Laverie v. Wetherbe, 517 S.W.3d 748

Wetherbe, a Texas Tech professor, sues Laverie for defamation after being passed over for promotion.
Laverie, senior associate dean, argued she acted within the university’s scope and thus shielded by the Tort Claims Act (TCA).
Trial court denied summary judgment; court of appeals affirmed, requiring conclusive evidence of Laverie serving employer’s purposes.
Texas Tech’s provost relied on Laverie for hiring updates and college oversight; Smith testified Laverie ran the college while the dean was ill.
Laverie reported concerns to Smith, including rumors of a listening device; Wetherbe alleges statements harmed his promotion prospects.
Court holds that no subjective intent evidence is required; dismissal is proper if statements were within scope and could have been brought against the government.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether subjective intent is required for scope of employment	Wetherbe argues Laverie’s motive matters.	Laverie argues scope is objective, not driven by intent.	No; objective scope suffices; intent not required.
Whether Laverie acted within the scope during defaming conduct	Wetherbe contends statements were outside her duties.	Laverie’s role as senior associate dean ties to statements to Smith.	Yes; statements were connected to Laverie’s job responsibilities.
Whether election-of-remedies requires conclusive proof of subjective motive	Wetherbe suggests motive proves non-scope.	Laverie claims motive evidence is unnecessary.	No; motive evidence not required for dismissal.
Whether dismissal should be limited to the applicable defendant or the unit	Wetherbe’s claims could be brought against Texas Tech.	Dismissal should render suit against Laverie in official capacity only.	Claims are against Laverie in her official capacity and dismissed.

Alexander v. Walker, 435 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2014) (election-of-remedies and scope analysis; Restatement cited)
Franka v. Velasquez, 332 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. 2011) (scope/duty under Tort Claims Act; dismissal framework)
Tex. Adjutant General’s Office v. Ngakoue, 408 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. 2013) (immunity and election-of-remedies principle; expedient dismissal)
City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. 1994) (scope of employment; respondeat superior test)
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. 2007) (scope of employment; employee actions within duties")
Minyard Food Stores, Inc. v. Goodman, 80 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2002) (indirect evidence of scope; internal investigation context)