Texas Dep't of Public Safety v. Alexander

Sixteen plaintiffsCAlan W. Alexander, Billy Davis, Joseph Randy Dillard, Ruben Duran, Kenny Foster, Maria G. Garza, Gregory Haire, Bobby Harper, Eduardo Jimenez, Dennis D. Land, Danny Lewis, William D. Lord, James S. Lucas, Gary P. McCully, Robert E. Ralls, and Jerry Schwab (Athe plaintiffs@)Csued the Texas Department of Public Safety (TDPS), bringing claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. “37.001-.011 (West 2008), and claims under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), see Tex. Lab. Code Ann. ” 21.051, 21.055 (West 2006). The plaintiffs= claims were based on a November 2001 promotion process in which none of the plaintiffs was promoted. Before the case went to trial, TDPS filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court denied. TDPS appealed the ruling to this court in an interlocutory appeal and filed a motion for stay of trial pending appeal. The trial court denied the motion and proceeded to trial. The jury found in favor of Garza on her gender-discrimination claim and Garza and Ralls on their retaliation claims. The jury also found that TDPS failed to conduct its promotion process in a manner consistent with its policies and procedures. In a final judgment, the trial court ordered that Garza and Ralls recover on their claims and that all the plaintiffs recover attorneys= fees. The trial court also granted declaratory and injunctive relief.

Meanwhile, TDPS=s interlocutory appeal regarding the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction was still pending before this court. In April 2005, we dismissed the interlocutory appeal as moot but noted that TDPS could raise issues relating to the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in an appeal from the final judgment. See Texas Dep=t of Pub. Safety v. Alexander, No. 03-04-00439-CV (Tex. App.CAustin April 14, 2005), available athttp://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Opinion.asp?OpinionID=13648. In May 2005, TDPS appealed from the trial court=s final judgment, and we transferred the documents and records from the interlocutory appeal to the appeal from the final judgment. Because we conclude that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs= claims, we vacate the trial court=s final judgment and dismiss the plaintiffs= suit for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.