Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondent, a principal at a school in the Yesleta Independent School District (ISD), reported various "asbestos hazards" in the school to certain school officials. Eventually, the ISD indefinitely suspended Respondent. Respondent filed this whistleblower claim, alleging that the ISD violated the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (Act) by failing to respond to his asbestos reports. In so claiming, Respondent submitted no evidence showing that the ISD enforced the Act beyond its own internal compliance or that he reported the allegations to anyone other than school officials. The trial court denied the ISD's plea to the jurisdiction, concluding that Respondent produced sufficient evidence of his good faith belief that the ISD's superintendent and trustees were authorized to regulate under or enforce the Act. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and granted the plea to the jurisdiction, holding that a report to personnel whose only power is to oversee compliance within the entity itself is not enough to confer "law-enforcement authority" status. View "Ysleta Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Franco" on Justia Law

Respondent, a firefighter for the Houston Fire Department, suffered an on-the-job injury in 1988. The City of Houston and Respondent entered into a settlement agreement under which Respondent would receive lifetime medical expenses in exchange for releasing the City from any further claims derived from the injury. In 2004, the City stopped paying for many of Respondent's medical expenses, concluding they were not reasonable or necessary. A jury found for Respondent and awarded him $127,500 in damages. The City petitioned for the Supreme Court's review, arguing (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because Respondent did not exhaust his administrative remedies as required by statute; and (2) governmental immunity shielded the City from suit. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed Respondent's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that Respondent failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by statute, and therefore, the trial court was divested of jurisdiction. View "City of Houston v. Rhule" on Justia Law

Respondent was employed by the Canutillo Independent School District as executive director of facilities and transportation. After reporting alleged financial improprieties to the District authorities, Respondent was fired for allegedly making threatening personal phone calls to another man during work hours. Respondent subsequently sued the District for violation of the Texas Whistleblower Act and for breach of contract. The trial court granted Respondent's plea to the jurisdiction. The court of appeals held that the trial court erred in granting the plea as it related to Respondent's whistleblower claim but otherwise affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the court of appeals' judgment, holding that the trial court properly granted the plea to the jurisdiction, holding (1) Respondent's complaints to District authorities were not good-faith complaints of a violation of law to a "law enforcement authority" under the Whistleblower Act, and thus, the plea to the jurisdiction was well taken; and (2) Respondent's breach of contract claim failed because Respondent failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. View "Canutillo Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Farran" on Justia Law

A staffing services company (Company) furnished workers for the City, including Respondent. During the course of his employment, Employee lost an arm working on a garbage truck driven by an employee of the City. Respondent sued the City and its employee (collectively, Petitioners). Petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting governmental immunity based in part on the exclusive remedy under the Texas Labor Code, which provides that recovery of workers' compensation benefits is the exclusive remedy of an employee covered by workers' compensation insurance. The trial court dismissed the case. The court of appeals reversed, holding that a fact question remained whether Respondent, who was paid by Company, was within the specific terms of the City's workers' compensation coverage. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the case, holding that, as a matter of law, the City provided Respondent's workers' compensation coverage, and therefore, Respondent's exclusive remedy was the compensation benefits to which he was entitled. View "City of Bellaire v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Three retired fire fighters (Respondents) previously employed by the Houston Fire Department (HFD) sued the City of Houston to recover allegedly unauthorized deductions from their termination pay upon retirement. Specifically, Respondents asserted (1) the City wrongfully deducted pay for overtime hours that the HFD required fire rights to work after the implementation of a new shift schedule; and (2) the City incorrectly calculated each fire fighter's salary for purposes of paying termination pay upon their retirement. The trial court found in favor of Respondents on both claims and awarded two of Respondents reimbursement for overtime pay and all Respondents additional termination pay for accrued and unused sick and vacation leave. The Supreme Court (1) reversed as to the first claim related to the overtime pay, holding that the two Respondents were not entitled to receive reimbursement for overtime pay; and (2) affirmed as to the second claim related to additional termination pay, holding that all Respondents were entitled to recover additional termination pay. View "City of Houston v. Bates " on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a professor at the University of Houston, sued the University under the Texas Whistleblower Act. Plaintiff alleged that the University retaliated against him for reporting that his supervisor violated state civil and criminal law and internal administrative policies located in the University's System administrative Memorandum (SAM). The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Plaintiff. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim because the SAM's administrative policies constitute "law" under the Whistleblower Act. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding (1) the SAM's administrative rules do not fall within the definition of "law" under the Whistleblower Act because there is no evidence the University's Board of Regents enacted the SAM's administrative rules pursuant to authority granted to it in the Texas Education Code; (2) there was no evidence that Plaintiff had an objectively reasonable belief that his reports of the alleged violations of state civil and criminal law were made to an appropriate law enforcement authority; and (3) therefore, the University's sovereign immunity was not waived in this case. View "Univ. of Houston v. Barth" on Justia Law

