Public employment | Deocariza v. Central Texas College District (Tex.App.- Austin 2008)

Conrad G. Deocariza v. Central Texas College District--Appeal from 146th District Court of Bell County, No. (Tex.App.- Austin, June 19, 2008) )(public employment, discrimination) (Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop) Appeal from 146th District Court of Bell County
Disposition: Affirmed

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Conrad Deocariza sued his former employer, Central Texas College District ("CTCD"), alleging that he was denied a promotion and later terminated because he is a Pacific Islander, see Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 21.051 (West 2005), and that he was terminated in retaliation for complaining about discrimination in the promotion. Id. § 21.055 (West 2005). CTCD sought summary judgment on traditional and "no evidence" grounds challenging various elements of Deocariza's discrimination and retaliation claims. CTCD also asserted that limitations barred Deocariza's claims and that the after-acquired evidence doctrine precluded the remedies of reinstatement and front pay and limited any back pay award to the period between February 14, 2004, (the date he was terminated) and October 12, 2004, (the date CTCD learned through discovery that Deocariza had past employment problems that he had not disclosed on his CTCD job applications). (1) The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CTCD without specifying the grounds on which it relied. Deocariza appeals.

Deocariza does not dispute that partial summary judgment was appropriate under the after-acquired evidence doctrine but contends that fact issues preclude summary judgment as to his surviving claim for back-pay damages for the period between February 14 and October 12, 2003. We disagree, and will affirm the district court's judgment.

* * *
CONCLUSION

Because we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment as to all of Deocariza's claims on the grounds discussed above, we need not address the limitations ground presented in CTCD's summary judgment motion. We affirm the judgment of the district court.