Peter J. Paske, Jr. v. Joel Fitzgerald, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of City of Missouri City, and the City of Missouri City, Texas
499 S.W.3d 465
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Paske, a Missouri City police sergeant, was demoted and placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) after audible insubordination at a supervisors’ meeting; PIP required Employee Assistance Program (EAP) evaluation and compliance with lawful orders.
- EAP flagged potential steroid use and recommended drug testing; the Department required Paske to submit to a drug test at headquarters.
- On the day of testing Paske had a family emergency (mother‑in‑law struck by a car); he did not report to headquarters within an hour as ordered, arranged an independent drug test that did not screen for steroids, and received negative results for other substances.
- Chief Fitzgerald terminated Paske without conducting or requesting an internal affairs investigation and without providing a signed complaint; chief acknowledged failure to report for the test as the reason for termination.
- Paske pursued administrative review (dishonorable discharge upheld) and filed suit asserting violations of Texas Government Code §§ 614.021–.023 (failure to provide a signed complaint), plus other federal claims; federal court remanded the Chapter 614 claims to state court; the state trial court granted defendants’ plea and summary judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of appellate record / pleadings | Paske argued the remanded declaratory claims were properly before state court despite clerk’s record omissions | City said lack of amended petition in record prevents review and defeats appeal | Court held record was sufficient (remand order and federal record subject to judicial notice); issues were tried by consent, so appellate review allowed |
| Governmental immunity (City) | Paske sought declaratory relief construing statute and joined City | City argued governmental immunity bars suit for relief against it | Court held City retained governmental immunity; suit against City barred; dismissal of City affirmed |
| Jurisdiction over Chief Fitzgerald (official capacity) | Paske alleged an ultra vires failure to perform ministerial duty (provide signed complaint) so declaratory relief against Fitzgerald is permitted | Fitzgerald did not claim immunity; argued statute did not apply | Court held an ultra vires declaratory claim against Fitzgerald in his official capacity was cognizable; trial court had jurisdiction over that claim |
| Applicability of Gov’t Code Ch. 614 (was there a "complaint") | Paske relied on cases holding internal allegations can be "complaints" and argued Chief violated §614 by not providing a signed complaint before discipline | Fitzgerald argued no "complaint" existed because he acted on his own observations of misconduct; statute governs only when a complaint exists | Court held no "complaint" triggered Chapter 614 because termination stemmed from the chief’s personal observations, so §614 inapplicable; summary judgment for Fitzgerald affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for plea to jurisdiction and fact questions)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra vires suits against officials and immunity principles)
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (affirming summary judgment if any meritorious theory supports it)
- Treadway v. Holder, 309 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010) (internal supervisory allegations can qualify as a "complaint" under §614)
- Staff v. Wied, 470 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (similar holding that external letter raising concerns can be a §614 "complaint")