Billy Edward Damuth, II v. Trinity Valley Community College

HLhUJI'Y
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
Post Office Box 12248
Austin, Texas 78711
(512)463-1312
November 21, 2014
Mr. Richard L. Ray Ms. Leigh Campbell Porter
Ray & Thatcher | Attorneys at Law PC Wilson Robertson & Cornelius, PC.
300 South Trade Days Blvd P.O. Box 7339
Canton, TX 75103 909 ESE Loop 323, Suite 400
OFAPPEAL
RE: Case Number: 13-0815
1^M>^iI^pea?o D. met
.
Court of Appeals Number: 12-12-00353-CV
Trial Court Number: 2012B-0207 NOV 2 5 20I4
Style: BILLY EDWARD DAMUTH, II TYLER
v. f CATHYS. LUSK C> PR
TRINITY VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGEANinjEENDON^: *
INDIVIDUALLY
Dear Counsel:
Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion and judgment in the above-
referenced cause. You may obtain a copy of the opinion and judgment through Case Search on
our Court's webpage at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/. On the Case Search page
simply enter the case number and push the Search button to find the docket page for your case.
Sincerely,
£V. lA^FsS^-^
Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk
by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
cc: Ms. Jean Godwin
Ms. Cathy S. Lusk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
No. 13-0815
FILED iN COURT OF APPEALS
12th Court rf Appeals District
Billy Edward Damuth, II, 'etiti
Trinity Valley Community posATOff^gusK, (CLERrX
Glendon S. Forgey, Individually, Respondents '
On Petition for Review from the
Court of Appeals for the Twelfth District of Texas
PER CURIAM
The Local Government Contract Claims Act waives a local governmental entity's immunity
from suit for breach of a services contract subject to the Act. Tex. Loc. Gov't Code §§ 271.151(2),
271.152. In CityofHouston v. Williams, we held firefighters' employment contracts to be subject to
the Act. 353 S.W.3d 128,131,139 (Tex. 2011). Nevertheless, in the present case, the court of appeals
held that the Act does not cover government employment contracts generally. S.W.3d (Tex.
App.—Tyler 2013). We disagree and so reverse the court of appeals' judgment and remand the case
to the trial court.
Petitioner Billy Damuth had a written employment agreement for "services ... as Head
Women's Basketball Coach/Professor" with respondent Trinity Valley Community College
("TVCC"), a local governmental entity to which the Act applies. Tex. Educ. Code §§ 130.005,
130.205; Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 271.151(3)(B). Five months into the one-year contract, TVCC
fired Damuth. Damuth sued TVCC for breach of contract. On TVCC's plea of immunity, the trial
court dismissed the case. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the Act does not waive immunity
from suit for breach of employment contracts. S.W.3d at . The CA gave three reasons. None
has merit.
First: the Act does not specifically mention employment agreements and cannot be read to
cover them because statutory waivers of immunity must be by clear and unambiguous language. Tex.
Gov't Code § 311.034. But "services" clearly includes what an employee provides his employer by
his efforts. Indeed, TVCC expressly contracted for Damuth's "services."
Second: the Act is part of Title 8 of the Local Government Code, entitled "Acquisition, Sale,
or Lease of Property," which applies "in situations where third parties are doing business with a
governmental entity," and it gives "no indication" that it "applies to employees of the governmental
entity." S.W.3dat_ . But "[t]he heading of a title, subtitle, chapter, subchapter, or section does
not limit or expand the meaning of a statute." Tex. Gov't Code § 311.024. "In ordinary usage the
term 'services' has a rather broad and general meaning. It includes generally any act performed for
the benefit of another under some arrangement or agreement whereby such act was to have been
performed." Van Zandt v. Fort Worth Press, 359 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1962) (quotation omitted).
Though the Legislature has defined "services" in some contexts, it has not done so in the Act, and
"the term is broad enough to encompass a wide array of activities." KirbyLakeDev., Ltd. v. Clear
Lake City Water Autk, 320 S.W.3d 829, 839 & n.8 (Tex. 2010) (citing, e.g., Tex. Bus. &Com. Code
§ 17.45(2), and Tex. Util. Code § 11.003); see also Tex. Gov't Code § 851.001(8) (defining
"employee" in terms ofproviding "services"). The term is certainly broad enough to include services
provided by employees.
Third: although Williams held that the Act covers firefighters' employment contracts,
firefighters are civil servants and treated differently from other employees. The argument is a non
sequitur. The law's sometimes special treatment of civil service employees says nothing about
whether they should be treated differently under the Act. Nothing in the Act itself indicates that its
waiver of immunity is limited to suits by civil servants.
TVCC advances no other argument in support of the trial court's dismissal of the case.
Accordingly, we conclude that TVCC' s immunity from suit has been waived for Damuth' s breach-of-
contract claim. We grant Damuth's petition for review and, without hearing oral argument, reverse
the court of appeals' judgment and remand the case to the trial court. Tex. R. App. P. 59.1.
Opinion delivered: November 21,2014
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
NO. 13-0815
FILED IM COURT OF APPEALS
BILLY EDWARD DAMUTH, II, PETITION^0^ °f APges!s Di3tr,ict
Trinity Valley Community Coll sge anSYLER texas
Glendon S. Forgey, Individually, RksfW]^fbLUSKi CLE
On Petition for Review from the
Court of Appeals for the Twelfth District of Texas
judgment
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, having heard this cause on petition for review from
the Court of Appeals for the Twelfth District, and having considered the appellate record and
counsel's briefs, but without hearing oral argument under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1,
concludes that the court of appeals' judgment should be reversed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, in accordance with the Court's opinion, that:
1) The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed;
2) The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with
this Court's opinion; and
3) Petitioner Billy Edward Damuth, II, shall recover, and respondents Trinity
Valley Community College and Glendon S. Forgey shall pay, the costs
incurred in this Court and in the court of appeals.
Copies of this judgment and the Court's opinion are certified to the Court of Appeals for the
Twelfth District and to the District Court of Henderson County, Texas, for observance.
Opinion of the Court Delivered Per Curiam
November 21, 2014