S&S Emergency Training Solutions, Inc. D/B/A Emergency Medical Training Services v. Sheila Elliott
564 S.W.3d 843
| Tex. | 2018Background
- EMTS (Emergency Medical Training Services) employed Sheila Elliott as program director; she signed nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) with EMTS and consortium partner Arlington Career Institute (ACI).
- Elliott resigned after requesting a raise, then filed complaints and publicized allegations about EMTS, sending copies to ACI and potential employers; ACI subsequently withdrew from the consortium agreement.
- EMTS sued Elliott for breach of the NDAs and obtained a trial-court injunction prohibiting further disclosure; Elliott moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA).
- The court of appeals held Elliott’s communications were protected free speech under the TCPA and concluded EMTS failed to establish by clear and specific evidence the causation/damages element of breach of contract, so it ordered dismissal and fees.
- The Texas Supreme Court granted review and focused on whether EMTS met the TCPA’s second-step burden to present clear and specific prima facie evidence of each essential element of breach of contract, particularly causation and damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (EMTS) | Defendant's Argument (Elliott) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Elliott’s communications were protected under the TCPA | EMTS argued NDAs narrowed her rights but primarily contested on second-step | Elliott argued her communications addressed matters of public concern and were protected | Court agreed communications invoked TCPA (not disputed on appeal) |
| Whether EMTS presented clear and specific prima facie evidence of causation (that Elliott’s disclosures caused ACI to withdraw) | Vecchio and Cellio affidavits link Elliott’s disclosures to ACI’s termination of the consortium | Elliott argued affidavits were conclusory and insufficient to show causation | Held: affidavits supported a rational inference that disclosures caused ACI’s withdrawal |
| Whether EMTS presented clear and specific prima facie evidence of damages (loss of profits) | EMTS pointed to enrollment, tuition data, and Elliott’s own letter stating EMTS was profitable to infer lost profits after consortium termination | Elliott argued EMTS failed to quantify losses or show net profit and relied on general averments | Held: evidence allowed a rational inference of lost profits; specific numeric precision not required under TCPA |
| Whether dismissal under the TCPA was warranted | EMTS argued dismissal was improper because it met its prima facie burden | Elliott argued the court of appeals correctly dismissed for lack of clear and specific evidence on damages/causation | Held: Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals; remanded because EMTS met prima facie burden and dismissal was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (defines "clear and specific" and prima facie standard under TCPA)
- USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479 (Tex. 2018) (elements of breach of contract)
- Youngkin v. Hines, 546 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. 2018) (TCPA issues reviewed de novo)
- Turner v. PV Int’l Corp., 765 S.W.2d 455 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988) (causation/damages inference principles)
- Sw. Battery Corp. v. Owen, 115 S.W.2d 1097 (Tex. 1938) (exact measure of lost profits not required)
- G.T. Leach Builders, LLC v. Sapphire V.P., L.P., 458 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. 2015) (preservation of appellate issues and review procedures)