Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—S.D. Tex.: Former school employee, reassigned after filing a grievance, partially advances claims, (Nov 17, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

After filing her grievance, the employee’s supervisor allegedly outright told her that she was receiving a lowered employee evaluation score because she had complained.

Denying a school district’s motion to dismiss a former employee’s Title VII claims alleging discrimination and retaliation, a federal district court in Texas determined that because the employee was reassigned to a nonsupervisory role, this indicated that her new job had significantly different responsibilities from and was a demotion from her former role, which was sufficient to support a claim for discrimination. Further, she experienced an adverse employment action sufficient to support a claim for retaliation when she received a lowered score on an employment evaluation that occurred after she had filed a grievance. However, the court did dismiss her claims for discrimination based on a work from home request, retaliation based on the reassignment, a hostile work environment, and a Section 1983 claim (Holloway v. Fort Bend Independent School District, No. 4:24-CV-2014 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2025)).

The plaintiff is an African-American woman who was employed by the Fort Bend Independent School District for 15 years before she retired in 2022. During her tenure, she served in several roles, including principal of an elementary school and a middle school. When the conduct complained of in this lawsuit began, she was serving as director of the district’s Title I programs.

Racially charged comments. According to the employee, her supervisor demonstrated racial animus and discrimination toward her on several occasions. At a diversity training, the supervisor “joked” that someone planning to attend a family funeral for an African-American staff member needed “to be prepared to stay a long time with all that singing and dancing and stuff.”

In the summer of 2020, a district member’s stepson was killed. He was African American and the employee’s supervisor asked her if she knew what happened and whether the victim was a drug dealer.

Work from home request. On February 17, 2021, the employee’s home flooded in the wake of a storm. She requested to work remotely while her house was undergoing repairs. Although her supervisor ultimately granted her request, she would call the employee on her days off to ask if she was coming in to work and told her she needed to appear in the office from time to time. A similarly situated coworker, a white male, was allowed to work from home for several months without issue.

Grievance, reassignment. That May, the employee filed a grievance against her supervisor and a hearing officer conducted an investigation. The officer said she would instruct the supervisor to stop making inquiries about the employee’s home and directed the district to engage the supervisor in racial and cultural bias training. The officer also recommended that the employee be reassigned.

Performance evaluation. Despite the grievance and the hearing officer’s recommendations, the supervisor was still permitted to conduct the employee’s evaluation in June 2021. The supervisor informed the employee that she was receiving a lower-than-average rating because she had filed a grievance.

Reassignment. A few months later, the employee was reassigned to the role of director of student affairs. The new position had no actual supervisory responsibilities. When the employee arrived at her new workspace, no office had been prepared for her and she was made to work in the hallway for two days. The district filled her previous position with a white female. The employee retired in 2022.

EEOC charge. The employee filed a charge of discrimination against the district with the EEOC on January 6, 2022. She was issued a right to sue letter on January 6, 2024, and she filed suit 88 days later. Presently before the court was her third amended complaint, alleging claims for racial discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under Title VII, and a Section 1983 claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The district moved to dismiss all claims.

Statute of limitations. In its motion to dismiss, the district argued that any incidents alleged in the employee’s complaint occurring before March 12, 2021, should be barred by the 300-day statute of limitations.

With regard to the hostile work environment claim, the employee alleged that part of that claim involved her reassignment to a nonsupervisory role and being forced to work in a hallway. The reassignment happened within the 300-day window, and any incidents occurring before this window could be properly considered for determining the district’s liability under the hostile work environment claim, said the court. The employee’s discrimination claim based on the reassignment was also timely filed.

As to her retaliation claim, this was based on events that occurred after she filed a grievance in May 2021, and thus fell within the statutory window. However, the supervisor’s alleged discriminatory response to the employee’s work from home request occurred in February 2021 and was thus not timely filed. Accordingly, the employee’s claim for discrimination after asking to work remotely was dismissed with prejudice.

