Joelle Ogletree v. Glen Rose Independent School District ( 2010 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-08-00392-CV
JOELLE OGLETREE,
Appellant
v.
GLEN ROSE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Appellee
From the 249th District Court
Somervell County, Texas
Trial Court No. C-09621
OPINION
After she was terminated from her teaching job at Glen Rose High School, Joelle
Ogletree sued the Glen Rose Independent School District. The trial court initially
sustained the District’s plea to the jurisdiction, and in an earlier appeal, we reversed in
part and affirmed in part that ruling, holding that the District did not have sovereign
immunity as to Ogletree’s breach of contract and section 1983 claims. See Ogletree v.
Glen Rose ISD, 226 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.). On remand, the District
moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Raising three issues,
Ogletree appeals. We will affirm.
The District moved for summary judgment on the following grounds: (1) on her
breach of contract claim, Ogletree was an at-will employee who therefore had no right
to termination only for “good cause” or right to due process; (2) on her breach of
contract claim, Ogletree failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for the trial court
to have jurisdiction; and (3) Ogletree’s section 1983 claim is barred by the statute of
limitations. Without stating the reasons, the trial court granted the motion and
dismissed Ogletree’s two claims.
We review a trial court’s summary judgment de novo. Provident Life & Accident
Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2003). In reviewing a summary judgment, we
must consider whether reasonable and fair-minded jurors could differ in their
conclusions in light of all of the evidence presented. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v.
Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754, 755 (Tex. 2007). We must consider all the evidence in the light
most favorable to the nonmovant, indulging every reasonable inference in favor of the
nonmovant and resolving any doubts against the motion. See id. at 756.
We begin with Ogletree’s second issue, which asserts in part that the trial court
erred in granting summary judgment because there is a fact issue on whether Ogletree’s
employment contract was a fixed-term employment contract and was not at-will, thus
requiring the District to have good cause for termination and to afford her due process.
The summary judgment evidence shows that Ogletree taught French and English
at Glen Rose High School in the 2000-01 and 2001-02 school years under “Chapter 21”
teaching contracts. In a letter dated January 29, 2002, Ogletree gave notice that she
Ogletree v. Glen Rose Independent School District Page 2
would be resigning at the end of the school year to stay at home with her daughter. In
the summer of 2002, John Bailey, then-Superintendent of the District, asked Ogletree to
come back to work to teach French. Ogletree informed him that she would teach but
only wanted to teach parttime and did not want to attend in-service days. As a result,
and at Ogletree’s request, Bailey sent Ogletree a letter dated August 1, 2002:
This letter is to confirm our agreement regarding your employment with
GRISD. As agreed, you will be a long-term sub working 178 days at
$128.06 per day. Your assignment will be Flags, French II and French III.
Thereafter, on August 19, 2002, Ogletree signed the following form “Letter of
Reasonable Assurance” from Bailey:
Dear Substitute:
This letter provides notice of reasonable assurance of continued
employment with the district for the school year 2002-2003, when each
school term resumes after a school break. … Please note that this letter is
not a contract or guarantee of employment.
Nothing contained herein construes an employment contract. Your
continued employment is on an at-will basis. At-will employers may
terminate employees at any time for any reason or for no reason, except
for legally impermissible reasons. At-will employees are free to resign at
any time for any reason or no reason.
…
Please complete the following information … . Failure to sign and return
this form will keep you off the substitute list.
Based on allegations of sexual misconduct with a student, on the evening of
October 1, 2002, Jeff Harris, the Principal of Glen Rose High School, telephoned
Ogletree at home to tell her that she was being placed on administrative leave.
According to Ogletree’s affidavit, on October 3, 2002, Harris telephoned Ogletree at
Ogletree v. Glen Rose Independent School District Page 3
home and terminated her. Ogletree said that she asked Harris if she would be able to
tell her side or if “there would be hearing from” [sic] her, but Harris never gave her a
full idea of the allegations or how to defend herself. Ogletree also spoke with Bailey
that day, and she asked him about being able to give her side. Bailey told her it was a
“final decision.” Bailey’s affidavit states that Ogletree called him that day to discuss his
decision and that she set up an appointment to meet with him on October 4, but she
called back to cancel the appointment, “saying it was on her attorney’s advice.” In his
deposition, Bailey said that he offered Ogletree “an opportunity for her to come talk to
me and she chose not to,” although he admitted that the decision to terminate her was
final and nothing she could have told him would reverse the decision. Bailey did not
send her written information on the way to request a hearing.
