579 S.W.3d 354
Tex.2019Background
- Eric Hillman, a former Nueces County assistant district attorney, discovered a witness whose statement tended to exculpate a defendant and informed his supervisor that it must be disclosed.
- His supervisor instructed him not to disclose; Hillman consulted ethics hotlines and decided to disclose; he was terminated three days before trial for "failing to follow instructions."
- Hillman sued the County, the District Attorney’s Office, and the DA in his official capacity seeking damages under Sabine Pilot (wrongful termination for refusing to commit an illegal act).
- The County pleaded governmental immunity; the trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Texas Supreme Court considered whether (a) Sabine Pilot applies to government employers, (b) the Michael Morton Act or other statutes waive immunity, or (c) the Court should abrogate immunity for such claims.
- The Court held that governmental immunity bars Hillman’s suit because neither Sabine Pilot nor the Michael Morton Act waives immunity and the Court will not judicially abolish immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sabine Pilot’s wrongful-termination tort applies such that a county may be sued for firing an at-will employee who refuses to commit an illegal act | Sabine Pilot creates a common-law duty on all employers, so Hillman can sue the County for wrongful termination | Governmental immunity bars suits against counties for common-law torts unless the legislature waives immunity | Sabine Pilot’s tort duty applies to employers generally, but immunity still bars suit against the County absent legislative waiver |
| Whether the Michael Morton Act waives governmental immunity for wrongful-termination claims based on refusal to withhold Brady material | The Act requires disclosure of exculpatory evidence; it must have implicitly waived immunity or else supervisors could punish compliance, defeating the Act’s purpose | The Act contains no clear and unambiguous waiver language; statutes do not waive immunity unless plainly stated | Michael Morton Act does not waive the County’s immunity from Hillman’s Sabine Pilot claim |
| Whether the Court should abrogate/limit governmental immunity to allow Sabine Pilot claims against government employers | Judicial abrogation is necessary to provide remedies and enforce Brady/Michael Morton protections | Abrogation is a legislative policy choice; judicially abolishing immunity would intrude on separation of powers and risk public fisc | Court declines to abrogate or waive immunity; defers to the Legislature to decide waiver of immunity |
| Whether an ultra vires remedy (prospective relief) is available as an alternative to damages | Hillman’s amici argue ultra vires could be permitted if immunity bars damages | County suggested ultra vires would be the proper vehicle if immunity didn’t apply; issue was not preserved | Court declines to address ultra vires claims here and expresses no opinion (issue not decided) |
Key Cases Cited
- Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985) (recognizes narrow exception to at-will doctrine: employer liable if it fires employee solely for refusing to perform an illegal act)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (constitutional duty to disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2006) (governmental immunity preserves separation of powers; courts may define scope but not waive immunity)
- Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) (statutory waiver of immunity must be clear and unambiguous)
- City of Galveston v. State, 217 S.W.3d 466 (Tex. 2007) (strong presumption in favor of governmental immunity)
- State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. 2009) (distinguishing immunity from suit versus liability)
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (subject-matter jurisdiction defeated when sovereign immunity applies)
- Safeshred, Inc. v. Martinez, 365 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. 2012) (Sabine Pilot damages include exemplary damages)
- State ex rel. Best v. Harper, 562 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2018) (narrow limitation on immunity for certain counterclaims under TCPA)