 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Texas A&M;University-Kingsville v. Lawson9/14/2000
In this interlocutory appeal, Texas A&M;University-Kingsville (TAMUK) challenges the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction asserting sovereign immunity from suit. Lawson is suing TAMUK for breach of a settlement agreement. TAMUK contends that it did not waive its immunity from suit (1) because the settlement agreement contained a void provision, and (2) because the breach of a settlement agreement never waives the State's immunity from suit. We will affirm the district court's order and remand this cause for further proceedings.
BACKGROUND
We determine the trial court's jurisdiction from good-faith factual allegations made by the plaintiff. See Brannon v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 224 S.W.2d 466, 469 (Tex. 1949); Flowers v. Lavaca County Appraisal Dist., 766 S.W.2d 825, 827 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied). Unless the defendant pleads and proves that such allegations were made fraudulently to confer jurisdiction, courts accept them as true. See Flowers, 766 S.W.2d at 827; see also Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys., 909 S.W.2d 540, 542 (Tex. App.-Austin 1995, writ denied). TAMUK does not assert that the allegations are fraudulent. We take our recitation of facts from Lawson's pleadings.
The dispute and litigation in this case have lingered far longer than Lawson's employment at TAMUK. Lawson worked as an instructor from 1989 until he was fired in September 1992. Lawson sued TAMUK for wrongful termination. In October 1994, the parties reached a settlement agreement under which TAMUK agreed to pay Lawson $60,000 and use its best effort to obtain approval for the payment by December 1994. By the time TAMUK obtained the warrant in March 1995, Lawson had already declared TAMUK in "default" on the agreement. After a second mediation in May 1995, TAMUK increased the settlement amount to $62,000 in exchange for Lawson's dismissal of the lawsuit and release of the defendants. TAMUK also agreed that its personnel director would tell inquiring potential employers that Lawson had been an assistant professor instead of an instructor; in his petition below, Lawson alleges that the agreement "effectively promoted Dr. Lawson to Assistant Professor."
The parties performed most of the agreement. After TAMUK paid him $62,000, Lawson dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice to refiling and released the defendants. Lawson learned, however, that TAMUK employees told other universities that he had been an instructor, not an assistant professor. Lawson alleges that TAMUK's failure to state that he was an assistant professor caused the other universities to eliminate him from consideration.
Lawson then filed this suit for breach of the settlement agreement. The district court denied TAMUK's plea that its immunity from suit deprived the court of jurisdiction. This interlocutory appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION
TAMUK denies that it has waived immunity from this suit. TAMUK argues that it cannot waive sovereign immunity with regard to an agreement that settles a lawsuit. TAMUK also contends that the breached provision in the settlement agreement cannot support waiver because it is void for requiring TAMUK to misrepresent Lawson's employment history.
In addition to answering TAMUK's contentions, Lawson makes the interesting argument that a breached settlement agreement presents an even more compelling case for finding waiver, at least when the court in the underlying suit denied a plea to the jurisdiction before the settlement. Lawson's argument in this Court may have been prompted by the district court's comments in open court when announcing its denial of the plea to the jurisdict
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|