kingsbury conceded that it is barred by governmental immunity, and the court agreed with this concession.
The court concluded that the trial court erred in not dismissing this claim. The court reversed the trial court's order denying UH's plea to the jurisdiction, rendering a judgment dismissing Kingsbury's suit against UH due to the lack of jurisdiction. The court also stated that Kingsbury is not entitled to an opportunity to amend her petition.