Angela Davis, as President of NEA-Dallas (A Local Affiliate of Texas State Teachers Association), on Behalf of All Affected Members and Named Individuals v. Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education of the State of Texas And Dallas Independent School District, a Public Body Corporate, 590 S.W.3d 80

Background

Dallas ISD adopted a new Teacher Excellence Initiative (TEI) evaluation system in 2014–15; TEI Scorecards issued Sept. 18, 2015 combined three components (teacher performance, student experience, student achievement including STAAR) and reported a final numerical evaluation and Effectiveness Level that affected 2015–16 pay.
Teachers (represented by NEA‑Dallas president Angela Davis) filed a collective grievance on Oct. 2, 2015 (and an amended grievance Oct. 14) within ten district business days of receiving Scorecards, alleging the Scorecards and TEI were arbitrary, unlawful, and violated appraisal statutes and due process.
A DISD hearing officer and a two‑member board subcommittee found the grievance untimely (or denied relief); Teachers appealed to the Commissioner, who adopted the ALJ’s recommendation and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as untimely.
Teachers obtained judicial review in Travis County district court, which affirmed the Commissioner; Teachers appealed to the Third Court of Appeals.
The court of appeals held the Commissioner erred in dismissing the appraisal grievance as untimely (and thus in finding no jurisdiction) because the Scorecards constituted the teacher “appraisal” under Tex. Educ. Code § 21.351–21.352 and §21.352(c) requires annual appraisals (a mandatory requirement). The court affirmed dismissal of (1) a facial challenge to TEI components as untimely and (2) the salary/insurance claim as unpreserved.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commissioner lacked jurisdiction because grievance was untimely (appraisal grievance)	Teachers: Scorecards received Sept. 18, 2015 were the completed appraisals; grievance filed within 10 district business days was therefore timely and raised violations of Texas school law.	Commissioner/DISD: The statutorily contemplated "appraisal" was the summative annual appraisal completed during the school year; components issued piecemeal do not trigger the 10‑day clock; local grievance deadline bars appeal.	Court: Reversed—Scorecards were the appraisal under §21.351–21.352; §21.352(c) is mandatory; substantial evidence did not support finding the appraisal grievance untimely; Commissioner erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether facial challenges to TEI components were timely	Teachers: Even facial challenges to TEI components were not ripe until Scorecards issued; filed Oct. 2 within 10 days.	Commissioner/DISD: TEI policy, rulebook, and trainings were published months earlier; a facial challenge should have been filed within 10 days of learning of the policy.	Court: Affirmed—substantial evidence supports dismissal of facial TEI challenge as untimely.
Whether DISD’s post‑start increase in employee insurance costs (reducing take‑home pay) violated law / constituted an improper salary decrease	Teachers: Increased employee insurance costs after the school year started reduced compensation and violated legal protections (citing Bowman).	Commissioner/DISD: Teachers did not raise insurance/cost‑of‑living issue at the local level; record does not show DISD caused the premium increases (e.g., plan changes or additional dependents could explain increases).	Court: Affirmed dismissal—claim unpreserved at the local level and record fails to show DISD-caused salary decrease.

Key Cases Cited

Tex. Comm’r of Educ. v. Solis, 562 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. App.—Austin 2018) (agency cannot narrow statutory right to appeal to Commissioner)
AEP Tex. Cent. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex., 345 S.W.3d 60 (Tex. 2011) (substantial‑evidence review requires a reasonable basis for agency action)
State v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex., 344 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. 2011) (standards for substantial‑evidence review of agencies)
AC Interests, L.P. v. Texas Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 543 S.W.3d 703 (Tex. 2018) (framework for determining whether statutory deadlines are mandatory or directory)
Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958 (Tex. 1999) (use of "must" generally indicates a mandatory duty)
Tijerina v. Alanis, 80 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (appellate review standard for Commissioner factual findings)
Bowman v. Lumberton Indep. Sch. Dist., 801 S.W.2d 883 (Tex. 1990) (limitations on lowering teacher compensation mid‑term)
BFI Waste Sys. of N. Am., Inc. v. Martinez Envtl. Grp., 93 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (requirements and purpose of motions for rehearing in agency proceedings)