By Professor Robert J. Romano, JD, LLM, St. John’s University, Senior Writer
Alfredo Castillo, a Hispanic male, was hired by the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (“UTRGV”) as the school’s Head Athletic Trainer in December 2017. Mr. Castillo contends that he served in that capacity without incident or controversy up until the time the University decided to hire Chasse Conque, a non-Hispanic white male, as its Athletic Director in August 2019. Mr. Castillo claims that initially Conque only targeted him with comments that “reeked of racial undertones.” However, hostilities intensified in March 2020, when “Conque did not agree with either his (Castillo’s) recommendation to suspend two students or his proposed COVID-19 reentry plan for the university’s student-athletes.”[1]
As a result of the unresolved conflict, Conque terminated Mr. Castillo on May 28, 2020.[2] Mr. Castillo alleges that he wasn’t specifically terminated for the conflict between himself and the Athletic Director, but that the actual reasons for his firing were based on racial discrimination and retaliation. He also alleges that his termination was “part of a larger unwritten plan or scheme” between Conque, the UTRGV president, “and other unknown co-conspirators.”[3] After being terminated, Mr. Castillo filed a suit in the County Court at Law, Hidalgo County, Texas against the University.
As for the former Head Athletic Trainer’s claim of racial discrimination, under Texas law, Mr. Castillo would need to establish that: (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) was qualified for his position, (3) was subject to an adverse employment decision, and (4) was either (a) replaced by someone outside of the protected class or (b) treated less favorably than others who were similarly situated but outside the protected class in order for his case to move forward,.[4]
After being served with the discrimination lawsuit, UTRGV filed a plea of jurisdiction with the trial court, arguing that Mr. Castillo’s complaint, on its face, is legally deficient because its fails to allege that he was either replaced by someone outside of his protected class or treated less favorably than others who were similarly situated but outside the protected class. In other words, Mr. Castillo failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination in his complaint. Therefore, according to UTRGV, the lawsuit needs to be dismissed. Nevertheless, the trial court denied UTRGV’s plea, leading the University to file an interlocutory appeal with the Court of Appeals of Texas for the 13th District.
In its November 9, 2023 decision, the Appeals Court found that although the trial court should have granted UTRGV’s plea with respect to the racial discrimination claim, in doing so, it should have also afforded Mr. Castillo the opportunity to amend his complaint before dismissing the claim outright.[5] The Appeals Court found that Mr. Castillo’s failure to plead necessary facts to support each element of his discrimination claim is a matter of pleading insufficiency, not an incurable jurisdictional defect.[6] Interestingly, the Appeals Court based its decision, in part, on evidence submitted during a previous plea hearing wherein Mr. Castillo testified that his replacement was a non-Hispanic white person and that “similarly situated employees of UTRGV, who were white, received raises and cost of living adjustments” that he did not receive before he was terminated.[7] The Appeals Court determined that either of these allegations, if included in Mr. Castillo’s original complaint, would satisfy the minimal showing to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
As a result, the Appeals Court reversed the trial court’s order denying a University’s plea of jurisdiction. But rather than dismissing Mr. Castillo’s racial discrimination claim outright, it remanded the case back to the trial court with instructions that Mr. Castillo be granted an opportunity to replead his complaint. Regarding Mr. Castillo’s other causes of action including, retaliation and civil conspiracy, the Appeal Court’s concluded that remanding them for further pleading would be futile and dismissed them both.
[1] Univ. of Tex. Rio Grande Valley v. Castillo, No. 13-23-00062-CV, November 9, 2023.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Donaldson v. Tex. Dep’t of Aging & Disability Servs.495 S.W.3rd, 421.
[5] Univ. of Tex. Rio Grande Valley v. Castillo, No. 13-23-00062-CV, November 9, 2023.
[6] Dohlen v. City of San Antonio, 643 S.W.3d 387, 397-98 (Tex. 2022).
[7] Univ. of Tex. Rio Grande Valley v. Castillo, No. 13-23-00062-CV, November 9, 2023.