In a letter to Bailey dated December 11, 2002, and received by Bailey on
December 12, Ogletree’s attorney stated the she “appeals her discharge” and requests a
closed-session hearing, but the District did not respond.
We assume without deciding that there is a fact issue on whether Ogletree’s
employment contract was a fixed-term employment contract and was not at-will and
will proceed to whether summary judgment was proper because Ogletree failed to
exhaust her administrative remedies. Our initial opinion summarized the law in that
area:
“[A] plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies may deprive
courts of subject matter jurisdiction in the dispute.” Essenburg v. Dallas
County, 988 S.W.2d 188, 189 (Tex. 1998) (per curiam); see Matagorda County
Appraisal Dist. v. Coastal Liquids Partners, L.P., 165 S.W.3d 329, 331 (Tex.
2005); Van Indep. Sch. Dist. v. McCarty, 165 S.W.3d 351, 354 (Tex. 2005);
Ogletree v. Glen Rose Independent School District Page 4
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d 351, 361 (Tex. 2004).
“[E]xhaustion of administrative remedies generally requires compliance”
with administrative procedures. Van Indep. Sch. Dist. at 354. “[A] party
must exhaust administrative remedies as a prerequisite to a trial court’s
jurisdiction in a case involving the administration of school laws and
disputed fact issues.” Vela v. Waco Indep. Sch. Dist., 69 S.W.3d 695, 698
(Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. withdrawn) (citing Tex. Educ. Agency v.
Cypress-Fairbanks I.S.D., 830 S.W.2d 88, 90 (Tex. 1992)); see TEX. EDUC. CODE
ANN. § 7.057 (Vernon 2006); Van Indep. Sch. Dist. at 354. “[T]he doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies” applies “to the school
employment context.” Vela at 701; see Van Indep. Sch. Dist. at 354. “[A]
teacher’s claim of breach of his teaching-employment contract involves the
administration of school laws and disputed fact issues, and thus, the
teacher [i]s required to exhaust . . . administrative remedies . . . before
looking to the courts for relief.” Vela at 701 (citing Godley Indep. Sch. Dist.
v. Woods, 21 S.W.3d 656, 660 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, pet. denied)).
Ogletree, 226 S.W.3d at 632.
In its summary-judgment evidence, the District included a statement signed by
Ogletree on July 31, 2000 that she received a copy of the District’s grievance policy and
appropriate forms. The statement is on a form that notes: “For clarification, a grievance
does not become a formal grievance until it is put in writing and properly filed with the
immediate supervisor.” Also in the record is the District’s grievance policy DGBA
(LOCAL), which the District contends applies to a non-Chapter 21 contract teacher,
which is what Ogletree contends she was under Bailey’s August 1, 2002 letter. That
policy provides a three-step process, beginning with a written grievance within fifteen
days:
An employee who has a grievance shall request a conference with the
principal or immediate supervisor by submitting the grievance in writing
on a form provided by the District. The form must be filed within 15 days
of the time the employee first knew or should have known of the event or
series of events about which the employee is complaining.
Ogletree v. Glen Rose Independent School District Page 5
Ogletree’s attorney’s December 11, 2002 written request was untimely. She
contends, however, that under another grievance policy, the District should have given
her a hearing without her request. But that specific policy (DCE (LEGAL)), even if we
agreed with Ogletree’s construction, applies to written contracts for non-educators.
Ogletree further contends that her failure to timely exhaust her administrative
remedies is excused because such exhaustion would have been futile, citing Bailey’s
response to Ogletree that the decision to terminate her was final and his testimony that
nothing she said could have changed his decision. Futility is a recognized exception to
the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement. See Smith v. Blue Cross & Blue
Shield United of Wis., 959 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1992); see also Dawson Farms, LLC v. Farm
Serv. Agency, 504 F.3d 592, 606 (5th Cir. 2007); Gardner v. School Bd. Caddo Parish, 958
F.2d 108, 111-12 (5th Cir. 1992). To come under the futility exception, a claimant must
show that it is certain that the claim will be denied on appeal. Smith, 959 F.2d at 659.
The District correctly notes that, under the three-step process, Ogletree could
have appealed her grievance to the District’s Board of Trustees, and then to the Texas
Education Commissioner, followed by judicial review. See TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. §
7.057 (Vernon Supp. 2009). Ogletree had the burden of demonstrating futility, but she
only claims and presented evidence that an appeal to the superintendent would have
been futile. Cf. Gardner, 958 F.2d at 112. By not even alleging that an appeal to the
school board or the state commissioner would have been futile, she cannot demonstrate
futility. Cf. id. We thus hold that Ogletree failed to exhaust her administrative remedies
as a matter of law and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over her breach of contract
Ogletree v. Glen Rose Independent School District Page 6
claim. Summary judgment and dismissal were proper on this ground, and we overrule
that part of her second issue.
