Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Three police officers resigned from the city of Elsa’s police force. A local news station reported that the police officers left the force after positive drug tests. The three officers then sued the city, alleging that it had improperly disclosed their medical information made confidential under Texas Occupations Code ��159.001-.010; improperly disclosed information not subject to the Open Records Act as codified in Texas Government Code ��552.001-.353; and had engaged in “deprivations of privacy and confidential rights, privileges and immunities secured by the laws and Constitution of Texas under Article I, Section 8 and 19.” The former officers generally alleged their entitlement to monetary damages for violations of their rights. They also sought equitable and injunctive relief. The city filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court denied. The city then filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of its plea. The 13th Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The 13th Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the plea as to the statutory claims, holding that a “sue and be sued” provision in the city’s charter waived the city’s immunity from suit. The court reversed and remanded the trial court’s denial of the plea as to the constitutional claims. As to the alleged constitutional violations, the 13th Court held that that, to the extent the plaintiffs’ pleadings sought monetary damages, such claims were invalid but that equitable relief could be sought. Concluding that the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief merely asked for an injunction to prevent the city “from taking any further action that would jeopardize” their employment and liberty interests, the pleadings “failed to affirmatively demonstrate the trial court’s jurisdiction over their claim for prospective injunctive relief,” because the plaintiffs pleaded only “mere fear or apprehension of possible injury” in the future. The 13th Court remanded the constitutional claims to the trial court to allow plaintiffs to amend their petition. After the 13th Court issued its decision, the Texas Supreme Court held in its 2006 opinions Tooke v. City of Mezia and Reata Construction Corp. v. City of Dallas that a “sue and be sued” provision in a city charter does not, by itself, constitute an unambiguous waiver of governmental immunity. HOLDING:The court reversed the part of the 13th Court’s judgment affirming denial of the plea to the jurisdiction as to the claims for monetary relief and ordered those claims dismissed. The court then affirmed the part of the 13th Court’s judgment that remanded the claims for injunctive relief to the trial court. The court stated that the 13th Court’s decision regarding sovereign immunity was inconsistent with the Texas Supreme Court’s holdings in Tooke and Reata. Therefore, the court reversed the part of the 13th Court’s judgment that affirmed denial of the city’s plea to the jurisdiction as to the claims for monetary relief. The city further asserted that the 13th Court should have dismissed the claims for injunctive relief rather than remanding those claims to the trial court. The city argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the case, because the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief against the city itself, rather than against the officials alleged to have committed unauthorized acts. But the court found dispositive its 1995 opinion City of Beaumont v. Bouillion. In Bouillion, the court held that although there was no “implied private right of action for damages against governmental entities for violations of the Texas Constitution,” suits for “equitable remedies for violation of constitutional rights are not prohibited.” Thus, the court concluded that the 13th Court did not err by refusing to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief based on alleged constitutional violations. OPINION:Per curiam.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.