Dr. James Jones v. Angelo State University ( 2016 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
NO. 03-14-00112-CV
Dr. James Jones, Appellant
v.
Angelo State University, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 340TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. C-110272-C, HONORABLE JAY K. WEATHERBY, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
We withdraw the opinion and judgment dated December 18, 2015, and substitute
the following opinion and judgment in their place. We deny the parties’ respective motions for
rehearing.
Appellant Dr. James Jones sued his former employer, Angelo State University,
alleging he had been discharged from his employment due to his religious beliefs and practices.
See Tex. Lab. Code §§ 21.051, .108. After the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of
the University, Jones filed this appeal. In four issues, Jones contends that the trial court erred in
granting the University’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing his claims of religious
discrimination. We affirm the trial court’s judgment with respect to its dismissal of Jones’s claim
of discriminatory discharge based on disparate treatment. However, because we conclude that the
trial court erred to the extent it granted summary judgment on Jones’s claim that the University
failed to accommodate his religious practice, we will reverse this portion of the trial court’s
judgment and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
BACKGROUND
In 2005, Jones was hired as an associate professor in the department of computer
science at Angelo State University. Jones’s employment was considered a “tenure track appointment,”
whereby Jones’s contract for each nine-month academic year could be renewed. That is, Jones could
either be “reappointed” or “non-reappointed” at the end of each year. Jones taught at the University
for four academic years beginning in the 2005–2006 academic year.
Jones identifies himself as “an active evangelical Christian” and maintains that “it
is his religious practice to identify himself as an evangelical Christian and to share his faith with
others.” According to Jones, during his employment with the University, he would engage in this
practice by briefly making a religious statement to his students at the beginning of the first class of
the semester and at the end of the last class of the semester. Specifically, Jones admits that he would
introduce himself and, among other things, discuss his family, his interests, and his Christian
faith. Jones would inform his students that “being a Christian was his most defining quality and
state briefly what it means to be a Christian.” Then, on the last day of class, Jones would part ways
by writing the words “richest of fare” on the blackboard and relate those words to a Bible verse,
Isaiah 55:2.
2
In August 2006, following a written complaint from a student concerning Jones’s
practice of making religious statements, the University determined that Jones had violated a
University rule that generally prohibited the discussion of “controversial material in the classroom.”1
Dr. Charles McCamant, then the chair of the department of computer science, spoke with Jones
about his religious statements in class. McCamant informed Jones that his religious statements
violated University policy, that they were considered inappropriate, and that he should cease
immediately. According to Jones, he repeatedly requested clarification from the University on its
policy and on exactly what he could say and do in the classroom that would conform with this
policy. However, Jones contends that the University failed to provide any further explanation or
clarification. Jones continued his practice of making religious statements at the beginning and end
of each semester.
In November 2006, McCamant conducted performance evaluations of his faculty
members, including Jones. Although McCamant noted on Jones’s evaluation form in the “comments”
section that Jones had been informed that he was in violation of University rules regarding
his religious statements in class, McCamant marked Jones’s performance as “satisfactory” and
recommended that Jones be reappointed for the following academic year. In conformance with
McCamant’s recommendation, Jones was reappointed for the upcoming 2007–2008 academic year.
According to the University, soon after his November 2006 evaluation, Jones’s
performance in the classroom declined and he engaged in behavior that demonstrated a lack of
collegiality and disrespect for University protocol, aside from the issue of his continued practice of
1
We wonder where discussion of “controversial material” is appropriate, if not in a
university classroom, but that is not the issue before us.
3
making religious statements.2 In February 2008, the subsequent chair of the department, Tim Roden,
conducted Jones’s performance evaluation based on the prior academic year. In this evaluation,
Roden expressed concern over what he considered to be poor student evaluations and acts of
insubordination. Roden recommended that Jones not be reappointed for the following academic
year. Upon reviewing the evaluation and supporting documentation forwarded by Roden, on
June 13, 2008, the University president issued to Jones a non-reappointment letter and termination
contract for the 2008–2009 academic year, meaning that the 2008–2009 academic year would
be Jones’s final year at the University.
