First Court of Appeals says Sheriff properly alleged civil service commission violated TOMA
Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzales v. Harris County Sheriff’s Civil Service Commission, et al., 01-23-00411-CV (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist], April 8, 2025)
In this civil service appeal, the First District Court of Appeals held the Sheriff’s department’s claims under the Texas Open Meetings Act (“TOMA”) were properly before the trial court, but the ultra vires claims were not.
The Harris County Sheriff’s Office (“HCSO”) administratively terminated an employee (human-resources manager) who did not return to work after exhausting his family and medical leave. The Commission reinstated the employee and the HCSO appealed, seeking mandamus and injunctive relief from the Commission’s reinstatement order along with TOMA and ultra vires claims. HCSO asserted appeals from an administrative dismissal related to FMLA and leave of absence policies are prohibited under Commission rules. The Commission filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted, and the HCSO appealed.
The Sheriff alleged that the Commission “is a body subject to TOMA,” and the Sheriff alleged that the TOMA exception for open deliberation is for personnel but the Commission “entered a closed session to deliberate on the exercise of jurisdiction” over the appeal, which is not authorized. The Commission’s jurisdictional challenge to the TOMA claims was on the pleadings only. Construing the petition liberally in the Sheriff’s favor and accepting his allegations as true, the court concluded the petition sufficiently alleged a TOMA violation. For his ultra vires claim, the HSCO’s argument is essentially the Commission had a ministerial duty to reject the appeal under its own rules. However, the court found the Sheriff did not allege a ministerial act that the Commissioners failed to perform. The rule in question gave the Commission the ability to determine whether the administrative dismissal was in compliance with the personnel regulations, which is a discretionary aspect. Therefore, the ultra vires claim was properly dismissed.
If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Johnson, and Dokupil. Opinion by Justice Johnson.
