Marc Staff v. Colorado County , Texas Sheriff R. H. "Curly " Wied, in His Official & Individual Capacity
470 S.W.3d 251
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Marc Staff, a Colorado County deputy, was terminated effective April 28, 2010 after an internal review of in-car video prompted by Colorado County Attorney Ken Sparks.
- Sparks alerted the Sheriff’s Office and provided a DVD; he did not submit a written, signed complaint.
- Lieutenant Neisner investigated, prepared and signed a Performance Deficiency Notice recommending immediate termination; Staff received that notice the day his employment ended.
- Staff administratively appealed to Sheriff Wied; Wied upheld the termination in a June 3, 2010 letter.
- Staff sued for declaratory and injunctive relief under Texas Government Code §§ 614.022–.023 (complaints against peace officers must be written and signed; copy must be provided before discipline), seeking a declaration that Wied violated those statutes.
- The trial court granted Wied’s summary judgment, denied Staff’s motion, and awarded Wied attorney’s fees; the court of appeals reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Gov’t Code §§ 614.022–.023 apply despite at-will status? | Sections apply when termination is based on a complaint or investigation; at-will status does not negate procedural protections. | At-will employment for deputies means sheriff can fire for any reason; statutes therefore do not apply. | Applied: at-will status does not preclude Subchapter B where termination follows a complaint/investigation. |
| Is the Performance Deficiency Notice a "written, signed complaint" under § 614.022? | No — the required signed, written complaint must come from the complainant (here, Sparks), not from an investigating supervisor. | Yes — the Notice (signed by Lt. Neisner) documented the allegations and satisfied the statute. | Not a compliant: the Notice signed by Neisner did not substitute for a complaint signed by the victim/complainant. |
| Was disciplinary action taken only after compliance with § 614.023 (copy of signed complaint given before discipline)? | No — termination was effective immediately upon the Notice; Staff never received a signed complaint from Sparks before discipline. | Discipline occurred when Sheriff Wied upheld the termination on appeal (June 3); the Notice was only a recommendation. | Discipline occurred when termination was made effective immediately; § 614.023 was violated because no signed complaint from the complainant had been provided prior to discipline. |
| Remedy: declaratory relief and attorney’s fees available? | Staff requested declaratory relief and fees under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act. | Sheriff obtained trial court attorney’s fees; record lacks evidence of Staff’s fees. | Court declared Wied violated §§ 614.022–.023 and remanded for determination of whether awarding Staff attorney’s fees is equitable and just. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (standard when both parties move for summary judgment)
- FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000) (summary judgment appellate review principles)
- Guthery v. Taylor, 112 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (internal notice by chief does not satisfy requirement of complaint signed by victim)
- Treadway v. Holder, 309 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010) ("complaint" includes internal allegations that lead to disciplinary action)
- Turner v. Perry, 278 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (statutes protect officers from discipline based on unsubstantiated complaints)
- County of Dallas v. Wiland, 216 S.W.3d 344 (Tex. 2007) (deputy sheriffs generally serve at pleasure of sheriff; at-will employment premise)