On December 10, 2008, Jones filed a “complaint of discrimination” with the EEOC
and the Texas Workforce Commission and, upon receiving a “right to sue” letter, filed suit against
the University. Among other claims, Jones asserted that the University’s actions constituted religious
discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor
2
According to the University, discussions regarding Jones’s employment continued throughout
the spring of 2007 between University Provost, Dr. Donald Coers, and McCamant. In September
2007, McCamant stepped down as department chair and was replaced by Tim Roden. However, just
prior to the relinquishment of his duties, McCamant recommended to Coers that Jones be issued a
termination contract for the 2007–2008 academic year. According to the University, “McCamant
was particularly concerned that Jones wanted to buy out his teaching contract and only do research.”
Acting on McCamant’s and Coers’s recommendation, University President, Dr. Joseph Rallo, then
sent a letter advising Jones that the 2007–2008 academic year would be his last year at the University
and that he would not be reappointed for the 2008–2009 academic year. Jones requested that
President Rallo reconsider the decision not to reappoint him and told Rallo that he believed that the
decision had been based “on discriminatory and/or unlawful reasons.” Rallo agreed to review the file,
and on January 28, 2008, Rallo decided that the evidence was insufficient to support the decision at
that time. Consequently, Rallo rescinded the non-reappointment decision and reinstated Jones as
a tenure-track member of the department of computer science for the 2008–2009 academic year.
4
Code (TCHRA).3 Jones alleged that he was reprimanded and ultimately not reappointed to his
position as a result of his religious beliefs, observances, and practices and that he was treated “less
favorably than other faculty members because of his religion and/or religious beliefs, observances,
and practices.” In addition, Jones also claimed that the University “failed to reasonably accommodate
[his] religious observances and practices by concluding that [he] was in violation of the [University’s]
Rules and Regulations, and further, by prohibiting him from referencing those beliefs, which
assisted his students in understanding his perspective during classroom discussions.”
The University filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court signed an order
granting the University’s motion for summary judgment without specifying the ground on which it
granted relief. Jones then perfected this appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Valence Operating
Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). If a trial court grants summary judgment but does
not specify the grounds for granting the motion, we must uphold the judgment if any of the grounds
asserted in the motion and preserved for appellate review are meritorious. Provident Life & Accident
3
Jones also filed suit for breach of contract, for age discrimination and retaliation under the
TCHRA, for violations of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and for violations
of the Texas Constitution related to religious freedom. Jones’s RFRA claims and breach-of-contract
claims were dismissed by the trial court upon its consideration of the University’s motion to dismiss.
The remainder of Jones’s claims were dismissed by the trial court in response to the University’s
motion for summary judgment. In this appeal, Jones only challenges the trial court’s dismissal of
his religious discrimination claims under the TCHRA. As a result, we do not consider the propriety
of the trial court’s dismissal of Jones’s other claims. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f), (i) (appellant’s
brief must state concisely all issues or points presented for review).
5
Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 216 (Tex. 2003). In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on summary
judgment, we take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant, and we indulge every reasonable
inference and resolve all doubts in the nonmovant’s favor. Id.
DISCUSSION
Under section 21.051 of the TCHRA, an employer commits an unlawful employment
practice if, because of the employee’s religion, the employer “fails or refuses to hire an individual,
discharges an individual, or discriminates in any other manner against an individual in connection
with compensation or the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” Tex. Lab. Code
§ 21.051(1). Additionally, section 21.108 of the TCHRA provides that an employer engages in
religious discrimination if the employer fails to make reasonable accommodations for the religious
observances of its employees. Id. § 21.108. The Texas Legislature enacted the TCHRA, in part, “to
execute the policies of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and its subsequent amendments.”
Id. § 21.001(1). Consequently, when analyzing a claim brought under the TCHRA, we look not only
to state cases, but also to relevant federal law to the extent the provisions of Title VII are analogous.
Quantum Chem. Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473, 476 (Tex. 2001).
Disparate treatment
On appeal, Jones asserts that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on
his claims that his discharge was impermissibly based on religion, see Tex. Lab. Code § 21.051(1),
and that the University failed to accommodate his religious practice, see id. § 21.108. We first
consider whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on Jones’s claim that his
discharge was impermissibly based on religion.
