Mission Consolidated ISD v. Flores

Decision Date01 February 2001
Citation39 S.W.3d 674
Parties(Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001) MISSION CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, v. EFREN FLORES, SR., Appellee. NUMBER 13-00-432-CV
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

On appeal from the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yanez, and Chavez1

OPINION

Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

Appellant, Mission Consolidated Independent School District, appeals from the trial court's order denying its pre-trial plea to the jurisdiction.2 We affirm.

Appellee, Efren Flores, Sr., sued the school district alleging his employment was terminated in retaliation for filing a workers compensation claim. See Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 451.001 (Vernon 1996). Flores, who was employed by the school district as a bus driver, sustained an on-the-job injury to his knee in December, 1995. He returned to work on modified duty for a short time in February, 1996, then underwent knee surgery in March, 1996. Flores made a claim for and received workers compensation benefits. He was released for modified duty on September 2, 1996. In his first amended petition, Flores alleged that:

[f]ollowing the injury, Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile and offensive work environment. . . . Thereafter, on or about September 6, 1996, the Defendant discharged Plaintiff. The Defendant refused, however, Plaintiff's request that the decision of discharge be made in writing. The reason first verbally given by Defendant for the discharge was that the District did not have any available positions for him. Plaintiff alleges that the reason given was merely a pretext. In truth, Defendant wrongfully discharged and discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of 451.001, et seq., Texas Labor Code, because he was pursuing in good faith a claim under the Texas workers compensation laws. Following the discharge, Plaintiff attempted to withdraw his retirement funds. Defendant, however, then contended that Plaintiff had not been discharged and insisted that Plaintiff must first give his written resignation before he would be allowed to withdraw his funds. Defendant has persisted in this position ("Plaintiff was never officially terminated") to this date. Plaintiff refused to resign.

Flores further alleged the trial court had jurisdiction of the suit because under the circumstances of his discharge, there was no administrative process available to him for redress of the discrimination and discharge because (1) the school district maintained Flores's employment was not terminated, (2) the grievance process did not apply to at-will employees such as Flores, and (3) the grievance procedure did not include claims of discrimination and discharge in retaliation for filing a workers compensation claim. Flores also alleged that his case was an exception to the general requirement of exhaustion of remedies because the school district acted without express or implied statutory authority and contrary to statutory law in discriminating against him.

The school district filed a pre-trial plea to the jurisdiction, asserting the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because Flores had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The school district further alleged that Flores had made allegations in his amended petition "that are false and were made simply to confer jurisdiction on this Court."

The plaintiff bears the burden of alleging facts affirmatively demonstrating the trial court's jurisdiction to hear a case. Texas Ass'n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993); El Paso Community Partners v. B & G/Sunrise Joint Venture, 24 S.W.3d 620, 623 (Tex. App.--Austin 2000, no pet. h.). The jurisdiction of a trial court over the subject matter of a case is determined from the good-faith factual allegations contained in the plaintiff's pleadings. Curbo v. State, 998 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Tex. App.--Austin 1999, no pet.) (citing Brannon v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 148 Tex. 289, 224 S.W.2d 466, 469 (1949)). The trial court must construe the plaintiff's pleadings liberally in favor of jurisdiction. Peek v. Equip. Serv. Co., 779 S.W.2d 802, 804 (Tex. 1989).

A plea to the jurisdiction challenges a court's authority to hear a case by alleging that the factual allegations in the plaintiff's pleadings, when taken as true, fail to invoke the court's jurisdiction. Bybee v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 160 Tex. 429, 331 S.W.2d 910, 917 (1960); El Paso Community Partners, 24 S.W.3d at 623. The factual allegations relating to jurisdictional prerequisites must be taken as true unless the defendant pleads and proves that they were fraudulently made to confer jurisdiction. Curbo, 998 S.W.2d at 341; Austin Home Ctr. Assocs. v. State, 794 S.W.2d 593, 594 (Tex. App.--Austin 1990, no writ); Flowers v. Lavaca County Appraisal Dist., 766 S.W.3d 825, 827 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied). Pleadings relevant to a review of a plea to the jurisdiction include amended petitions and responses filed in connection with the plea. Janik v. Lamar Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 961 S.W.2d 322, 324 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, writ denied).

In summary, to successfully challenge at the pre-trial stage a trial court's jurisdiction to hear the subject matter of a plaintiff's claim, the defendant must demonstrate either that: (1) the plaintiff's pleadings, taken as true, affirmatively establish that the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, or (2) the plaintiff pleaded fraudulently or in bad faith with the purposes of conferring jurisdiction where under the true facts the court would not have it.

Curbo, 998 S.W.2d at 342.

According to the evidence adduced at the hearing on the plea to the jurisdiction, the school district used the 1994-95 Personnel Handbook for the 1995-96 school year. Even though several amendments were...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Nueces County v. Ferguson
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • November 27, 2002
    ...jurisdiction to near a case. Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993); Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Flores, 39 S.W.3d 674, 676 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). If a plaintiff pleads facts that affirmatively demonstrate an absence of jurisdi......
  • Jenkins v. Entergy Corp.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 2, 2006
    ...court's jurisdiction to hear a case. Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex.1993); Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Flores, 39 S.W.3d 674, 676 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). A trial court must not weigh the merits of the case, but instead consider......
  • Corpus Christi-Edinburg Daimlerchrysler Corporation v. Inman
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • November 20, 2003
    ...allegations as true. See Cantu v. Perales, 97 S.W.3d 861, 862 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet. h.); Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Flores, 39 S.W.3d 674, 676 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.).12 We consider evidence and review the substance of their legal claims only to ......
  • Scott v. Godwin
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 31, 2004
    ...on immunity, and the TDCJ is a governmental unit, we have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. See Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Flores, 39 S.W.3d 674, 675 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); City of Harlingen v. Vega, 951 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1997, no ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT