Town of Shady Shores v. Sarah Swanson
590 S.W.3d 544
| Tex. | 2019Background:
- Sarah Swanson, Shady Shores town secretary, was terminated after a February 27, 2014 council meeting that included an executive session; agenda indicated possible closed deliberation and legal advice.
- Swanson sued asserting Whistleblower Act and Sabine Pilot claims, then amended to add UDJA claims seeking declaratory relief that her termination was void under the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA), mandamus/injunctive relief (including reinstatement), and attorney’s fees.
- The Town moved to dismiss on governmental-immunity grounds (plea to the jurisdiction) and filed traditional and no-evidence summary-judgment motions asserting immunity and asserting lack of merit on TOMA and constitutional claims.
- The trial court dismissed the Whistleblower and Sabine Pilot claims for lack of jurisdiction but denied the Town’s summary-judgment motions; the Town appealed interlocutory orders under section 51.014(a)(8).
- The court of appeals held a no-evidence summary-judgment motion may not be used to raise immunity, reviewed the evidence under the traditional SJ standard, and concluded TOMA waived immunity for some UDJA relief but not for back pay.
- The Texas Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether a no-evidence SJ may assert governmental-immunity jurisdictional challenges and (2) whether TOMA waives immunity for declaratory-judgment claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Swanson) | Defendant's Argument (Town) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a no-evidence motion for summary judgment can be used to defeat jurisdiction by asserting governmental immunity | Rule 166a(i) is an appropriate vehicle after adequate discovery; requiring only more-than-scintilla to defeat the motion is fair | Allowing no-evidence SJ would improperly shift burden and force plaintiff to "marshal" proof of jurisdiction | Court: Yes. No-evidence SJ may be used to assert immunity when jurisdiction and merits intertwine; safeguards in Rule 166a(i) protect plaintiffs |
| Whether the Open Meetings Act (TOMA) waives governmental immunity for declaratory-judgment (UDJA) claims seeking to void official action | TOMA’s provision that actions taken in violation are "voidable" authorizes declaratory relief under the UDJA | TOMA expressly authorizes mandamus/injunctive relief but does not waive immunity for UDJA declaratory suits | Court: No. TOMA waives immunity for mandamus/injunctive relief but does not waive immunity for UDJA declaratory suits absent an express legislative waiver |
| Whether Swanson pleaded standalone TOMA claims and thus could seek mandamus/injunctive relief (including reinstatement) | Amended petition requested injunctive relief and reinstatement and gave the Town fair notice; Town litigated the claims on the merits | Town argued she did not assert standalone TOMA claims (court of appeals sua sponte so held) | Court: Swanson sufficiently pled TOMA claims (and Town litigated them by consent); those claims remain pending and remand is required for further consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (trial court may consider evidence when resolving jurisdictional facts; jurisdiction and merits can intertwine)
- Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (burden and procedures for jurisdictional pleas; evidence may be considered)
- Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (plaintiff bears burden to affirmatively demonstrate trial-court jurisdiction)
- Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. 2012) (distinguishes immunity from suit versus immunity from liability; immunity from suit defeats jurisdiction)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2004) (nonmovant must produce more than a scintilla to defeat a no-evidence summary judgment)
- Zachry Constr. Corp. v. Port of Houston Auth., 449 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. 2014) (statutory waiver’s scope is defined by the statute’s provisions and limitations)
- Hays St. Bridge Restoration Grp. v. City of San Antonio, 570 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. 2019) (interpreting scope of Local Government Contract Claims Act waiver; distinguishes statutes with general waiver followed by limitations)
- Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2011) (UDJA does not itself waive sovereign immunity; waiver must come from underlying statute)