6
Texas courts recognize two alternative methods for proving discriminatory treatment,
such as Jones’s claim of discriminatory discharge. See Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia,
372 S.W.3d 629, 634 (Tex. 2012). First, the plaintiff may prove discriminatory intent by direct
evidence of what the defendant did and said. Id. “Direct evidence is evidence that, if believed,
proves the factor of discriminatory animus without inference or presumption.” Sandstad v. CB
Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893, 897 (5th Cir. 2002). Second, and more typically, a plaintiff may
rely on circumstantial evidence of discrimination. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d at 634. In these cases, we
apply the burden-shifting framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under this framework, discrimination is presumed if the plaintiff
meets an initial burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d at 634.
To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment based on a discriminatory
discharge, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he was a member of a protected class; (2) he was
qualified for the position he held; (3) he was discharged; and (4) he was replaced by a person who
is not a member of the protected class, if he was replaced, or that he was treated less favorably than
similarly situated persons who are not members of the protected class. Id. at 636; Chandler v. CSC
Applied Techs., LLC, 376 S.W.3d 802, 814 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.). If
established, the prima facie case creates a rebuttable presumption of discrimination that the employer’s
actions were motivated by impermissible factors, and the burden shifts to the employer to articulate
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing
Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142 (2000); Garcia, 372 S.W.3d at 634.
Here, the University moved for summary judgment on Jones’s discriminatory-
discharge claim on the ground that Jones could not provide any direct proof of discriminatory intent
7
and could not establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment.4 Jones contends that he was not
required to present any evidence with regard to the protected-class status of his replacement or
his co-workers or with regard to any other element of a prima facie case under the McDonnell
Douglas framework. Jones asserts that he, instead, presented the trial court with direct evidence of
discriminatory intent.
The record before us establishes that Jones is an evangelical Christian and that he was
asked by the University to stop engaging in what he considers a religious practice—sharing his
religious beliefs with others by making religious statements in class. On appeal, however, Jones
does not contend that he produced evidence that he was told by the University that he would not be
reappointed because he is an evangelical Christian or because he holds certain religious beliefs.
Instead, in support of his argument, Jones relies on evidence that the decision not to reappoint him
as an associate professor was based in part on his failure to comply with the University’s request that
he stop making religious statements in class. Primarily, Jones cites Dr. Donald Coers’s deposition
testimony, in which Coers stated that Jones’s religious statements “might have been . . . one of” the
reasons for the decision not to reappoint and that Jones’s refusal to stop making religious statements
in class was a factor “in his recommendation.” In response, the University contends that “any
instruction by [the University] to Jones to refrain from making religious statements in class was not
directed to his religious practice, but rather directed to his practice of teaching.” The University
4
Alternatively, the University asserted that Jones’s claim of discriminatory discharge fails
because “the evidence conclusively disproves that Jones’s non-reappointment was a pretext for
unlawful discrimination.” According to the University, it has “always maintained that Jones was
not reappointed because of his poor teaching evaluations in the fall of 2007, his refusal to follow
lawful and reasonable directives from his department chair, and his poor departmental collegiality.”
8
asserts that, consequently, Jones has offered no direct evidence that the University’s decision to
discharge Jones was discriminatory.
We agree that the evidence cited by Jones does not constitute direct evidence of
discriminatory discharge to the extent Jones’s discrimination claim is based on disparate treatment.
Instead, Jones’s evidence demonstrates, at most, that he was ultimately discharged for failing to
comply with an employment requirement that conflicted with his religious practice and that as a
result, the University, at least potentially, discriminated by failing to accommodate his religious
practice as it relates to his employment. See Tex. Lab. Code § 21.108. This evidence does not
directly demonstrate that the University’s decision to discharge Jones was motivated by the fact that
Jones holds certain religious beliefs or engages, generally, in certain religious practices.5 A claim
for disparate treatment arises from the protected-class status of the plaintiff. See McDonnell
Douglas, 411 U.S. at 801-803. The evidence cited by Jones is not direct evidence that his protected-
class status—as opposed to his refusal to comply with a condition of his employment—was a
motivating factor in the University’s decision not to reappoint him to his faculty position.6 See
KIPP, Inc. v. Whitehead, 446 S.W.3d 99, 107 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied)
5
Jones argues that this same evidence also constitutes direct evidence of the University’s
failure to accommodate his religious practice. However, we express no opinion on whether Jones’s
evidence was sufficient to defeat summary judgment on his failure-to-accommodate claim for the
reasons explained below.
