*3 CORNELIUS, C.J., Before GRANT and allegations of prosecuted on Jones was ROSS, JJ. acquitted was theft. She misdemeanor jury. OPINION originally filed suit Procedurally, Jones
Opinion Justice ROSS. employees its and the school and against official personal their and Jones, officials in both high a former school Dharlene plea the district filed After years capacities. with Clarksville principal for seven jurisdiction, petition against she аmended her claims all ap- defendants. against to omit claims employees district peals appellees, this dismissal as to the in their capacities, officials official with including Independent Clarksville School exceptions of Alan Hale some, all, and Victor District and but not of the other Bishop, president and a member of the defendants. trustees, respectively.
board of The lawsuit was dismissed оn a plea petition Her second amended and re- jurisdiction. was based on quest declaratory for relief states that she concept required that Jones was first only declaratory injunctive seeks relief present all the issues and causes of from the school district and that the re- action commissioner of education *4 maining being individuals are sued individ- any and exhaust administrative remedies ually because of their actions taken outside bringing before the suit to court. scope of their offices. (Vernon § 7.057 Tex. Educ.Code Ann. alleges She the defendants con- 1996)provides: spired wrongful commit intentional acts (a) Except provided by as Subsection rights violate her as secured (e),1 a person may appeal writing in Texas Constitution and under the common person ag- the commissioner if the is of the exрressly law State of Texas. She grieved by: states that she brings no federal claim. (1) state; the school laws of this or infliction alleges intentional (2) actions or decisions of emotional (against distress individuals in school district board of trustees defamation, private capacities only), tor- violate: tious interference the individuals with (A) state; the school laws of this (her relationship her contract business (B) provisiоn employ- of a written district), with the equal pro- violations of ment contract between the school dis- tection, deprivation liberty property and employee, trict and a if school district (her district), position interests with the a violation causes or would cause mon- right and the to be free from retaliation etary harm to the employee. exercising rights. for fundamental She alleges prosecution against also malicious (f) In this section:
the individuals involved. damages
Jones seeks from the individual (2) “School laws of state” financial, for physical, defendants and emo- 1 means Title and this title and rules injuries, punitive tional and seeks dam- adopted under those titles. ages. injunction further seeks an di- She recting the district to reinstate her to her argued by As and as counsel for noted position principal attorney’s former as Jones, this statute contains the word portion brought fees for that of the case “may,” typically which mean that would pursuant Declaratory Judgments taking mandatory. such Act. However, seemingly clear lan- despite historically it granted guage
The trial court the district’s of the has that an jurisdiction explained actually meaning and dismissed the been as 1. That section involves the nonrenewal of a tions. disciplinary ac- teachеr’s contract or student 889, 893 Indep. Sch. may an lar person appeal, and
aggrieved if (Tex.1986); Godley Indep. Dist. taken, the commis- it must be to appeal is Woods, (Tex.App.— scope if is one -withinthe sioner the matter (containing an excel pet.) Although Waco powers. review agency’s of the history of review of the thorough “may” in the context of lent the use of the word administra confusion, exhaustion of lan- the doctrine of may invite this statute statutory with in connection amendments tive remedies has survived several guage Texas). alteration, between Contracts and school law and reenactments without regulated districts are analysis by teachers and school any change without Code. by the Education courts.2 Tex. Educ.Code 21.104-.106, 21.002, 21.101-.102, §§ Ann. exceptions,3 Subject to certain (Vernon 1996), 21.151-160, 21.201-213 claim requires party law whose (Vernon Supp.2001). § 21.103 laws the administration of school concerns trial court had no Appellees contend the fact issues to ex disputed and involves ex- jurisdiction failed to because Jones statutorily provided administra haust the under administrative remedies haust her tive remedies with the commissioner un- the Education Code. The merit for turning before to the courts education *5 not before this Court— derlying claims is Cyprеss- Agency relief. Texas Educ. v. only The of those claims. only the nature Dist., Indep. Fairbanks Sch. 830 S.W.2d the is whether issue for our consideration 88, (Tex.1992); Indep. v. Waco 90 Gibson plea to correctly granted court the trial (Tex. Dist., 199, 201 