Alphonso Crutch Life Support Center v. Michael L. Williams, Commissioner of Education Holland Timmons, Designee of the Commissioner And the Texas Education Agency
03-13-00789-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 17, 2015

Background

  • Appellant: Alphonso Crutch Life Support Center, Inc. (ACLSC), a school that was legally open but received little or no state funding for extended periods.
  • Appellees: Michael L. Williams (Commissioner of Education), Holland Timmins (designee), and Texas Education Agency (TEA).
  • Procedural posture: ACLSC filed suit challenging the Commissioner's actions; the Third Court of Appeals issued an opinion (Nov. 30, 2015) adverse to ACLSC. ACLSC filed this motion for rehearing arguing the court erred on multiple legal grounds.
  • Core factual/legal dispute: Commissioner Williams and SOAH relied on a later-adopted rule and declined to consider evidence of the school’s lack of funding when deciding to close the school; ACLSC contends that decision was arbitrary, ultra vires, unconstitutional, and contrary to statute.
  • Relief sought by ACLSC: direct judicial review under Tex. Educ. Code § 7.057 and a declaratory judgment on Equal Protection, Due Process, and ultra vires/statutory-excess claims; ACLSC also argues it was not required to identify comparators before pleading equal-protection claims.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
1. Availability of direct court review under Tex. Educ. Code § 7.057 ACLSC: § 7.057 permits direct challenge when agency acts without or in excess of authority or contrary to law. Williams/TEA: Court of Appeals concluded § 7.057 did not provide a basis for direct challenge here. Court of Appeals held ACLSC lacked basis for direct challenge under § 7.057 (this motion contests that ruling).
2. Waiver of constitutional and ultra vires claims ACLSC: agency cannot decide constitutional questions; courts may consider constitutional/ultra vires claims raised later; waiver should not be imposed. Williams/TEA: Court of Appeals held ACLSC waived those challenges. Court of Appeals found ACLSC waived constitutional and ultra vires challenges (motion asserts this was error).
3. Requirement to identify comparators for Equal Protection claim ACLSC: pleading need not identify comparators; multiple legal frameworks (McDonnell-Douglas, Reeves, direct evidence, Olech) allow Equal Protection claims without specific comparator pleading. Williams/TEA: Court of Appeals required identification of comparators and dismissed equal-protection pleading as inadequate. Court of Appeals held ACLSC failed by not identifying comparators (motion argues this imposed improper heightened pleading).
4. Availability of declaratory judgment relief ACLSC: declaratory relief proper to adjudicate constitutional, ultra vires, and statutory-excess claims and to permit discovery into legislative history. Williams/TEA: Court of Appeals ruled ACLSC had no basis for a declaratory-judgment action on these grounds. Court of Appeals held no basis for declaratory judgment (motion requests rehearing to reverse or modify).

Key Cases Cited

  • Lewis v. Metropolitan Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 550 S.W.2d 11 (Tex. 1977) (administrative hearings must afford parties a fair opportunity to prove their case)
  • Gerst v. Nixon, 411 S.W.2d 350 (Tex. 1966) (agency actions subject to judicial review when arbitrary)
  • Barrientos v. Ysleta Indep. Sch. Dist., 881 S.W.2d 159 (Tex. App. 1994) (direct review where agency acted beyond statutory authority)
  • Chastain v. Mauldin, 32 S.W.2d 235 (Tex. Civ. App. 1930) (authority for direct judicial challenge to ultra vires administrative action)
  • Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Sharp, 960 S.W.2d 617 (Tex. 1997) (agencies are creatures of the legislature and lack final constitutional authority)
  • Edwards Aquifer Auth. v. Day, 369 S.W.3d 814 (Tex. 2012) (courts independently review agency actions for lawfulness)
  • City of Dallas v. Stewart, 361 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. 2012) (similar principle on judicial review of agency action)
  • Firemen's & Policemen's Civil Serv. Comm'n of City of Fort Worth v. Kennedy, 514 S.W.2d 237 (Tex. 1974) (judiciary has inherent power to review constitutionality even absent statutory review)
  • Chem. Bank & Trust Co. v. Falkner, 369 S.W.2d 427 (Tex. 1963) (judicial power to consider constitutional claims against administrative action)
  • Reeves v. Sanderson, 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (alternative evidentiary framework in discrimination cases)
  • Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003) (direct evidence can support discrimination claims without comparator)
  • Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (equal-protection claim may proceed on a "class of one" theory)
  • Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (pleading standards do not require detailed facts about comparators to survive dismissal)
  • C.L. Westbrook, Jr. v. Penley, 231 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. 2007) (court may require repleading to cure pleading defects)
  • Hosps. v. Continental Cas. Co., 109 S.W.3d 96 (Tex. App. 2003) (constitutional issues may be raised for the first time on appeal or via declaratory judgment)
Read the full case