Texas Supreme Court Rejects High School Teacher's Same-Sex Harassment Case
The Texas Supreme Court has rejected a sexual harassment case filed by a female public school teacher after concluding there was no sexual intent or gender motivation behind the alleged offensive comments about her breast size and unwanted touching by female colleagues.
April 10, 2018 at 05:23 PM
4 minute read
A divided Texas Supreme Court has rejected a sexual harassment case filed by a female public school teacher after concluding there was no sexual intent or gender motivation behind the alleged offensive comments about her breast size and unwanted touching by female colleagues.
Catherine Clark, a former coach and physical education teacher in the Alamo Heights Independent School District, sued the district for discrimination and retaliation after she claimed she was fired for reporting same-sex harassment.
Clark alleged that a female colleague frequently used vulgar language around her, commenting on her “enormous” breasts and telling her “I will think of you next time I am f—cking.” Clark also alleged that two female colleagues grabbed her behind during a group photo.
According to the court's majority opinion, Clark filed several complaints with her supervisor during the 2008-09 school year. She later requested and took leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The school investigated Clark's complaints and later determined there was no evidence of retaliation, and that Clark was responsible for any difficulties she had with co-workers, the opinion noted.
When she returned to work, Clark was transferred away from her alleged harassers, but continued to have conflicts with co-workers and admitted to lying about an incident involving a violation of state standardized-testing protocols, according to the court. Clark was terminated in 2009, prompting her to file the sexual-harassment and retaliation claims against the district.
The district responded to the suit by filing a summary judgment motion attaching proof of Clark's unsatisfactory job performance and contending that she had no evidence that the alleged objectionable behavior against her was “gender based.”
The trial court and San Antonio's Fourth Court of Appeals both rejected the district's summary judgment motion, finding that a significant number of the comments Clark objected to were gender-motivated because they related to the fact that she is female. The district then appealed the case to the Texas Supreme Court.
In her majority opinion, Justice Eva Guzman dismissed Clark's claims after concluding they were not gender-based.
“The dispositive issue on appeal is whether Clark raised a fact issue … that the offending conduct was based on her gender,” Guzman wrote. “Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Clark, her working environment was undoubtedly harassing. But based on Clark's own version of events, which provides vital context that cannot be ignored in a legal-sufficiency review, a jury could not reasonably conclude that the alleged harassment was motivated by her gender.”
Guzman also noted that Clark had presented no evidence that sexual desire motivated her alleged harassers, none of whom is known to be homosexual.
“Sexually-tinged comments may be motivated by other reasons, such as personal animus, jealousy or the desire to irate or bully,” Guzman wrote.
Justice Jeff Boyd, joined by Justice Debra Lehrmann, dissented, concluding that a reasonable juror could find that Clark's work environment was “objectively hostile or abusive.” And considering all of the circumstances of her case, a reasonable juror could also find that Clark was harassed if one of the harassers was a hypothetical male named “Andy,” Boyd noted.
“[A] reasonable juror could find that the principal and the District retaliated against Catherine because she summoned the courage to complain about Andy's sexual improprieties and harassment. But could a reasonable juror reach those same conclusions if, as in this case, the harasser was a woman named Annie instead of a man named Andy?” Boyd wrote.
“If Clark's harasser had been a male—the hypothetical 'Andy' described above—this evidence would undoubtedly permit a reasonable juror to conclude that Clark suffered that type of harassment 'because' she is a woman,” Boyd concluded in his dissent.
Robert Schulman, a partner at San Antonio's Schulman, Lopez, Hoffer & Adelstien who represents the school district in the case, is pleased with the decision.
“It's the result of a long process and we certainly agree with the decision of the majority that Alamo Heights did not retaliate against this employee,” Schulman said.
Brendan McBride, a San Antonio lawyer who represents Clark, did not immediately return a call for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEversheds Sutherland Adds Hunton Andrews Energy Lawyer With Cross-Border Experience
3 minute readEx-Marathon General Counsel Takes Legal Reins of Another Energy Company
After Nearly 2 Decades in the Role, Longtime Haynes and Boone General Counsel Passes the Baton
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1SDNY US Attorney Damian Williams Lands at Paul Weiss
- 2Litigators of the Week: A Knockout Blow to Latest FCC Net Neutrality Rules After ‘Loper Bright’
- 3Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 4Norton Rose Sues South Africa Government Over Ethnicity Score System
- 5KMPG Wants to Provide Legal Services in the US. Now All Eyes Are on Their Big Four Peers
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250