Sch. 971 S.W.2d law- jurisdiction and dismissed Jones’ the 1998), other App. vacated on — Waco the record and have reviewed (Tex.2000) (see suit. We grounds, 22 849 S.W.3d in allegations brought all the conclude that La opinion); footnote 5 of this Janik v. this appellees are before against suit the Dist., Indep. mar Consol. Sch. 961 S.W.2d granting plea appeal. on 322, (Tex.App. Dist.] 323 [1st — Houston by a denied). jurisdiction preceded was not 1997,writ severance, the effectively and it dismissed plea jurisdiction ap A to is an the suit. entirety of Jones’ challenge propriate raising vehicle for to Subject jurisdiction is es matter plaintiffs the suit for failure to exhaust authority of a court to decide v. To- sential to the administrative remedies. Grounds remedies). underpinning Tex exhaustion of administrative 2. A discussion of historical Stringer, inapplicable of the statute is found in Grimes v. if also hold the doctrine as courts 1997, 865, (Tex.App. Tyler 869 957 S.W.2d complained without of was taken action — denied); pet. County Indep. Sch. and Ector See authority of a statute. or in violation 576, (Tex. Hopkins, S.W.2d Dist. v. 518 579 Freeport Indep. Dist. v. Common Sch. Sch. 1974, writ). Civ.App. Paso no 97, 31, 133, — El 277 S.W. 99 No. 115 Tex. Dist. (1925); County County Civil v. Nueces Nueces exceptions of ex 3. Several to doctrine Comm’n, 597, (Tex. 598 909 S.W.2d Serv. recognized. irrepara have been If haustion Also, 1995, writ). App. Corpus no Christi — agency will suffered and if the ble harm be administra requirement of exhaustion of relief, may prop provide unable the courts inappli generally has been held tive remedies erly jurisdiction in order to exercise their v. questions of law. See Grounds cable to adequate remedy. Fed’n provide an Houston 889, Dist., 892 707 S.W.2d Indep. Sch. Tolar Indep. Houston Teachers Local 2415 v. of (Tex.1986); Cooperv. Paul Fire & see also St. Dist., 644, (Tex.1987); 646 see 730 S.W.2d 614, (Tex. Co., 616 985 S.W.2d Marine Ins. Indep. Sch. 872 generally Jones v. Dallas 1999, 1994, 294, pet.). no App. (Tex.App. writ S.W.2d 296 — Amarillo — Dallas denied) exceptions (listing to the doctrine of 472
a case. Texas Ass’n Bus. v. Texas Air In this which was tried before the of Bland, Bd., (Tex. 440, no was re- decision evidence Control 852 443 S.W.2d Thus, 1993). ceived on this issue. the court’s jurisdiction urges A solely on of application decision rests its that the power court lacks to deter al- allegations. the law to Jones’ subject mine the matter of the suit. stating that the Board had leged, after Woods, 660; City Cleburne 21 S.W.3d at of her in a refused to meet with reinstate- Trussell, v. 407, (Tex.App.— 10 S.W.3d 410 proceeding, “[n]o ment administrative 2000, pet.). plea, Waco no To avoid such available and the Board appeal has been plaintiff plead must facts which affir ” acted, .... has not and also matively jur trial has show court prerequisites prior all “[she] has satisfied Bus., isdiction. Texas Ass’n 852 S.W.2d ” action,.... bringing Hill, 446; Cornyn County at 10 evidence, Appellees provide did not but 2000, 424, (Tex.App 426 S.W.3d . —Waco (as argue they on did before the pеt.). allegation plain that the Absent court) that Jones failed to meet her jurisdictional tiffs are fraudu pleadings allege did not specific burden because she lent, allegations the court should take the facts that would show an exhaustion of petition of fact stated as true and Appellees administrative remedies. did liberally in favor of must construe them not make factual about See plaintiff ruling plеa. when thereof) (or attempts lack seek Cazarez, Cont’l Prods. Co. v. Coffee administrative review. (Tex.1996); Dep’t by generic allega- confronted We are Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. had met appellant tions that she Pearce, (Tex.App.— *6 prerequisites, gener- with a administrative 2000, pet.). If the facts Waco no response by appellees stating ic that it jurisdic fail to establish the court’s necessary pre- her to meet those was for tion, plaintiff should be allowed the ap- court. The requisites going before to Texas opportunity petition. to amend the categorically that pellees did not state Bus., Ass’n 852 at 446.4 S.W.2d of prerequi- had failed to meet those sites. recently In a decided Supreme
