Anderson v. Bessman
365 S.W.3d 119
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- UTMB faced mass terminations of faculty due to Hurricane Ike-caused financial exigency after the Board of Regents declared such exigency.
- Rule 31003 governs the process for terminating academic positions for financial reasons and assigns a chain of review from chairs to a committee to the president.
- Provost Garland Anderson instructed department chairs to categorize faculty into groups A, B, and C for termination purposes.
- President Callender directed Anderson and the chairs to prepare a termination list; a six-member review committee evaluated recommendations and the president fired those on the list.
- Several terminated faculty members sued the administrators for tort claims; the administrators moved to dismiss under §101.106(f), which allows dismissal if the suit concerns conduct within the scope of employment and could have been brought against the governmental unit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §101.106(f) applies to dismiss the suit against UTMB administrators. | Plaintiffs allege some acts fell outside scope or authority. | Administrators acted within their duties and under supervisor directives. | Yes, §101.106(f) applies; dismissal warranted. |
| Whether the faculty suit could have been brought against UTMB under the Tort Claims Act. | If within scope, suit could have been brought against UTMB. | Acts were within scope and could have been directed at the governmental unit. | Yes; the suit could have been brought against UTMB under the Act. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (jurisdictional inquiry requires reviewing pleadings and evidence de novo)
- Franka v. Velasquez, 332 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. 2011) (‘could have been brought’ interpretation for §101.106(f))
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (officer authority vs. legal authority; ministerial acts distinction)
- Dictaphone Corp. v. Torrealba, 520 S.W.2d 869 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1975) (scope of employment includes duties performed in service of employer even if motives partly personal)
- Arbelaez v. Just Brakes Corp., 149 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004) (scope of employment includes employer-benefiting acts executed per employer directives)
- Ballantyne v. Champion Builders, Inc., 144 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004) (Board of Adjustment acts within scope when authorized by statute, even if incorrect)