The facts in The University of Texas at El Paso v. Gabriel Soriano (No. 08-24-00025-CV; January 29, 2025) are as follows. Gabriel Soriano was fired from his job as a maintenance worker at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) and consequently filed suit with claims of gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). UTEP filed a jurisdictional plea, claiming that Soriano failed to establish a prima facie case supportying his claims. The trial court denied the plea. The University sought interlocutory relief.,
In an opinion by Justice Palafox, the court of appeals reversed and dismissed the case. As a state institution, UTEP has governmental immunity that deprives a trial court of jurisdiction unless evidence of the institution’s violation of the TCHRA exists. In discrimination claims, “the plaintiff’s initial burden is to establish a prima facie case of discrimination… The burden then shifts to the employer to defeat the presumption of discrimination by producing evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the challenged employment action” (6). The court determined that did not carry his burden because he did not provide evidence that he was replaced by a female or treated less favorably than people who are not male (7). UTEP argued further that Soriano failed to establish a prima facie case of a hostile work environment (8). Soriano produced no evidence supporting that claim, either.
In its final and fourth issue, UTEP asserted that Soriano failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. UTEP argued that Soriano failed to show that he engaged in a protected activity or any causal link between such activity and his termination. Soriano claimed that he reported acts of discrimination by another employee to his supervisor. He also claimed that the employee was harassing a female employee and that there was a letter signed by her attesting to this. However, the court found Soriano’s argument unconvincing. Besides his conclusory statements, there was no actual evidence showing the other employee’s harassment took place, and the letter did not exist in the record. Soriano further asserted that his supervisor treated the other employee more favorably than it did him. In response, the court pointed out that “[the other employee] is a Hispanic male, like Soriano. Any complaint of preferential treatment or salary issues cannot support a retaliation claim when there is no complaint that the preferential or different treatment was based on race, color disability, religion, sex, national origin, or age,” (12). Thus, Soriano’s complaints did not constitute a violation of the TCHRA.
The court went on to say that “[e]ven if we were to assume a prima facie case was established, UTEP showed it terminated Soriano’s employment due to repeated violations of its policies. Accordingly, UTEP has met its burden to rebut a prima facie case of retaliation” (12). In effect, Soriano’s only evidence was temporal proximity, which is insufficient for a prima facie showing. The court sustained UTEP’s fourth issue and reversed the trial court’s order denying the jurisdictional plea. The court also dismissed all of Soriano’s claims for lack of jurisdiction since he failed to establish a waiver of immunity.
TCJL Research Intern Dilara Muslu researched and substantially drafted this article.
