ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman
512 S.W.3d 895
Tex.2017Background
- Travis Coleman, a terminal technician at EMPCo’s Irving facility, was fired after EMPCo concluded he failed to "gauge" tank 7840 on Aug. 20, 2012 but reported that he had.
- Coleman sued EMPCo and supervisors Robert Caudle and Ricky Stowe for defamation, alleging their statements about the incident were false and that documentary evidence supports his version.
- Caudle prepared a Near Loss Report and emailed investigators and supervisors about the missing gauge, and Stowe reported an investigator-obtained handwritten admission by Coleman; EMPCo says such reports are used in safety meetings.
- EMPCo moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), arguing the challenged communications were protected because they were communications "in connection with a matter of public concern" (health, safety, environmental, economic issues).
- The court of appeals held EMPCo failed to show TCPA applicability (characterizing the communications as personnel matters with only tangential public-issue relation); the Supreme Court reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TCPA applies (free-speech prong) | Coleman: statements concern a private personnel matter and lack direct mention of health/safety/environment, so TCPA doesn't apply | EMPCo: communications (emails, Near Loss Report, investigator statements) relate to safety/environment/economic risks from failing to gauge tanks and thus are "in connection with" a public concern | Held: TCPA applies — communications were in connection with matters of public concern (safety, environmental, economic) |
| Whether communications must be public to qualify | Coleman: requires public form or a nexus, court of appeals required more than tangential relation | EMPCo: TCPA's plain language does not require public dissemination; private communications can qualify | Held: No public-form requirement; statute covers private communications about public subjects (citing Lippincott) |
| Whether plaintiff’s denial of defendants’ affidavits defeats TCPA applicability | Coleman: his contrary testimony and contesting affidavit content shows communications are not protected | EMPCo: defendants’ evidence establishes the communications and their connection to public concerns | Held: Plaintiff’s conclusory denial does not prevent TCPA applicability on this record; defendants met burden to show applicability |
| Need to address association prong | Coleman: focuses on free-speech analysis; did not separately defeat association prong | EMPCo: alternatively argued right of association applies | Held: Court need not decide association prong because free-speech prong suffices |
Key Cases Cited
- Lippincott v. Whisenhunt, 462 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. 2015) (TCPA covers private communications about public subjects; no public-form requirement)
- In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (TCPA dismissal procedural framework)
- Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52 (Tex. 2013) (communications about medical services can be matters of public concern)
- Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (1996) (First Amendment principles applied across employment/contract contexts)