6
In effect, Jones attempts to recast his evidence supporting his failure-to-accommodate
claim as direct evidence of a disparate-treatment claim. As we discuss further in this opinion below,
employers may defeat a failure-to-accommodate claim by showing that the accommodation would
impose an undue burden on the employer. Under Jones’s view of “direct evidence” of discriminatory
intent, every prima facie showing of an employer’s failure to accommodate a religious practice
would necessarily constitute direct evidence of disparate treatment based on a religious practice.
This would effectively eliminate the undue-burden defense.
9
(“Generally, statements that courts have found to constitute direct evidence of discrimination are
insults or slurs made against a protected group.”); cf. Dixon v. Hallmark, 627 F.3d 849, 855 (11th Cir.
2010) (evidence that supervisor told plaintiff, “You’re fired, too. You’re too religious,” was direct
evidence of disparate treatment based on religion). Consequently, to defeat the University’s
summary judgment on his discriminatory-discharge claim based on his religion as a protected class,
Jones was required to present a prima facie case of disparate treatment. See McDonnell Douglas, 411
U.S. at 792.
Jones argues that, even if he did not present direct evidence of discriminatory intent,
he presented evidence sufficient to support a prima facie case of disparate treatment. The University
moved for summary judgment on the ground that Jones could not establish a prima face case of
disparate treatment because he could not present sufficient evidence of one element—“that he was
replaced by someone outside his protected class or treated less favorably than similarly situated co-
workers outside his protected class.” Jones asserts that the trial court erred to the extent it granted
summary judgment on this ground because, according to Jones, he presented summary-judgment
evidence sufficient to demonstrate that his co-workers were not members of his protected group
and were treated more favorably.
In support of his argument, Jones does not assert that he presented the trial court with
evidence that his co-workers were not also Christians. Instead, Jones relies on his own affidavit,
in which he testifies that his four co-workers “never evidenced an active evangelical Christian
core belief to share their faith with others.” Jones’s argument assumes, without any support, that
Christians who share his particular evangelical beliefs are considered to be a “protected class,”
10
separate and apart from Christians in general. In any event, we need not decide this issue because
evidence that Jones had no reason to believe that his co-workers shared his same religious beliefs
is not evidence that they, in fact, did not. See Michael v. City of Dallas, 314 S.W.3d 687, 692
(Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) (explaining that plaintiff cannot establish prima facie case of
employment discrimination through conclusory allegations or subjective beliefs and feelings). In
addition, Jones presented no evidence that the person who replaced him did not also share his
religious beliefs. See Garcia, 372 S.W.3d at 636. Because there is no evidence that Jones was
replaced by a person who is not a member of his same protected class or that his co-workers, who
he contends were treated more favorably, were not also members of the same protected class,
he failed to meet this burden. See id.; see also Chandler, 376 S.W.3d at 814. Consequently, the
trial court did not err to the extent it granted summary judgment on Jones’s claim of discriminatory
discharge based on disparate treatment.
Failure to accommodate
Next, we consider Jones’s argument that the trial court erred in granting summary
judgment on Jones’s claim that the University discriminated against him because it failed to
reasonably accommodate his religious practice. See Tex. Lab. Code § 21.108.
Claims of religious discrimination based on a failure to accommodate are analyzed
under a burden-shifting framework. Davis v. Fort Bend County, 765 F.3d 480, 486 (5th Cir. 2014).
