El Paso Independent School District v. McIntyre
457 S.W.3d 475
Tex. App.2014Background
- Michael and Laura McIntyre withdrew several children from private school and began homeschooling; district received complaints and investigated after concerns about the adequacy of instruction.
- Attendance officer Mark Mendoza sought verification of the homeschooling curriculum; the McIntyres refused to provide curriculum or sign verification forms and cited counsel and HSLDA letters instead.
- Mendoza filed Class C truancy complaints stating the McIntyres "has not met home school verification requirements;" the assistant district attorney later dismissed the complaints.
- The McIntyres sued EPISD, the former superintendent, and Mendoza for damages and declaratory/injunctive relief under state and federal law (including TRFRA and §1983 claims); some defendants and claims were later dismissed or conceded.
- Trial court denied several defendants' jurisdictional and immunity motions; on accelerated interlocutory appeal the court reviewed jurisdiction (exhaustion of administrative remedies), election-of-remedies (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §101.106), and Mendoza’s qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-suit notice under TRFRA | McIntyres complied / or issue not disputed | District argued no pre-suit notice was given | McIntyres conceded; court sustained District’s plea and dismissed TRFRA claim in District’s favor |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies (state-law claims) | McIntyres said claims were pure legal questions or judicial intervention (truancy filings) excused exhaustion | District argued Education Code/admin policy required exhaustion before suit | Court held administrative remedies apply, factual disputes exist, no exception; dismissed state-law claims against District for lack of jurisdiction |
| Election of remedies under §101.106 (claims against employees vs. district) | McIntyres claimed they did not seek state-law damages from Mendoza | District/employees argued plaintiff sued both and sought damages, triggering §101.106(e)/(f) dismissal of employees | Court concluded pleadings sought damages and dismissed state-law claims against employees under §101.106 |
| Qualified immunity re: §1983 claims against Mendoza | McIntyres argued Mendoza violated constitutional rights (due process, equal protection, free exercise) by filing fabricated/unsupported complaints | Mendoza argued he acted within statutory authority, investigations permitted by Leeper, and reasonable in light of law; thus entitled to qualified immunity | Court found no clearly established constitutional violation, investigations authorized by statute and Leeper; granted Mendoza qualified immunity and dismissed federal claims against him |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Education Agency v. Leeper, 898 S.W.2d 432 (Tex. 1994) (home schools can qualify as private/parochial exemption but districts may inquire into curriculum; standardized tests not determinative)
- Mission Consol. Independent Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 253 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2008) (interpretation of §101.106 election-of-remedies framework)
- Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (plea to the jurisdiction standards)
- Texas Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 138 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for reviewing jurisdictional pleas and consideration of evidence)
- Morris v. Dearborne, 181 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 1999) (fabricated allegations by state actor that destroyed family integrity as a substantive-due-process example)
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (balancing test for free exercise challenges to compulsory attendance laws)