AUSTIN, Texas—Under state law, a plaintiff must present direct proof of discrimination to prevail in an age discrimination case when the person is replaced with an older worker, the Texas Supreme Court has ruled.

said Mr. Cawyer, who was not involved in the case.

In its 6-3 ruling Friday in Mission Consolidated Independent School District vs. Gloria Garcia, the court ruled in the 2003 termination of Ms. Garcia, who was let go after working for the school district for 27 years. The 48-year-old of Mexican-American descent filed suit alleging she was discriminated against her based on her race, national origin, age, gender and in retaliation for her participation in certain protected activities.

She was replaced by another Mexican-American woman who was three years older.

A state appellate court said Ms. Garcia could proceed with her age discrimination claim, which was the sole focus of the Texas Supreme Court's ruling Friday.

“This case raises a fundamental question of discrimination law: Can a plaintiff establish a prima facie case of age discrimination when undisputed evidence shows he was replaced by someone older? While the answer may seem obvious, courts in this state and the federal judicial alike are anything but uniform in their response.”

%%BREAK%%

Among cases cited in the opinion are a 1999 ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta Wright vs. Southland Corp. in which the court ruled that replacement by an older worker did not rule out age discrimination because the “replacement may simply have been an ex-post attempt to avoid liability for age discrimination.”

The state Supreme Court concluded that under Texas law, the plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of age discrimination in cases where the replacement worker is older.

“This holding is not meant to suggest that a plaintiff who is replaced by someone older can never survive a plea to the jurisdiction and go on to prove age discrimination to the finder of fact,” the court majority ruled 6-3. “Instead, the plaintiff will simply be limited to the traditional method of proof requiring 'direct evidence of discriminatory animus,'” it said in quoting another case.

The court's rationale is applicable to other categories of discrimination as well, said Russell D. Cawyer, a partner with law firm Kelly Hart & Hallman L.L.P. in Fort Worth, Texas. As a result of the ruling, plaintiff attorneys may file age discrimination cases in federal rather than state courts in Texas, said Mr. Cawyer, who was not involved in the case.