Firefighter Jamie Rodriguez was called into a meeting with Fire Chief Larry Hodge for an interview of Rodriguez regarding a personnel complaint Hodge had filed against him. Rodriguez requested to have a representative from the Fire Fighters Association present during the interview. Hodge denied the request and interviewed Rodriguez without Association representation. Rodriguez was subsequently suspended for five days. Rodriguez and the Association later filed a declaratory judgment action alleging that Hodge and the City violated Rodriguez's right to union representation and asserting that such a right was conferred by Tex. Lab. Code Ann. 101.001. The trial court granted summary judgment for Rodriguez and the Association, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 101.001 does not confer on Texas public-sector employees the right to union representation at an investigatory interview that the employee reasonably believes might result in disciplinary action. View "City of Round Rock v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether an employee's report to a supervisor about an employer's or co-worker's "violation of law" is a report to an "appropriate law enforcement authority" under the Texas Whistleblower Act where the employee knows his supervisor's power extends only to ensuring internal compliance with the law purportedly violated. Here the supervisor, while overseeing internal adherence to the law, was empowered only to refer suspected violations elsewhere and lacked free-standing enforcement or crime-fighting authority. Plaintiff filed a whistleblower suit charging that his demotion was in retaliation for reporting the university's violations of unspecified federal patient-care and resident-supervision rules. The lower courts denied the university's plea to the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) for a plaintiff to satisfy the Act's good-faith provision, the plaintiff must reasonably believe the reported-to authority possess the power to enforce the laws purportedly violated or prosecute suspected criminal wrongdoing; and (2) as no jurisdictionally sufficient evidence existed in this case of any objectively reasonable belief in such power, the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Gentilello" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued University, her employer, for a violation of the Texas Whistleblower Act, claiming that her supervisor fired her for reporting to University that the supervisor's daughter had received in-state tuition in violation of state law. Plaintiff contended she satisfied the Act by reporting a violation of law to University's president. The trial court granted the university's plea to the jurisdiction. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the case, holding (1) the Act's restrictive definition of "appropriate law enforcement authority" requires that the reported-to entity be charged with more than mere internal adherence to the law allegedly violated; and (2) the evidence did not support a good-faith belief by Plaintiff that the president had authority to "regulate under or enforce the law alleged to be violated" or to "investigate or prosecute a violation of criminal law." View "Tex. A&M Univ.-Kingsville v. Moreno" on Justia Law

Petitioner suffered an injury while in the course and scope of his employment. The employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier paid medical benefits but contested the extent of Petitioner's entitlement to impairment income benefits. The Department of Insurance's Workers' Compensation Division determined that Petitioner had an impairment rating of twenty percent. The trial court reversed the agency's decision, ruling that Petitioner had no valid impairment rating. The court of appeals affirmed. While Petitioner's appeal to the Supreme Court was pending, the Court held in American Zurich Insurance Co. v. Samudio that the absence of a valid impairment rating that had been submitted to the agency did not deprive a reviewing court of subject matter jurisdiction. In light of its decision in Samudio, the Court then reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions that the court remand the case to the Division in light of its determination that Petitioner had no valid impairment rating. View "DeLeon v. Royal Indem. Co." on Justia Law