Exhaustion. Next, the court considered whether the employee had exhausted her administrative remedies. In the narrative portion of her EEOC charge, the employee described her supervisor’s statement about the African-American funeral, the district’s investigation and response to her grievance, the supervisor’s comment that the employee was receiving a lower performance score because of the grievance, and the employee’s reassignment to a nonsupervisory role.

Construing the charge in the broadest possible sense, the court found the scope of the charge could be read to include claims for discrimination based on race, a hostile work environment, and retaliation. Although the employee did not mention having to work from a hallway or the supervisor’s statements about her colleague’s stepson, both allegations related to and supported her hostile work environment claim. Further, the allegations about working from the hallway related to her discrimination and retaliation claims. As such, these allegations did not give rise to new claims under Title VII, and the district’s motion to dismiss based on failure to exhaust was denied.

Discrimination. Turning to the employee’s claim for Title VII discrimination, the district argued that her reassignment was not an adverse employment action and was a remedy granted by the hearing officer in response to her grievance. The court was not moved.

The employee’s allegation that she was reassigned to a nonsupervisory position indicated that her new job had significantly different responsibilities from and was a demotion from her former role, observed the court. Taking these allegations as true, this was sufficient to show that she had suffered an adverse employment action. Accordingly, the district’s motion to dismiss the employee’s claim for discrimination based on her reassignment was denied.

Retaliation. As to the employee’s claim for Title VII retaliation, the district contended that she failed to state a cognizable claim because: (1) filing a grievance did not constitute a protected activity; (2) she did not suffer an adverse employment action; and (3) she could not show a causal connection between the filing of the grievance and the alleged adverse employment action. The court addressed each argument in turn.

Protected activity. First, the court noted that the employee’s complaint did not go into detail about the content of her grievance. However, she did show that the grievance was filed, at least in part, in response to the supervisor’s statement about African-American funerals. This was enough for the court to conclude that she had shown a reasonable belief that the employment practices she opposed in her grievance violated Title VII.

Adverse employment action. Second, as previously discussed, the employee pled sufficient facts to plausibly show that her reassignment qualified as an adverse employment action. She also alleged that her lower evaluation score constituted an adverse employment action. According to the employee, her supervisor outright said that she was receiving a lower score because she had filed a grievance, an action that, if true, would dissuade a reasonable worker from making a charge of discrimination. Thus, she had alleged sufficient facts to show two adverse employment actions in the context of her retaliation claim.

Causal connection. Finally, the court addressed the district’s claim that there was no causal connection between the alleged protected activity and adverse employment action. Because the supervisor allegedly told the employee her lowered performance score was based on her filing a grievance, this was sufficient to show a causal connection between the evaluation and her protected activity, explained the court. However, the employee could not show a temporal closeness between the grievance and her reassignment, which occurred approximately three months after she filed the grievance. As such, the motion to dismiss the retaliation claim based on the performance evaluation was denied, but was granted as to the employee’s reassignment.

Hostile work environment. Next, the court considered the employee’s claim for a hostile work environment. Here, the court found the allegations by the employee did not rise to the level or severity or pervasiveness sufficient to support her claim. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss this claim was granted.

Section 1983. Lastly, the court directed its attention to the employee’s Section 1983 claim. Here, the court found the employee did not allege any facts showing that the district’s final policy maker had acted with deliberate indifference in maintaining an unconstitutional policy causing the employee’s injury. As such, the court granted the district’s motion to dismiss this claim.

The case is No. 4:24-CV-2014.

Judge: Crane, R.

Attorneys: Kendrick E. Bradley (K. E. Bradley Law) for Diedre Holloway. Ryan Michael Pacher (Robinson & Roalson) for Fort Bend Independent School District.

Companies: Fort Bend Independent School District

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination IndividualRights Procedure PublicEmployees Retaliation TexasNews