Opinion issued August 20, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00349-CV

———————————

HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEMS, Appellant

V.

TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION AND SABRINA Y. LEWIS, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2016-52796

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Houston Community College Systems (HCC) appeals the trial court’s 

summary judgment affirming the Texas Workforce Commission’s (TWC)

determination that appellee Sabrina Y. Lewis was entitled to unemployment 
2

benefits. On appeal, HCC contends that a procedural error during the administrative 

appeals process requires reversal of the TWC determination.

We affirm.

Background

Appellee Sabrina Y. Lewis began working for HCC in 1992. In September 

2015, Lewis confronted a subordinate and informed her that she would be placed on 

a performance improvement plan. Lewis maintains that she called campus police 

after the subordinate began yelling and disrupting the office. HCC in turn contends

that Lewis yelled and behaved inappropriately, in violation of its policies. HCC put 

Lewis on administrative leave, and she engaged an attorney. HCC terminated 

Lewis’s employment in early October 2015.

Lewis filed a claim for unemployment benefits, which was allowed by TWC,

and HCC appealed. TWC sent Lewis a notice of hearing, which informed her that 

an appeal tribunal hearing was scheduled for January 5, 2016. Lewis wanted her 

previously-engaged attorney to represent her at the TWC appeal tribunal hearing, 

but the attorney was out of the country and would not return before January 5. Both 

Lewis and HCC requested that the hearing be postponed. The hearing officer denied 

both requests.

On January 5, 2016, the hearing was conducted by telephone. Lewis called in, 

and she was sworn as a witness. After answering several undisputed background 
3

questions, she declined to participate further because her attorney had previously 

advised her not to discuss her employment termination. The hearing officer asked if 

she was going to participate and informed her that if she stayed on the phone call, 

he would “deem that as a participation.” Lewis disconnected. The hearing officer 

conducted the remainder of the hearing without Lewis, accepting evidence from 

HCC. Based on HCC’s evidence, the appeal tribunal concluded that Lewis’s actions 

constituted misconduct and that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment 

benefits.1

Lewis’s attorney requested a new hearing, asserting that Lewis had good 

cause for her failure to appear because the attorney was out of the country. She also 

asserted that a new hearing would be “fair” because only HCC’s “one-sided 

evidence” was considered by TWC in making its determination. A different hearing 

officer conducted a hearing, determined that the unavailability of Lewis’s attorney 

was good cause for her nonappearance, reopened the hearing, and received evidence. 

After the hearing, the appeal tribunal concluded that the evidence did not prove the 

“alleged misconduct” and that Lewis was entitled to unemployment benefits. 

 

1

“An individual is disqualified for benefits if the individual was discharged for 

misconduct connected with the individual’s last work.” TEX. LAB. CODE § 207.044. 

“‘Misconduct’ means mismanagement of a position of employment by action or 

inaction, neglect that jeopardizes the life or property of another, intentional 

wrongdoing or malfeasance, intentional violation of a law, or violation of a policy 

or rule adopted to ensure the orderly work and the safety of employees.” Id.

§ 201.012. 
4

HCC initiated a further administrative appeal, and the TWC upheld the appeal 

tribunal’s determination. Having exhausted its administrative remedies, HCC 

appealed to the district court for de novo review. In the trial court, HCC moved for 

summary judgment, arguing that the hearing examiner erred by reopening the 

hearing because Lewis initially made an appearance during the January telephone 

hearing. HCC asserted that this error required a reversal and reinstatement of the 

initial “no benefits” determination made after the January appeal tribunal hearing. 

Lewis moved for summary judgment on the ground that the TWC’s final decision

that she was entitled to unemployment benefits was supported by substantial 

evidence. The trial court granted Lewis’s summary judgment motion and denied 

HCC’s motion. HCC appealed.

Analysis

In its brief, HCC states four issues challenging the trial court’s rulings on the 

motions for summary judgment. Its argument, however, centers entirely on the 

alleged procedural error of reopening the administrative appeal hearing.2

 

2 HCC’s stated issues are:

(1) Whether the trial court erred in denying HCC’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment.

(2) Whether the trial court erred in granting the Motion for Summary 

Judgment filed by the TWC and Lewis and entering a final judgment 

in their favor.
5

We review de novo the trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment.

Tarr v. Timberwood Park Owners Ass’n, Inc., 556 S.W.3d 274, 278 (Tex. 2018).

Each party moving for traditional summary judgment bears the burden of showing 

that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c); see Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. 

Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215–16 (Tex. 2003). “When opposing parties file counter 

motions for summary judgment and the trial court grants one motion and denies the 

other, the appellate court has jurisdiction to determine all questions presented in the 

opposing motions and to render the judgment the trial court should have rendered.” 

Lancer Ins. Co. v. Garcia Holiday Tours, 345 S.W.3d 50, 59 (Tex. 2011).

HCC contends that the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary 

judgment because the agency should not have reopened the hearing and permitted 

Lewis to introduce evidence. The Texas Labor Code authorizes judicial review when 

 

(3) Whether the trial court erred in implicitly finding that Lewis did not 

“appear” at the TWC appeal hearing on January 5, 2016, despite the 

fact that she called in to the hearing, was sworn in as a witness by the 

TWC hearing officer, and provided sworn testimony to the TWC 

hearing officer.

(4) Whether the trial court erred in implicitly finding that Lewis could 

petition the TWC to re-open the administrative record on the grounds 

that she did not “appear” at the TWC appeal hearing on January 5, 

2016, despite the fact that she called in to the hearing, was sworn in 

as a witness by the TWC hearing officer, and provided sworn 

testimony to the TWC hearing officer.
6

a party is “aggrieved by a final decision of the commission.” TEX. LAB. CODE

§ 212.201. “The decision of an appeal tribunal is the final decision of the 

commission unless further appeal is initiated . . . .” Id. § 212.104 (emphasis added). 

After the second hearing examiner decided to reopen the hearing, Lewis presented 

evidence, and the appeal tribunal determined that she was entitled to unemployment 

benefits. HCC promptly initiated a further appeal. The decision to reopen the hearing 

was not a final decision; rather, it was an interlocutory decision to permit Lewis to 

present evidence. This determination is not a “final decision of the commission,” 

and it is not subject to judicial review. See id. § 212.201. We overrule HCC’s first, 

third, and fourth issues. 

HCC’s second issue asserts that the trial court erred by granting summary 

judgment in favor of Lewis and the TWC. HCC made no substantive argument on 

appeal regarding whether the TWC’s determination was supported by substantial 

evidence. To the extent that HCC intended to challenge the final decision of the 

commission that Lewis was entitled to unemployment benefits, the issue is 

inadequately briefed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i) (“The brief must contain a clear 

and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to 

authorities and the record.”). We overrule HCC’s second issue.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 
7

Peter Kelly

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly, and Goodman.