### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-08-00594- CV
Clif ton Alexander, Rob Acker , Joe Auger i, Jam es Baker, Brad Ballard, Joh n Ban nin g, Scott Bart ell, Edw ard Baxter, D an Beard, David B earden, David Belkn ap, Mikel Borg, Da vid Br ie tz ke , D r e w Bri tc he r , Be c ky Br oo ks, K e vin Br oo ks, M alv in Br own, P alm e r Buc k, Richard Bun te, Je rem y Burke, Richard Cand elario, Alfred Cer vera, Br et C arr, M ichael Chapp ell, Duncan Charlton, An drew Chelf , John Ch err y, Ed Cisl er, Lar ry Clowry, Jerr y Co he n, W ade Cr ain , G r e g C r owle y, P r e st in C ur ti s, M ar sha ll D andr idg e , Ric har d Da vis , Scott De cuir, Doug Dedear , David Dixon, T om Dodds, An thony Dw yer, Lynn Eichl er, Donald E ickhof

f, Dou g Eickh off

, Dan Ell iott, Trac y Evans, George F elix, Stuart F inn essey, Croc ket F oster , Lion el F oster , Doug F owl er, F aron F owl er, K en F owl er, M ike F rick, Daniel G alv an, M ike G e r at y, Lawr e nc e G e ss, Jo hn G r e e n, G uy G r oo m e r , R andyG unn, L uis G ut ie r r e z , Bo b Ha m ilt on, Ro b Ha yde n, D ani e l He r m an, G r e go r io H e r nande z , D av id Hie be r t, P at r ic k Ho lm an, M ar y A nn Hubba r d, P hil J ac k, Sc ot t J ane c e k, R andyJo ne s, Andre Jordan, Travis Jordan, Jan et K allus , Clif ford Kealey, Bryan K ent, Coit K essler, Edga r K ne uppe r , K e llyK nobl oc h, C hr is L affe r r e , Br ad La ndi, Jo hn Le nz , R ay m ond Le sc bhe r , M ike Lit tr e ll, K e n Lon e s, Jo e Loug hr an, Jo hn Lo wer y, Da vid Lunds te dt , Er ic Lup ton, Mark Madison, Th om as Madison, Carm en Maguire, Danny Marquis, Juan J. Mart inez, Steve Mart inez, Mat t Mc Brayer , Donald McCullou gh, Matt M cElerney, Les Mckay, Mar ion McKibb in, Wil liam McLain, Richard Mendez, Bre nt Meisenheim er, C had M e sse r sm it h, La r r y M ill e r , W illM onc r ie f, Ric ky M oo r e , P hil M ue lle r , M ike Na sc im be ni, Ra nde ll N at ion s, M ic hae l N or r is, G le n O’ De ll, Te r r e nc e Oe r tl i, J oe Ola gue , Lo nnie Owe n, RobertA. P arker, G reg P aschall, Wayn e P arrish, Mike P earson, Angel P ere z, K regg P hill ips, Paul P hill ips, Mark Pigg, Hunter P om roy, Todd Pom roy, G reg P owers, Tye P range, G ary P riest, C arie P ritc hard, And y Rear don, Gret Reddish , Tom Reiner, Scott Re ynold s, Roy Richardson, Joe Ridgeway, Alex Rodriguez, Edw ard Roel, De an Rum el, Chris Sand m an, Marce llo Saenz, Nicholas S chappe, Kim Schm idt, Mark Schul tz, Barbara Scotti, Vince nte Serr ano, And rew Shu ltz, David Sm ith, Mike Stephenson , Trace y Sui re, R oger Tanner, Ever ettThomas, K athy Touretellott e, Tim Trec km an, Steph en Truesdell, Rene Vallejo, Stan Van Hoose, Miguel Vasquez, Robert Vickery, A rt V ieria, M ike Vi lla r r e al, Br ando n Wa de , Br ya n Wa ge r s, Jo hn Wa ke fie ld, Sc ot t W alt e r s, Chr is Watson, Charles Weise, John Weller, Lawrence We sley, Jan Wesson, Carlton Whitehorst, Tom m y Wilki ns, Michael Willi am s, Lance Williamson, Hugh Woodard, Ger ald Worry, and S cottWorth, Appellants

v. City of Austin , AppelleeThe pa rties’ motions for leave to file supplemental post-submiss ion briefs a re he reby 1 g rante d. The pa

rties stipulated at trial that the City of Austin is a h o m e- ru le city subject to the 2 re le va nt p ro vis ion s o f t

he Civ il Se rv ic e Ac t. 2 F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-07- 0024 23, H ONO RAB LE JON N. WIS SER, JUDGE PRESI DING

