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
01-15-00631-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 28, 2015Background
- Paske, a 15-year police officer, was terminated by Missouri City for alleged misconduct; the city’s chief based the firing on a one-hour reporting requirement and other policy references; Paske challenged the termination under Government Code Chapter 614, asserting he was not afforded the mandated pre-termination due process; the district court granted summary judgment to Appellees; Paske seeks reversal and relief including back pay and reinstatement; the court analyzes whether Chapter 614’s procedural prerequisites were satisfied and whether sovereign immunity or other defenses apply.
- Appellees contend Chapter 614 does not apply or was satisfied through a pre-termination letter, 671 pages of documents, and a post-termination letter drafted with counsel; Paske argues the complaint was not in writing, the materials were insufficient, and the process violated due process; the court evaluates the adequacy of the complaint, the pre-termination protections, and the role of post-termination actions.
- Key facts show: (1) no written complaint before firing; (2) the so-called pre-termination materials were not the statutory protections required; (3) the 671 documents did not constitute proper Chapter 614 disclosure; (4) counsel-assisted letter written months after firing did not satisfy Chapter 614; (5) no independent investigation occurred, undermining due process; (6) Paske had no opportunity to defend, and the termination decision was unilateral.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellees violated Chapter 614’s pre-termination safeguards | Paske | Missouri City | Yes, Appellees violated Chapter 614. |
| Whether the complaint was in writing as required by Chapter 614 | Paske | Fitzgerald/Missouri City | No, the complaint was not in writing. |
| Whether the 671 documents and pre/post-termination letters complied with Chapter 614 | Paske | Appellees | No, documents and letters did not meet requirements. |
| Whether the attorney-counselled post-termination letter satisfies Chapter 614 | Paske | Appellees | No independent, proper pre-termination review occurred. |
| Whether the Declaratory Judgment Act claims overcome sovereign immunity | Paske | Appellees | DJA claims allowed; sovereign immunity waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Staff v. Wied, 470 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (affirmed requirement that source of allegations is immaterial; must be written complaint under Chap. 614)
- Turner v. Perry, 278 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [14 Dist.], 2009) (establishes property interest and procedural due process standards)
- Texas Education Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432 (Tex.1994) (due process and government entitlements considerations)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity)
- Guthery v. Taylor, 112 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App.—Houston [14 Dist.], 2003) (remedies and reinstatement considerations in civil action vs. immunity)