Ogletree asserts that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the
District’s ground that Ogletree’s section 1983 claim is barred by the statute of
limitations. The parties agree that the statute of limitations on a section 1983 claim is
two years. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 16.003(a) (Vernon Supp. 2009); Price
v. City of San Antonio, 431 F.3d 890, 892 (5th Cir. 2005). But they disagree when
Ogletree’s section 1983 claim accrued.
Federal law determines when Ogletree’s section 1983 claim accrued. Helton v.
Clements, 832 F.2d 332, 334 (5th Cir. 1987). Generally, a cause of action accrues the
moment the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis of her
complaint. Id. at 335. The statute of limitations begins to run from the moment the
plaintiff becomes aware that she has suffered an injury or has sufficient information to
know that she has been injured. Id. In a section 1983 wrongful discharge action, the
statute of limitations begins to run on the date of termination. See id. (conspiracy
allegations did not extend time for limitations to begin to run); see also Frazier v. Garrison
ISD, 980 F.2d 1514, 1521-22 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that when employment
discrimination claim is based on discharge, the discharge itself is basis for
discrimination suit and begins limitations period).
Ogletree argues that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until she
learned of the alleged gender discrimination, i.e., when she later learned that a male
teacher was allegedly treated differently upon substantially similar allegations of sexual
Ogletree v. Glen Rose Independent School District Page 7
misconduct with a student. However, well-established Fifth Circuit precedent in
employment discrimination cases directly contradicts Ogletree’s position. See Chapman
v. Homco, Inc., 886 F.2d 756, 758 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that limitations period on
employment discrimination claim triggered on date of discharge, not on date of
discovery of discriminatory intent); Merrill v. Southern Methodist Univ., 806 F.2d 600, 605
(5th Cir. 1986) (same); see also Anderson v. City of Dallas, 111 F.3d 892 (5th Cir. 1997) (per
curiam) (same); Pacheco v. Rice, 966 F.2d 904, 906 (5th Cir. 1992) (same) (“To allow
plaintiffs to raise employment discrimination claims whenever they begin to suspect
that their employers had illicit motives would effectively eviscerate the time limits
prescribed for filing such complaints.”).
Ogletree relies solely on a non-employment case to support her accrual
argument. See Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 576 (5th Cir. 2001); Piotrowski v.
City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir. 1995).
Accrual of a § 1983 claim is governed by federal law: “Under
federal law, the [limitations] period begins to run ‘the moment the
plaintiff becomes aware that he has suffered an injury or has sufficient
information to know that he has been injured.’” Russell v. Bd. of Trustees,
968 F.2d 489, 493 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting Helton v. Clements, 832 F.2d 332,
335 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 914, 113 S. Ct. 1266, 122 L. Ed. 2d 662
(1993). A plaintiff’s awareness encompasses two elements: “(1) The
existence of the injury; and (2) causation, that is, the connection between
the injury and the defendant’s actions.” Piotrowski, 51 F.3d at 516.
Piotrowski, 237 F.3d at 576. Piotrowski involved allegations that the Houston Police
Department took affirmative steps to suppress information that it knew someone was
going to try to kill the plaintiff. Id. at 576-77. The court noted fraudulent concealment, a
well-recognized exception that tolls the statute of limitations (or delays accrual of the
Ogletree v. Glen Rose Independent School District Page 8
cause of action), and that the City did not object to a jury question on whether the
plaintiff knew or should have known of the causal connection between her injuries and
the defendant’s actions. See id. at 577 & n.13. In this case, Ogletree makes no fraudulent
concealment allegation, and she fails to persuade us that Piotrowski, an unusual and
factually inapposite case, controls accrual of her section 1983 discrimination claim,
rather than the employment cases cited above.
Ogletree was terminated on October 3, 2002. The two-year limitations period
expired on October 3, 2004. She did not file her section 1983 claim until April 27, 2005.
Because the District established that it was entitled to summary judgment on Ogletree’s
section 1983 claim based on its statute of limitations defense, we overrule that part of
Ogletree’s second issue.
Having found that the trial court properly granted the District’s summary
judgment motion on Ogletree’s failure to exhaust her administrative remedies and the
statute of limitations, we need not address her first and third issues and the remainder
of her second issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
REX D. DAVIS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Reyna, and
Justice Davis
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed February 10, 2010
[CV06]
Ogletree v. Glen Rose Independent School District Page 9