Esperanza Martinez v. ACA Team, LLC, Universal Display & Fixtures Company, Luis Barbero, Joe Battaglia, Francisco De Jesus, Jessica Guerra, Shawn Kerns, and Adolphus Norton

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a of Esperanza Martinez’s claims against a staffing agency, an employer, and individual employees. The court held that Martinez could not hold the staffing agency liable for conduct by the employer’s employees absent allegations establishing the necessary agency relationship or knowledge for retaliation. It further held that the alleged 2023 conduct did not constitute actionable sexual harassment and that Martinez failed to plead facts showing sex-based discriminatory treatment.

Holdings

1. Martinez could not hold ACA liable for sexual harassment or sex-based discrimination based solely on conduct by Universal employees because her pleadings alleged that those individuals were Universal employees and did not allege that they were agents or employees of ACA.
2. Martinez did not state a TCHRA retaliation claim against ACA because she did not plead that ACA knew of her report of sexual harassment.
3. Norton's alleged 2023 conduct did not constitute actionable sexual harassment and could not support a reasonable belief that sexual harassment had occurred.
4. Because Martinez did not plead facts constituting sexual harassment or supporting a reasonable belief that sexual harassment had occurred, her retaliation and failure-to-take-corrective-action claims against the Universal defendants also lacked a legal or factual basis.
5. Martinez did not plead a legal or factual basis for sex-based discrimination because she alleged conclusions that she was treated differently and terminated because of her sex without pleading supporting facts showing that the adverse action was sex-based or that similarly situated male employees were treated more favorably.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Martinez's pleadings stated a legally or factually sufficient TCHRA sexual-harassment, sex-discrimination, or retaliation claim against ACA when the alleged harassing and discriminatory acts were committed by Universal employees and ACA was not alleged to have known of the harassment report.
2. Whether the alleged 2023 conduct by Norton—including schedule-related conduct, telling Martinez she owed him for an exception, and observing her work—could constitute sexual harassment or support a reasonable belief that sexual harassment had occurred.
3. Whether Martinez pleaded sufficient facts to support TCHRA claims against the Universal defendants for sexual harassment, retaliation, failure to take corrective action, or sex-based disparate treatment and discharge.
4. Whether the trial court properly dismissed the claims under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a.1.

Disposition

affirmed