City of Hous. v. Hous. Mun. Emps. Pension Sys.
549 S.W.3d 566
Tex.2018Background
- Article 6243h creates the City of Houston pension system (defined-benefit) and gives the pension board broad authority to interpret the statute; the board's determinations are "final and binding."
- In 2011 the City formed local government corporations (HF Corporation, HF Foundation, CC Services) and moved convention employees into those entities; the pension board adopted resolutions treating employees of city-controlled entities as "employees" (members) of the pension system.
- The City stopped providing employee/payroll data and stopped making pension contributions for those corporation employees; the Pension System sued seeking mandamus to compel data production and budgeted contributions and sought relief under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA).
- The City counterclaimed for breach of the meet-and-confer agreement (MCA) and pleaded governmental immunity; the trial court denied the City’s plea to the jurisdiction and the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- The Texas Supreme Court held the Pension System has standing, that Klumb confirmed the board’s authority to classify the corporation employees as members, and that the Pension System may pursue ultra vires/mandamus relief to compel future statutory contributions and TPIA disclosure against the City.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pension System) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue | Pension System (and its board/delegees) can bring suit under art. 6243h §3(g) | Only the board (not the System) has standing | Held: Pension System has standing; board may delegate and System may sue |
| Are corporation employees "members" | Board’s final interpretation makes them "employees" and thus members | Klumb didn’t decide membership; City contends employees are not municipal members | Held: Klumb and statute mean the board validly defined them as members |
| Ultra vires claim to compel contributions | Statute requires City to make contributions; failure is ultra vires and mandamus-eligible; MCA does not bar statutory enforcement | Pension System is trying to enforce contractual MCA terms (not allowed as ultra vires); MCA supplants statute; breach-of-contract is City-immune | Held: Pension System may pursue ultra vires/mandamus to compel future statutory contributions; it cannot use ultra vires to enforce MCA contractual terms but can seek statutory enforcement going forward |
| TPIA mandamus for employee/payroll data | TPIA waives immunity to compel disclosure; City has access to requested info and must produce it | TPIA mandamus only against PIO, not City; City need not obtain data from separate entities; data may be excepted | Held: TPIA mandamus proper against the City (or PIO); City is a "governmental body" and must produce if it has access; suit is proper absent an AG determination of exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Klumb v. Hous. Mun. Emps. Pension Sys., 458 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2015) (board authority to construe statute and define membership is broad and generally unreviewable)
- Heinrich v. El Paso County, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra vires suits may proceed only to enforce ministerial duties and ordinarily provide prospective relief)
- Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2006) (sovereign/governmental immunity bars suit unless waived)
- Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) (policy rationale for governmental immunity and limits on suits for damages)
- Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. v. Emmett, 459 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. 2015) (distinguishing ministerial vs. discretionary duties)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus issues: writ issues to correct clear abuse of discretion when no adequate remedy exists)
- Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791 (Tex. 1991) (mandamus compels ministerial acts when duties are clearly prescribed)
- In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. 2014) (mandamus only when no adequate remedy at law)
- A & T Consultants, Inc. v. Sharp, 904 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1995) (construing TPIA mandamus relief and the proper respondent)