Should an employer be required to create anti-discrimination department?

Even if an employer trained its employees and made an anti-discrimination department as requested by its former worker, this would not remedy the discrimination and wrongful termination that he allegedly suffered, a Texas court recently said.

The plaintiff worked as an adjunct instructor for the Houston Community College. In 2020, he sued the defendant, a professor at the college, in his official capacity as an administrative employee.

The defendant committed an ultra vires act – or an act beyond his legal power or authority – when he terminated the plaintiff based on his race and color in December 2018, the plaintiff alleged.

The plaintiff demanded that the college create an internal anti-discrimination department and train its administrative employees on the legal consequences of discrimination. He did not request monetary damages or reinstatement to his previous position.

Read more: Non-profit sues Kellog's, Target for race-based discrimination

The defendant argued that the court should dismiss the lawsuit because it had no jurisdiction and because the plaintiff lacked standing to sue. The trial court rejected the defendant’s argument. This prompted the defendant to appeal.

The plaintiff made the following arguments before the appellate court. First, the plaintiff claimed that the case raised a genuine factual issue about the defendant’s scope of authority. Second, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant could institute policies and could reinstate him to his former position.

Ex-employee’s suit denied

In the case of Kenneth Hernandez v. Timothy Lee Williams, the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit against the defendant based on lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court decided that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue for three reasons.

First, the plaintiff failed to show that the relief requested from the defendant would remedy the discrimination and wrongful termination that he allegedly experienced, the appellate court said. The plaintiff’s demands for the college to train its employees and to create an anti-discrimination department would not address his alleged injury, the appellate court added.

Second, the plaintiff did not provide evidence demonstrating that the defendant had the authority to implement or to respond to the requested relief, the appellate court said.

On the other hand, the defendant attached the following evidence: an organizational chart, a job description, and a statement from the dean of the Center of Excellence at the college. The appellate court analyzed this evidence as follows:

• The organizational chart, which did not mention the defendant and his position, showed that the defendant was not in a position of authority within the college
• The job description, which listed the defendant’s duties and responsibilities as a professor, did not state that he had the ability to hire workers, to implement policies, or to require employee training on discrimination
• The dean’s statement explicitly said that the defendant lacked authority to require the college to train its employees or to create an internal anti-discrimination department

The plaintiff did not present any evidence to disprove the defendant’s evidence that he lacked authority, the appellate court noted.

Third, the plaintiff failed to establish that he faced a realistic threat that the defendant would harm him in the future, given that the plaintiff was no longer an employee of the college, the appellate court said.