Gonzalez v. Grimm, 353 S.W.3d 270

Gonzalez, a midddle school employee, is alleged to have harassed Grimm by another employee, including revealing Grimm's social security number and threatening disclosures.
Grimm reported the March 8, 2006 incident to her supervisor and the EPISD police department.
A complaint and information charged Gonzalez with harassment; capias issued; prosecution dismissed at prosecutor's discretion.
Gonzalez sued Grimm for malicious criminal prosecution; Grimm asserted immunity defenses under TEA Code § 22.0511, official immunity, and the Coverdell Act, and sought fees under § 22.0517.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Grimm on immunity but did not award fees; Gonzalez appealing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Grimm proved all elements of TEA Code § 22.0511 immunity	Gonzalez	Gonzalez	Immunity not conclusively proven; summary judgment reversed
Whether Gonzalez raised a genuine fact issue defeating immunity	Gonzalez	Gonzalez	Genuine issue not shown; but analysis found insufficiency in proving scope/discretion
Whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on immunity	Gonzalez	Gonzalez	Erroneous; grant reversed and remanded
Whether Grimm was entitled to attorney's fees under § 22.0517	Gonzalez	Grimm	Moot on remand

Chesshir v. Sharp, 19 S.W.3d 502 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2000) (scope/discretion in employment immunity analysis)
Leadon v. Kimbrough Bros. Lumber Co., 484 S.W.2d 567 (Tex.1972) (defining scope of employment as related to employer’s business)
Downing v. Brown, 935 S.W.2d 112 (Tex. 1996) (ministerial vs. discretionary duties; role of judicial review)
City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650 (Tex.1994) (ministerial duties and discretion in public duties)
Kobza v. Kutac, 109 S.W.3d 89 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003) (non-conclusory affidavit regarding scope of duties)
Medford v. Medford, 68 S.W.3d 242 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002) ( unsigned/unsworn statements cannot support summary judgment)