The Texas Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss claims made by Shondalyn McIntyre against Assessment Intervention Management, LLC (AIM). The court ruled that McIntyre did not exhaust her administrative remedies before filing her lawsuit, which included allegations of discrimination and tortious interference. The ruling affects McIntyre's ability to seek legal recourse against AIM for her claims.

In the case, docket number 04-25-00349-CV, the court's opinion was delivered on July 29, 2026, by Justice Irene Rios, with Justices Lori I. Valenzuela and Velia J. Meza also sitting on the panel. The court affirmed the trial court’s order granting AIM’s plea to the jurisdiction and a motion to dismiss under Rule 91a.

The dispute began when McIntyre, who worked as a Special Education Coordinator for AIM, alleged that she faced discrimination and retaliation from two of AIM’s employees. After working with AIM for nearly two years, McIntyre requested a change in her employment status from independent contractor to employee, which AIM denied. Following a series of communications regarding her work hours and responsibilities, AIM terminated her contract, citing client feedback.

McIntyre filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before suing AIM under the Texas Labor Code. She claimed to have filed her lawsuit within the required two-year period. However, AIM countered that McIntyre failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC), which is necessary for filing a lawsuit under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA).

The court noted that McIntyre's EEOC right-to-sue letter indicated she was not in an employment relationship with AIM, and there was no evidence that her EEOC charge was considered a dual filing with the TWC. AIM provided records showing no responsive documents related to McIntyre's charge existed with the TWC. The court concluded that McIntyre did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements needed to proceed with her claims.

In addition to the jurisdictional issue, McIntyre also challenged the dismissal of her tortious interference claim against AIM. The court explained that to establish tortious interference, a plaintiff must show an existing contract subject to interference and that the interference was willful and intentional. However, the court found that McIntyre's allegations did not demonstrate that AIM, through its agents, acted in a way that would constitute tortious interference.

The court stated, “A party cannot tortiously interfere with its own contract,” and since McCurry and Fallis acted in accordance with AIM's interests, AIM could not be liable for tortious interference. As a result, the court upheld the dismissal of McIntyre’s tortious interference claim.

This ruling has significant implications for employees and independent contractors in Texas. It emphasizes the importance of exhausting administrative remedies before pursuing legal action for employment discrimination claims. Failure to do so can result in dismissal, as seen in McIntyre's case.

The decision also clarifies the standards for tortious interference claims, particularly regarding the relationship between agents and their principals. It reinforces that a company cannot be held liable for interfering with its own contracts, thereby protecting businesses from claims that may arise from internal disputes.

Looking ahead, McIntyre may consider her options for appeal, although details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential next steps. The case serves as a reminder for individuals navigating employment disputes to understand the legal requirements and processes involved in filing claims.