GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES
SPRING 2008
Montgomery County v. Park, W.L.4216605; LEXIS 1027 (Tex. 2007)
Whistleblower Act—Adverse Personnel Actions: A patrol lieutenant in the sheriff’s department also served as the security coordinator for the county convention center. As security coordinator, the lieutenant arranged off-duty employment of deputies for private events at the convention center. He received no additional compensation for performing the security coordinator duties. After the security coordinator duties were reassigned by the commissioner’s court to another deputy, the lieutenant sued the county, alleging that the reassignment was retaliation because he had reported that a county commissioner made sexually graphic comments about the lieutenant’s administrative assistant. The Texas Whistleblower Act, Tex.Gov’t Code §§ 554.001 - 554.010, prohibited state and local government employers from taking adverse personnel actions against employees who, in good faith, reported violations of law to an appropriate law enforcement authority. Held: For a personnel action to be adverse, within the meaning of the Whistleblower Act, it must be material, and thus likely to deter a reasonable, similarly situated employee from reporting a violation of the law.
City of Cresson v. City of Granbury, 245 S.W.3d 61 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, pet. filed)
Annexation: The City of Cresson brought action against the City of Granbury seeking a declaratory judgment that certain of the Granbury’s annexations were void, as they encompassed tracts that were already part of Cresson’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (“ETJ”). Granbury counterclaimed, seeking to have all of Cresson’s ETJ expansion ordinances declared void. Held: When Cresson enacted its annexation ordinance including the disputed tracts within its ETJ, no other city, including Granbury, had any jurisdictional rights to the disputed tracts.
Kirwan v. City of Waco, W.L. 94763; LEXIS 152 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, pet. filed)
Tort Claims Act—Premises Defect—Recreational Use Statute: The Mother, individually, and as representative of her son’s estate, brought a wrongful death action against the city, alleging a premises defect, arising from accident in which her son, while sitting on edge of cliff in city park, fell 60 feet to his death after the ground beneath him gave way. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that there was no allegation the City was grossly negligent in creating the condition. The plea was granted by the district court. Held: Reversed. A structurally unstable cliff rock was not an open and obvious condition, as an element of gross negligence exception to recreational use statute’s protection against tort liability. The evidence created a fact issue as to whether the City had actual, subjective awareness of an extreme degree of risk posed by a structurally unstable cliff rock. Finally, the evidence created a fact issue as to whether the City acted with conscious indifference to an extreme degree of risk resulting from structurally unstable cliff rock.
In re Torry, 244 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2008)
Elections—Failure to Appoint Treasurer Before Spending or Accepting Campaign Contributions—Right to Place on Ballot: The candidate submitted her application to appear on the Democratic Party ballot. The party chair rejected the application, explaining that when the candidate submitted her application, she did not have a campaign treasurer appointment on file with the Texas Ethics Commission, as required by § 252.005(1)(E) of the Texas Election Code. Held: There was no Election Code provision that authorized a party chair to refuse to certify a candidate’s name for placement on the ballot on the basis of the candidate’s failure to designate a campaign treasurer. Nor does the Election Code authorize a chair to insert additional certification requirements beyond those prescribed in the Election Code. While the Election Code, § 252.001 and 252.005(1)(A), required a candidate for state representative to appoint a campaign treasurer and report that appointment to the Texas Ethics Commission, neither statute prescribed a penalty for a candidate’s non-compliance with those provisions.
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts v. Attorney General of Texas, 244 S.W.3d 629 (Tex.App.—Austin 2008, pet filed)
Public Information – Employees’ Birth Dates: The court of appeals held that the confidential information exception of the Public Information Act did not apply to exempt from disclosure state employees’ dates of birth.
In re Armendariz, 245 S.W.3d 92 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2008)
Elections—Candidate Eligibility—Wrong Office Identified on Application to Appear on Ballot: On his application to appear on the 2008 Democratic Party primary ballot, a candidate for county commissioner listed the office sought as “County Commissioner, Precinct 2.” The office of County Commissioner, Precinct 2 was not up for election in 2008. Commissioner Precincts 1 and 3 were on the 2008 ballot. The party chair refused the application. The candidate sought a writ of mandamus. Held: The chair had a statutory duty to reject the application that misidentified the office the candidate was seeking.