to Esparza’s claims for disparate pay, hostile work environment, and retaliation, we conclude the trial court did not err in granting UTEP’s plea to the jurisdiction. Accordingly,, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Esparza’s claims for disparate pay, hostile work environment, and retaliation. 1 . 1 Because TCHRA was enacted in part to "provide for the execution of the policies of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its subsequent amendments,” we look to relevant federal law for guidance when the relevant provisions of Tide VII are analogous. See Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 21.001(1); San Antonio Water Sys., 461 S.W.3d at 136-37; Auto-Zone, Inc. v. Reyes, 272 S.W.3d 588, 592 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam). 2 . See, e.g., Breaux v. City of Garland, 205 F.3d 150, 158 (5th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Singletary v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 423 F.3d
holding a police officer suffered no adverse employment action where he was temporarily placed on paid administrative leave holding that employee does not suffer adverse employment action when placed on paid administrative leave pending investigation and citing cases holding that suspension with pay was not adverse employment action holding that the plaintiffs placement on paid administrative leave constituted an adverse action for purposes of a first amendment retaliation claim holding that termination is an adverse employment action