refer to Chapter 21 as TCHRA. See, e.g., Prairie View A & M Univ. v. Chatha, 381 S.W.3d 500, 502-03 n. 1 (Tex.2012). 4 . See Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 21.2585(d) (West 2006) (capping the amount of damages that may be awarded for punitive damages and certain categories of compensatory damages). 5 . Before March 19, 2004, complaints were filed with the Texas Commission on Human Rights. See Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 21.0015 & historical and statutory notes. 6 . In Parker, we cited Thomas for the proposition that ''[a] plaintiff may assert a retaliation claim without first filing a new or an amendment to an existing TCHR charge.” 2005 WL 317758, at *3. But this broad statement was dicta in light of our holding that the claimant in Parker had not actually pleaded a retaliation claim. See id. (<HOLDING>). 7 . There was evidence at trial that "R.M.A.”
holding that a plaintiff could not proceed on her procedural due process claim brought under  1983 because she did not show that she had exhausted her state law remedies or alleged that those remedies were inadequate holding that discrimination and retaliation claims are considered distinct types of claims that must be raised independently if the retaliation occurred prior to the filing of the administrative charge holding that administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a claim in court holding that claimant had not exhausted failuretopromote claim nor had she alleged that her failure to be promoted was the result of retaliation for filing the charge holding that plaintiffs claim of reduction in work hours in retaliation for her filing of eeoc charge states a cause of action under  1981