City of Oak Ridge North v. Mendes, 339 S.W.3d 222

Mendes served as city administrator then city manager of Oak Ridge North from 1994 to December 2009, under a 2005 employment contract renewed in 2009.
The contract included a severance provision payable during the remainder of the term if Mendes was terminated without cause.
On December 14, 2009, the City Council voted to terminate Mendes for conduct supporting dismissal.
Mendes sued the City for severance pay, incentive payments from grants, and statutory damages under the Texas Wiretap Statute, among other claims he later withdrew.
The City challenged subject-matter jurisdiction via a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting immunity, which the trial court denied without findings of fact.
On appeal, the court addresses three remaining claims: severance pay, incentive payments, and the Texas Wiretap Statute claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Severance pay: whether waiver of immunity exists	Mendes argues the contract is properly executed and waives immunity under 271.152.	City contends severance violates manager at-will status and not properly executed to waive immunity.	Severance claim remanded with conditional dismissal; immunity not affirmatively shown.
Incentive pay: whether parol evidence defeats waiver	Evidence shows 2002 incentive obligation by council; seeks breach based on that unpaid incentive plan.	No written contract to support incentive payments; parol evidence inadmissible due to integration clause.	Incentive claim dismissed with prejudice; not capable of cure.
Wiretap statute: whether immunity waives claims against a governmental entity	Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 123 waives immunity for wiretap claims.	Wiretap statute language does not clearly express waiver of sovereign immunity for government entities.	Wiretap claim dismissed due to governmental immunity; immunity retained.

Texas Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (establishes de novo review of jurisdiction and pleading sufficiency)
County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. 2002) (jurisdictional pleading standard in teklects against governmental immunity)
Jones v. Texas Department of Transportation, 8 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. 1999) (immunity from suit requires explicit consent; burden on plaintiff)
Koseoglu v. Texas A&M University System, 233 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2007) (opportunity to amend when pleadings insufficient to show jurisdiction)
Sykes v. County of Brazoria, 136 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. 2004) (dismissal with prejudice when claims fall outside statutory waiver)
Taylor v. Texas Dept. of Transportation, 106 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. 2003) (waiver of immunity requires clear and unambiguous language; context matters)
hubacek v. Ennis State Bank, 317 S.W.2d 30 (Tex. 1958) (integration/merger principles in contract analysis)
Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen, 221 S.W.3d 632 (Tex. 2007) (parol evidence and contract integration considerations)
Hous. Auth. of the City of Dallas v. Killingsworth, 331 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (properly executed contracts and authority to sign for entity)