JMJ Acquisitioins Management, LLC v. Terry L. Peterson and Texas Workforce Commission
407 S.W.3d 371
Tex. App.2013Background
- Peterson, employed by JMJ Acquisitions, agreed to reduce salary from $150k to $100k starting Nov 1, 2008; he continued working without wages starting Feb 2009; Barton's promise to pay later accelerated the date wages were due to Sept 25, 2009; Peterson filed a TWC wage claim on Nov 18, 2009 seeking all unpaid wages; TWC awarded $66,000 and JMJ sought judicial review; trial court affirmed the award under substantial-evidence review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the TWC have jurisdiction over pre-180-day wages claimed? | JMJ argues TWC lacked authority for wages due before May 16. | Peterson’s claim was within 180 days of the deferred payment date Sept 25, linking all wages to the claim. | TWC had jurisdiction over all wages because date due was Sept 25. |
| Is there substantial evidence that all wages were due on Sept 25? | JMJ contends evidence shows no definite agreement for Sept 25 and thus no substantial evidence. | Hearing testimony by Barton supports payment date Sept 25 as the due date. | Yes, substantial evidence supports Sept 25 as the due date. |
| Was the amount of wages awarded properly supported by the record? | JMJ asserts only $58,333.38 owed, not $66,000. | Evidence shows 16 pay periods from Feb 6 to Oct 9, 2009, totaling $66,666.72. | Amount supported; $66,666.72 (rounded to $66,000 in award) is substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lunsford v. Direct Communic., Inc., 906 S.W.2d 537 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995) (substantial-evidence standard for TWC decisions)
- Nuernberg v. Tex. Emp’t Comm’n, 858 S.W.2d 364 (Tex. 1993) (agency record may be considered in de novo review)
- Brinkmeyer v. Firemen’s & Policemen’s Civil Serv. Comm’n, 662 S.W.2d 953 (Tex. 1984) (substantial-evidence review allows conflicting testimony; agency decision upheld if reasonable)
- Collingsworth Gen. Hosp. v. Hunnicutt, 988 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1998) (substantial-evidence standard; agency decision presumptively valid)
- Gaspar v. Lawnpro, 372 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (hearsay rules; admissibility context in summary judgment)