An employee satisfies his initial burden by showing that: (1) he has a bona fide religious belief or
practice that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) he informed the employer of this belief
or practice; and (3) he suffered an adverse consequence for failing to comply with the conflicting
11
employment requirement. Tagore v. United States, 735 F.3d 324, 328 (5th Cir. 2013); Grant v. Joe
Meyers Toyota, Inc., 11 S.W.3d 419, 422-23 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). If
the plaintiff succeeds in meeting this burden, the burden shifts to the employer to show that it
could not accommodate the plaintiff’s religious belief or practice without undue hardship. Grant,
11 S.W.3d at 423.
On appeal, the University does not contend that Jones failed to present evidence
sufficient to demonstrate a prima facie case of failure to accommodate. Instead, the University
argues that Jones cannot rely on a failure-to-accommodate theory to argue that the trial court
erred in dismissing Jones’s TCHRA claims for two reasons. First, the University argues that Jones
failed to timely present his failure-to-accommodate claim to the Texas Workforce Commission, a
jurisdictional prerequisite to filing suit. Second, the University argues that, even if the claim is not
jurisdictionally barred, the University’s request that Jones refrain from making religious statements
in his classes cannot serve as the basis for a failure-to-accommodate claim as a matter of law. We
will first consider the University’s jurisdictional argument.
Under the TCHRA, an employee must file his charge alleging discrimination with
the Texas Workforce Commission within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory conduct. Tex.
Lab. Code § 21.201(a). The timely filing of the complaint is mandatory, and when the defendant is
a governmental entity, the failure to timely file is a jurisdictional bar to suit. Prairie View A & M
Univ. v. Chatha, 381 S.W.3d 500, 514 (Tex. 2012). The University points out that Jones first
contacted the Commission on December 10, 2008, and therefore he is barred from recovering for any
alleged discriminatory actions that occurred prior to June 13, 2008. According to the University,
12
Jones’s failure-to-accommodate claim is based on allegations that the University failed to respond
to requests for accommodation made before and during 2007 and, as a result, the claim is now
jurisdictionally barred.
Under the TCHRA, the 180-day period for filing a complaint with the Commission
begins to run “when the employee is informed of the allegedly discriminatory employment
decision,” not at some later date when the decision comes to fruition or when the employee
discovers his employer’s discriminatory motive. Id. at 500. “This is because it is the discriminatory
employment decision that is made with discriminatory intent.” Id. To prevail on a claim of religious
discrimination based on an employer’s failure to accommodate a religious practice, however, a
plaintiff must demonstrate that he “suffered an adverse consequence for failure to comply with the
conflicting employment requirement.” See Grant, 11 S.W.3d at 422-23. Thus, in this type of case,
the discriminatory act (triggering the 180-day deadline) occurs not when an employee is informed
that he is expected to comply with a requirement that conflicts with his religious practice, but
when the employee is informed of an adverse employment decision made as a consequence of
his failure to comply.
Here, the summary-judgment record demonstrates that Jones was informed that the
University believed that his religious practice conflicted with University policy beginning in 2007.
However, there is no evidence that the University informed Jones that he would be terminated if he
failed to comply, decided to terminate Jones, or otherwise took any adverse action against Jones at
that time. In fact, the University did not discharge Jones until June 13, 2008, when he was sent a
letter by the President of the University, informing him of his non-reappointment for the 2009–2010
13
academic year. Jones timely filed his complaint 180 days later, and consequently the trial court had
jurisdiction to consider the claim.7
Having rejected the University’s argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to
consider Jones’s religious-discrimination claim based on an alleged failure to accommodate his
religious practice, we consider whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor
7
The University cites several federal cases concerning what it characterizes as “analogous
failure-to-accommodate claims” for the proposition that the denial of a request for an
accommodation is a “discrete discriminatory act” that triggers the filing deadline. See Tobin v.
