523 S.W.3d 691
Tex. App.2017Background
- Jefferson County and several precinct constables entered a 2013–2014 collective bargaining Agreement with the Jefferson County Deputy Constables Association that referenced Chapter 174 (FPERA) and provided a two‑week window to demand binding arbitration of suspensions/terminations.
- Victor Stines, a deputy constable (Precinct 1), alleged hostile work environment, suspension and termination in 2014 and sought to invoke Article 25’s arbitration clause; County refused, claiming untimeliness and that deputy constables are not covered by FPERA.
- Stines sued the County seeking (1) declaratory judgment that he can compel arbitration under the Agreement, (2) mandamus to force arbitration, (3) damages and (4) attorney’s fees under the DJA. He asserted statutory waiver theories (Chapter 174) and contract/acceptance‑of‑benefits theories.
- County filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity and arguing FPERA does not apply to deputy constables; the trial court denied the plea, construed Stines’s petition as seeking a declaration on Chapter 174’s applicability, and ordered arbitration.
- On appeal, the appellate majority reversed: it held the DJA does not waive immunity for contract‑enforcement claims, concluded deputy constables are not “police officers” under FPERA (so Chapter 174 does not apply or waive immunity), and rejected contract or conduct‑based waivers of immunity; it rendered judgment dismissing for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DJA waives the County’s immunity for Stines’s declaratory/mandamus/fee claims | Stines: DJA permits declaration of rights and ancillary relief; section 37.006(b) and related DJA provisions waive immunity for this suit | County: DJA’s waiver is limited to challenges to the validity of statutes/ordinances; plaintiff actually seeks to enforce a contract (impermissible control of state action) | Court: DJA does not waive immunity here; declaratory/mandamus claims seek enforcement of contract and are barred absent statutory waiver (reversed trial court) |
| Whether Chapter 174 (FPERA) waives immunity and applies to deputy constables | Stines: Agreement references Chapter 174; sections 174.008/174.251/174.252 waive immunity and authorize judicial enforcement | County: Deputy constables are not “police officers” under FPERA; FPERA arbitration provisions govern collective‑bargaining impasses, not contract arbitration; FPERA therefore does not apply or waive immunity | Court: Deputy constables do not serve in “the police department” for FPERA’s purposes; Chapters 174 waivers do not apply to Stines’ claims (FPERA does not waive immunity here) |
| Whether the County contractually waived immunity by incorporating Chapter 174 or agreeing to arbitration | Stines: Contract language incorporating Chapter 174 binds County to statutory waiver and arbitration remedies | County: A political subdivision cannot, by private contract, waive immunity from suit; only the Legislature can do so | Court: Parties cannot, by contract, waive a governmental entity’s immunity from suit; contract language does not overcome immunity |
| Whether the County waived immunity by conduct/accepting benefits under the Agreement | Stines: County accepted services and benefits and then refused arbitration — conduct should estop County from asserting immunity | County: No recognized waiver‑by‑conduct for breach‑of‑contract suits absent extraordinary facts; immunity not waived by mere acceptance of benefits | Court: No waiver‑by‑conduct here; Texas Supreme Court precedent disfavors creating such an exception; facts not extraordinary — immunity not waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2006) (contracting governmental entities waive liability but retain immunity from suit absent legislative waiver)
- Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. 2003) (governmental immunity protects political subdivisions from suit)
- IT‑Davy, Inc. v. Raven, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (only the Legislature can waive sovereign immunity; suits to impose contractual liability are barred absent legislative consent)
- Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2011) (DJA’s waiver is limited; DJA does not waive sovereign immunity when plaintiff seeks declarations of rights under statute)
- Texas Educ. Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432 (Tex. 1994) (DJA waives immunity for suits challenging validity of statutes or ordinances—but later cases limit Leeper’s scope)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra vires claims for prospective relief against officials do not implicate governmental immunity)