10-0353 Prairie View A&M University v. Diljit K. Chatha from Waller County and the First District Court of Appeals, Houston For petitioner: Beth Klusmann, Austin For respondent: Ellen Sprovach, Houston The issue is whether the 180-day limitations on an employment-discrimination suit under the Texas Commission in Human Rights Act runs from the alleged discriminatory act or the last paycheck resulting from that act. In this case Chatha sued, alleging pay discrimination for her position as a full professor. She initially was denied the promotion, but promoted after she complained and applied again. But she alleged her pay was not appropriate for the promotion. Prairie View moved to dismiss on a jurisdictional plea because Chatha's discrimination complaint to administrative agencies was beyond the 180-day statutory window for when the discriminatory practice - her promotion with alleged inadequate pay - "occurred." Under a federal amendment to the federal statute that the state Human Rights Act follows in substance, occurred is defined as including the discriminatory effects of an employer's decision. That leaves a question whether the Texas statute of limitation must follow the federal amendment. The trial court denied the university's plea and the appeals court affirmed. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court's staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court's opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

06-0422 Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. and Samuel Alvarado v. Michael Sevcik and Cathy Loth from Waller County and the 13th District Court of Appeals, Corpus Christi/Edinburg For petitioners: Thomas C. Wright, Houston; Russell H. McMains, Corpus Christi For respondents: David W. Holman, Houston The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issue of whether gross sales evidence admissible in personal-injury case. Among principal issues in this personal-injury case are (1) whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the defendant company's gross sales when plaintiffs were not seeking punitive damages and (2) whether the appeals court erred by modifying an award for past medical expenses. Sevcik and Loth sued Reliance and its truck driver, Alvarado, over a collision that left Sevcik with physical injuries and Loth with permanent brain injury. At trial the judge rejected Reliance's attempt to show how much Loth earned before the accident, but allowed Loth to introduce evidence of Reliance's gross sales. On appeal Reliance argues that the gross sales testimony prejudiced the jury's damages awards. The court of appeals reduced an award for Loth's past medical expenses by $6,000, but otherwise affirmed damages Reliance challenged.