Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court Dallas County,
Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-08459.
Justices Lang, Brown, and Whitehill
Elia Bruns sued Dallas Independent School District (DISD) for
disability discrimination and retaliation, the trial court
granted DISD's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
and summary judgment motion. Bruns, appearing pro se, now
asserts two general issues with approximately nine subparts,
arguing that (i) her TCHRA claims "should be upheld, "
and (ii) her retaliation claims do not fail as a matter of
conclude that Bruns' issues are forfeited for
non-compliance with the rules of appellate procedure.
See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. Accordingly, we affirm the
trial court's judgment.
facts are well known to the parties, so we focus only on
those facts material to our disposition here.
sued DISD alleging (i) disability discrimination for denial
of a reasonable accommodation and (ii) retaliation for
engaging in a protected activity, opposing unlawful
disability discrimination, and requesting reasonable
accommodation. DISD subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction and for summary judgment, asserting both
no-evidence and traditional grounds.
requested and received three continuances to respond to the
motions. During the hearing on the third request, the trial
court ordered Bruns to file her response no later than
Tuesday January 12, 2016, and to hand-deliver it to
DISD's office by the close of business that day. Bruns
did not comply.
Bruns filed a three page response with eighty three pages of
documents attached at 4:31 p.m. on January 13, 2016, and
hand-delivered the document to DISD after 5:00 p.m.
objected to the response as untimely filed, objected to the
attached evidence on various grounds, and requested that the
response be stricken in its entirety. The trial court granted
DISD's motion to strike, objections to the evidence,
motion to dismiss, and motion for summary judgment. This
this appeal was filed, Bruns requested and was granted an
opportunity to file an amended appendix. That appendix is the
subject of an appellate motion to strike that we address in a
appellate points distill to two main issues concerning her
TCHRA and retaliation claims. These issues and their various
subparts, however, have not been briefed according to the