Texas used its conflicts Court deci Supreme Court jurisdiction to review the case and hеld operate retroactively un generally sions resolving jurisdiction, that in to the to court its discretion less the exercises required the trial court is not to restrict modify Bowen v. Aetna application. that may con solely pleadings, (Tex. itself but Co., 99, 100 Cas. & Sur. 837 S.W.2d -indeed, it must do so when 1992). sider precluding guiding principle evidence — necessary jurisdictional issues. however, to resolve retroactivity, full turns on wheth Blue, 34 Indep. Bland Sch. Dist. v. S.W.3d principle a new er the decision establishes (Tex.2000). must, however, 547, past pre 554 It law that either overrules clear of solely litigants the evidence neces ‘have relied or restrict itself to cedent on which that Id. jurisdictional impression decides a new issue of first sary to decide the issue. 1999, 1, pet. (Tex.App. Worth may S.W.2d 3 4. A court dismiss a claim without allow- — Fort filed); ing opportunity Indep. Lyford to amend if it can deter- v. Consol. Ramirez jurisdic- that no claim within the court’s mine (Tex.App. Corpus 906 — with the tion can be stated consistent facts 1995, writ). Christi Carter, alleged. City Saginaw v. 996 of 1) rule, i.e., her claims Reagan Exceptions v. clearly was not foreseeable. claim (Tex.1990) the constitutional fall within either 463, 467-68 Vaughn, 804 S.W.2d full inability provide exception or the Thus, rule, (opinion reh’g). on as ex- exception to the administrative relief ap Supreme dеcisions of the Texas rule; or haustion Smith, 845 ply retrospectively. Elbaor v. (Tex.1992). There are 2)
S.W.2d
i.e., under
apply,
The rule does not
mostly by
three
exceptions, determined
not
Jones does
the terms of
(1)
implicate
estab
“school
factors:
whether the decision
raise claims that either
that
or actions
a school board
laws”
principle
a new
of law
either
lishes
her
con-
employment
violate the terms of
past
clear
on which
overruling
precedent
thus,
tract;
exhaustion is
administrative
deciding litigants may
have relied or
inapplicable.
impression
resolution
issue
first
whose
(2)
foreshadowed;
clearly
whether
was
that there
The cases cited above reflect
prospective
application
or retroactive
exceptions
are some
administrative
particular
rule will further or retard its
requirements
specific
in four
exhaustion
operation through an
examination of
areas.
Jones states
her brief that she
rule;
action,
history, purpose, and effect of the
constitutional causes of
has raised
(3)
provi-
state
application
citing
whether retroactive
several
constitutional
Although
terms in her
sions.
Jones used
produce
inequi
the rule could
substantial
in mak-
typically
that are
relied on
petition
table results. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
claims,
pro-
such as “due
(Tex.1996);
ing constitutional
Gandy,
to the doctrine of exhaustion of administra- OPINION ON MOTION by tive remedies. The trial court erred FOR REHEARING applying that doctrine to this case. District, Independent Clarksville School Jones next contends that under al., rehearing et contend on that our deci terms of the she hаs not raised by reasoning sion should be controlled implicate claims that either “school laws” Meno, set out Havner v. by or a actions school board violate writ). (Tex.App. In Hav — Austin employment the terms of her contract and -er, appealed a teacher to the Commis inapplicable. administrative exhaustion is sioner Education because of school to waive board’s refusal сriteria connec The trial court granted plea tion with its career ladder. The court of jurisdiction against as to all defendants appeals held that the refusal constituted However, all claims Jones. several of an action or decision of the school board the defendants were sued in their individu necessary and that it was for the teacher al, professional, ac capacities, their to exhaust administrative remedies before companied explicit allegations they judicial seeking review. committed tortious while out acting acts scope position side the of their That situation differs from the case be- school board. The allegations, as noted fore us. In this the school board above, include claims of tor- conspiracy, action, granting refused to take either tious interference with rela contractual denying request. further We tions, libel, slander, and all of which result that, recognize body as we stated in the ed in violations of Jones’ constitutional opinion, controlling statutes have rights resulting physical been rewritten since the Havner case was and mental damages. She also framed a decided and that constitutional claims are cause of action аgainst those individuals also do Hav- implicated. We not find that for intentional infliction of emotional dis disposition ner controls our of this case. tress. rehearing The motion for is denied. Those not allegations pur- are within the view of the statute. The trial court erred granting jurisdiction
against against ap- all of Jones’ claims all
pellees. judgment
The court re-
versed, and this cause is remanded to the job. another concluded at which it receives such evidence as is neces- commissioner that no school laws were violated retal- sary jurisdictional at to decide the issue and monetary iation and that no harm was shown hearing, the conclusion of such sustain occurred, to have should subject plea as to those claims to administra- *9 jurisdiction. be dismissed for want of claims, any, appeal, tive if sever such proceed remaining claims.
8. In the court's reconsideration jurisdiction, hearing it should conduct a