 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Watson v. Houston Independent School District (HISD)8/9/2005
Appellant, Frank Watson, appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees, Houston Independent School District (HISD), Dr. Rod Paige, and Larry Marshall (collectively, "the District"). The District terminated Watson's employment as an Assistant Superintendent nine months into his two-year contract. Watson subsequently sued the District for various claims, alleging that he was dismissed for reporting corrupt activities occurring within HISD. The trial court granted the District's request for summary judgment without specifying the grounds. In his sole point of error, Watson complains the trial court erred in entering summary judgment against him because: (1) he did not waive any rights to sue the District, especially for the particular claims he brought; and (2) his claims are not moot despite his acceptance of a $76,145.07 payment from the District. We reverse and remand to the trial court.
Factual and Procedural Background
In the late 1990s, HISD began privatizing its employee health care program. Watson, an HISD employee since 1968, became concerned with some of the District's practices regarding the privatization. He reported these concerns to several HISD administrators, citing the District's allegedly preferential treatment of People 1st Healthcare Network, the only minority-owned Independent Physician Association (IPA). Allegedly, this had negative implications for other IPAs under contract with HISD and created a boon for several HISD administrators who had close ties to People 1st. More importantly, Watson claimed it violated HISD's conflict of interest policies and had potential legal ramifications for HISD and those involved. While this was ongoing, Watson began working for HISD under a new contract where he was given the position of Assistant Superintendent for Employee Benefits and Claims Management. Under the terms of the contract, Watson's employment was to last from September 1999 to August 2001. However, the District fired him on May 19, 2000.
In accordance with several provisions in the employment contract, the District declined to provide Watson with any procedural mechanism to contest his dismissal, but instead, wrote him a check for $76,145.07, the equivalent of one-year's salary plus sick leave. Watson accepted and cashed the check on June 15, 2000, but then filed suit against the District the very next day. Watson claimed that his termination was due directly to his objections to the District's healthcare policies. He sought damages under the Texas Whistleblower Act, under the Texas Constitution, and for tortious interference with a contract.
The District filed a motion for summary judgment relying on the contractual provisions governing termination. In its motion, the District argued that it followed the proper procedure in dismissing Watson when it paid him a year's salary upon termination. It further claimed that because Watson accepted and cashed the check, he waived any right to sue for his dismissal. In addition, the District argued the payment for one-year's salary was the full extent of damages to which Watson would be entitled in any event. Therefore, the District posited that Watson's claims were moot because he had no recoverable damages. The trial court ultimately entered summary judgment for the District.
Standard of Review
Under Rule 166a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper when the movant establishes that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c); Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez, 819 S.W.2d 470, 471 (Tex. 1991). A defendant seeking summary judgment must, as a matter of law, ei
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Texas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|