Supreme Court
Tex. Tech Univ. Health Scis. Ctr. v. Martinez
- Case number: 22-0843
- Legal category: Government Immunity
- Subtype: Texas Commission on Human Rights Act
- Set for oral argument: November 30, 2023
Case Summary
The issue is whether certain university entities are immune from Martinez’s age-discrimination suit under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act.
In 2008, Martinez began working for the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center as Senior Assistant to the then-President of the Center. Martinez was promoted to Chief of Staff the following year and continued serving in that position through Dr. Ted Mitchell’s appointment as President of the Center in 2010, as well as his dual appointment as Chancellor of the Texas Tech University System in early 2019. Martinez’s employment was formally terminated in June 2019, shortly after Mitchell had sent an e-mail to Martinez and others in May 2019, which discussed the Texas Tech University Board of Regents’ expression of interest in “succession planning” following the results of an age-analysis of the President’s executive council.
After receiving a Notice of Right to Sue from the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, Martinez filed an action for employment discrimination under the TCHRA, naming the Center, the Board of Regents, Texas Tech University, and the Texas Tech University System as defendants. The university entities jointly filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that the TCHRA’s waiver of sovereign immunity was inapplicable because Martinez did not qualify as their indirect employee under Texas caselaw. The trial court denied the plea to the jurisdiction and the university entities filed an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of the plea to the jurisdiction for all the university entities except Texas Tech University.
The remaining university entities filed a petition for review, which the Supreme Court granted.
Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case. Links to the full case documents are included above.