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 553 F.3d 121, 130 (1st Cir. 2009) (explaining that statute of limitations begins
to run on employee’s failure-to-accommodate-disability claim when request for accommodation is
denied because “such a denial is a discrete discriminatory act that, like a termination, a refusal to
transfer, or a failure to promote, does not require repeated conduct to establish an actionable claim”);
Henderson v. Ford Motor Co., 403 F.3d 1026, 1032-33 (8th Cir. 2005) (concluding that failure-to-
accommodate-disability claim was time barred because last refusal to offer the employee “a job she
requested” was outside of limitations period); Elmenayer v. ABF Freight Sys., Inc., 318 F.3d 130,
135 (2d Cir. 2003) (filing period on failure-to-accommodate claim began to run when employer
informed employee that his requested religious accommodation was rejected and not from last time
employee was prevented from observing religious practice). We do not agree that these cases are
determinative in this dispute.
The cases cited by the University arise from complaints that the employee requested a
specific accommodation from a condition of his employment, the request was denied by his
employer, and the employee complied with the condition of his employment without
accommodation. In contrast, here, Jones requested an unspecified accommodation from the
University’s rule regarding “controversial material” in the classroom, the University failed to
respond to his request, and Jones continued to engage in his “religious practice” until he was
eventually notified of his termination more than a year later. In other words, Jones’s failure-to-
accommodate claim is not based on allegations that the University denied his request for an
accommodation and that he suffered an adverse consequence as a result of having to comply with
the University’s rule. We agree that such a claim, to the extent it exists, would be time barred.
Jones’s failure-to-accommodate claim, however, is based on allegations that Jones was terminated
for failing to comply with the University’s rule. See Tagore v. United States, 735 F.3d 324, 329 (5th
Cir. 2013). This is a discrete employment decision that is independently actionable, and as we have
explained, Jones timely filed his complaint regarding that decision. See National R.R. Passenger
Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113 (2002) (ruling that “each discrete discriminatory act starts a new
clock for filing charges alleging that act”).
14
of the University on this claim. To move for summary judgment on the ground that there is no
evidence to support a claim, the movant is required “to state the elements to which there is
no evidence.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i). The rules of civil procedure do not authorize conclusory
motions or general no-evidence challenges to an opponent’s case. Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish,
286 S.W.3d 306, 310 (Tex. 2009).
In its motion for summary judgment, the University did not specifically reference
Jones’s failure-to-accommodate claim or identify any elements of a prima facie case, only that
“Jones cannot make out his discrimination and/or retaliation claims (age and religion)” and that
“he presents no evidence that he ever complained [of] religious discrimination prior to his non-
reappointment.” Upon review of the University’ s motion, we conclude that the substance of the
motion establishes that the University did not move for summary judgment on Jones’s failure-to-
accommodate claim on the ground that there was legally insufficient evidence to support the claim.
In its appellate brief, the University does not contend that the trial court’s summary
judgment was proper on Jones’s failure-to-accommodate claim on the ground that Jones failed to
present legally sufficient evidence of a prima facie case. Instead, the University argues that (1) there
is no evidence that the University ever asked Jones to refrain from making religious statements
except during instruction periods and (2) this admonishment cannot serve as the basis for Jones’s
failure-to-accommodate claim because to allow Jones to continue making such statements would
have put the University at risk for a claim of a violation of the Establishment Clause. In effect, the
University argues that the risk of an Establishment Clause violation posed an undue burden on
the University, such that it could not accommodate Jones’s religious practice as a matter of law.
15
The University did not, however, assert in its motion for summary judgment that it could not
accommodate Jones’s religious practice without undue hardship, an issue that it would have had
the burden to establish. See Tex. Lab. Code § 21.108.
“It is well settled that a trial court cannot grant a summary judgment motion on
grounds not presented in the motion.” Timpte Indus., 286 S.W.3d at 310. Because the University
did not move for summary judgment, traditional or no-evidence, on Jones’s claim that the University
failed to accommodate his religious practice under section 21.108 of the TCHRA, the trial court
erred to the extent it granted summary judgment on this claim.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment with respect to Jones’s claim of disparate
treatment. Because the trial court erred to the extent it granted summary judgment on Jones’s
failure-to-accommodate claim, we reverse this portion of the trial court’s judgment and remand the
case to the trial court for further proceedings.
__________________________________________
Scott K. Field, Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field
Affirmed in part; Reversed and Remanded in part on Motion for Rehearing
Filed: June 10, 2016
16