Opinion
No. 05-06-00768-CV
Opinion issued November 15, 2006.
On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court, Rockwall County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1-04-476.
Affirmed.
Before Justices MORRIS, WHITTINGTON, and RICHTER.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Rockwall County appeals the trial court's order denying the County's plea to the jurisdiction. In a single issue, the County contends the trial judge erred in denying its plea to the jurisdiction because Charlotte Smith failed to initiate an action under the County's grievance procedure prior to filing her lawsuit. We affirm the trial court's order.
Smith was employed by the County as the chief clerk for the Justice of the Peace Precinct 2. Smith noticed time sheet irregularities for her department and reported it to her immediate supervisor but was told he did not want to hear about the issue again. She subsequently reported the irregularities to the County Treasurer. Thereafter, she was terminated for "insubordination." Smith filed and was approved for unemployment benefits. The County appealed the decision, and a hearing was held March 30, 2004. In light of certain testimony provided at the hearing, Smith questioned the reason given for her termination. Sometime in May of 2004, Smith learned that, prior to her termination, her immediate supervisor had been told that Smith complained to the County Treasurer about the time sheet irregularities. When she discovered this information, Smith suspected the real reason for her termination was retaliation. On July 2, 2004, she filed this lawsuit, alleging violations of chapter 554 of the government code. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 554.001-.010 (Vernon 2004).
The County filed a plea to the jurisdiction, claiming it had sovereign immunity from suit because Smith failed to (i) initiate the County's grievance/appeal procedures before filing suit and (ii) file suit within ninety days after the date on which the alleged violation occurred. In her petition, Smith alleged she was "not given any opportunity to appeal this decision . . and in fact was told that she was an employee at will and had no right to appeal." In her response to the County's plea, Smith alleged the grievance policy had no provision that applied to terminated employees and that she filed suit within ninety days of discovering her termination was retaliatory in nature. Following a hearing, the trial judge denied the County's plea to the jurisdiction. This appeal followed.
In its sole issue, the County argues Smith failed to initiate an action under the County's grievance procedure as mandated by section 554.006 of the government code. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 554.006. The County claims the grievance procedure is a jurisdictional requirement necessary to confer jurisdiction on the trial court and that because Smith failed to do so, the trial judge should have granted the County's plea to the jurisdiction. We disagree.
When reviewing a challenge to a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction review, we review the trial judge's ruling de novo. Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm'n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex. 2002). When reviewing a plea to the jurisdiction in which the pleading requirement has been met and evidence has been submitted to support the plea that implicates the merits of the case, we take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant. Tex. Dep't of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 228 (Tex. 2004). We indulge every reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant's favor. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228. Where findings of fact and conclusions of law are neither filed nor requested, it is implied that the trial judge made all necessary findings to support the trial court's judgment. Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex. 1992).
Because sovereign immunity from suit defeats a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction, it is properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 225-26; Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 637 (Tex. 1999). Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226. The plaintiff has the burden to allege facts affirmatively demonstrating the trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air. Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993). The trial judge must liberally construe the plaintiff's allegations in favor of jurisdiction unless the face of the petition affirmatively demonstrates lack of jurisdiction. See Peek v. Equip. Serv. Co., 779 S.W.2d 802, 804 (Tex. 1989). If a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, the trial judge should hear evidence as necessary to decide the issue. See Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Tex. 2000) ("In sum, a court deciding a plea to the jurisdiction is not required to look solely to the pleadings but may consider evidence and must do so when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised. The court should, of course, confine itself to the evidence relevant to the jurisdictional issue.").
In her second amended petition, Smith alleged she
was terminated on January 26, 2004 purportedly for insubordination by . . . [the] Justice of the Peace of Rockwall County. [Smith] was not given any opportunity to appeal this decision by Rockwall County, and in fact was told that she was an employee at will and had no right to appeal.
(Emphasis added). In its plea to the jurisdiction, the County alleges it has a grievance policy and quotes portions of the policy. The County argues that because Smith did not initiate the County's grievance policy following her termination, but before filing this lawsuit, she failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements for filing suit under section 554.006. The County, however, does not contest Smith's claim that she was told she had no right to appeal. Nor does any of the County's evidence address this issue. Because Smith alleged she did not initiate an action in light of having been told she had no right to appeal and the County did not deny or come forward with evidence to refute Smith's allegations, we conclude the trial judge did not err in denying the County's plea to the jurisdiction. We overrule the County's sole issue on appeal.
We affirm the trial court's order.