Colorado County, Texas, R.H. "curly" Wied, in His Official & Individual Capacity v. Marc Staff
510 S.W.3d 435
| Tex. | 2017Background
- Deputy sheriff Mark Staff (at-will employee) was terminated after an internal investigation prompted by County Attorney Ken Sparks reporting concerns about Staff’s conduct during a recorded traffic encounter.
- Two supervisors reviewed dash-cam footage and prepared a signed "Performance Deficiency Notice (Termination)" identifying three incidents characterized as rude/unprofessional; notice was given to Staff at the time of termination.
- The Deficiency Notice recommended immediate termination but preserved Staff’s right to appeal to Sheriff Wied within 30 days; Sheriff Wied upheld the termination after summary review.
- Staff sued under Texas Gov’t Code §§ 614.022–.023, claiming the statutory process was triggered by Sparks’s complaint and that no written signed complaint by the victim was provided before discipline.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the sheriff; the court of appeals reversed, holding the sheriff violated Chapter 614 by failing to obtain/provide a victim-signed complaint.
- The Texas Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether Subchapter B applies in at-will contexts, whether only citizen/victim complaints trigger it, and whether the Deficiency Notice satisfied the signed-complaint and timing requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Staff) | Defendant's Argument (Wied) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Chapter 614 Subchapter B apply when employment is at-will? | Chapter 614 applies when a termination is based on a complaint of misconduct, even for at-will employees. | Statutory process does not alter at-will status; if employer could fire at will, the complaint is immaterial. | Statute applies when an at-will employer bases termination on a complaint’s subject matter; it does not create a property right or eliminate at-will status. |
| Is a "person making the complaint" limited to the victim? | Only the victim (citizen) may satisfy the signed-complaint requirement. | The term includes other individuals (e.g., county attorney or supervisor) who sign a written complaint. | The plain language does not limit the phrase to the victim; any person may make and sign the complaint. |
| Can an internally generated, signed report satisfy §614.022–.023? | No—an internal report cannot substitute for an external victim-signed complaint in this case. | Yes—an internal signed Deficiency Notice based on investigation can satisfy the statute. | A signed internal Deficiency Notice can satisfy the statute if it provides sufficient detail, is signed, and is provided within a reasonable time. |
| Must a signed complaint be provided before imposition of discipline/suspension? | The complaint must be given before discipline so officer can participate in investigation and defend pre-termination. | Providing a copy promptly after investigation starts (even contemporaneous with suspension) suffices. | The statute requires giving a copy within a reasonable time after filing but does not mandate pre-discipline service; contemporaneous provision here was reasonable and allowed meaningful defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Paske v. Fitzgerald, 499 S.W.3d 465 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016) (discusses scope of Chapter 614 and whether complaints can originate internally)
- Treadway v. Holder, 309 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010) (addresses application of Chapter 614 to allegations regardless of source)
- Guthery v. Taylor, 112 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (construed “person making the complaint” to mean victim in a prior case)
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009) (statutory construction principles; plain meaning controls)
- Merriman v. XTO Energy, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. 2013) (standard for rendering judgment on cross-motions for summary judgment)