O P I N I O N
A number of curr ent and former Austin fire fig hters (c ollectively , “the F ire F ighte rs”) filed suit ag ainst the C ity of Austin (“the City ”), c laiming violations of the F ire F ighte r and Police Offic er Civil Service A ct, see Te x. L oc . Gov ’t Cod e Ann. §§ 14 3. 00 1- .3 63 (We st 2 00 8) (“ the Civ il Service Act”) . The F ire F ighte rs soug ht declar atory , injunctive, and mandamus relief , as well as an
awa rd of ba ck pay . The pa

rties filed c ross-motions for summary judgme nt, and the trial c ourt issued a fina l order grantingsummary jud gm en t i n favor of the City . The F ire F ighte rs then broug ht the prese nt appea l from the trial court’s order gr anting summary judgme nt. We affir m the order

g ranting

summa ry jud g me nt. 1
BACK GR OUND Th e F ir e F ig hte rs br ou g ht t he pr e se nt s uit

in r e sp onse to C ity

of Au sti n Ordinanc e 020926-13, which they alleg e violates sec tions 143.041 and 143.044 of the Civil S ervic e Act by preve nting them f

rom simultaneously

rec eiving bo t h ce rt i fi cation pay and educ ational i n c e n t i v e p ay. See id. §§ 14 3. 04 1, .0 44 . Se c tio n 1 43 .0 41 pr ov ide s th a t a ll f ir e fi g hte rs in t

he same 2 classification are e ntitled to the same base sa lary , and that in addition to their base sa lary , eac h fire3

f i g h t e r i s e n t i t l e d t o c e rt a i n typ e s o f s u p p l e m e n t a l c o mp e n s a t i o na tth e d i s c r e t i o no f th e mun i c i p a l i ty, including “ educational incentive pay” and “ce rtification pay” as a uthorized by

section 143.044. Id. § 1 43 .0 41 (b ), (c ); see also id. § 143.044(b), ( c). Sec tion 143.044 gove rns the provision of

e du c a tio na l in c e nti ve pa

y and c e rt if ic a tio n p ay

a s f oll ow s: (b ) I f e a c h f

ir e fi g hte r o r p oli c e of

fi c e r in a muni c ipa lit

y is af fo rd e d a n o pp or tun ity to qu a l i f y f o r c e rt i f i c a t i o n , t h e mun i c i p a l i ty ’ s g o v e r n i n g b o d y m ay a u th o r i ze cer tification pay

to those fire f

ighte rs who mee t the require ments for c ertification set by t h e Commi ssion on Fire Protec tion Personnel Standards and E ducation or f or those polic e o ff

i ce rs who meet the require ments for c ertification set by the Commi ssion on L aw Enf orce ment Offic er Standa

rds and Educ ation. (c ) If t h e cr i t er i a fo r edu ca t i o n al i n ce n t i v e p ay ar e c l ea rl y

es t ab l i s h ed , ar e i nwr i t i n g, and ar e applied e qually

to eac h fire f

ighte r or police o ff

i cer in a municipality

who meets th e c r it e r ia , th e mu n ic ip a li ty ’ s g o v e r

n in g b o dy

ma y a u th o r iz e e d

u c a ti o nal incentive pa

y for eac h fire fig hter or police office r who ha s succe ssfully completed c o ur s e s a tana c c r e d i t e d

c o l l e g e o r

un i v e r s i ty.
Id. § 143.044. I n Ordinanc e 020926-13 , t h e City set forth the r equire ments and cr iteria for fire fi g hte rs to r e c e ive su

pp le me nta l c omp e ns a tio n p ur su ant t o s e c tio n 1 43 .0 44 . O f r e le va nc e to t his appea l, the ordinance includes the foll owing languag e: “A f irefig hter shall not be e ntitled to rece ive both Fire fig hter Cer

tification Pay

and Educ ation Incentive Pay .” I n response to the ordinanc e, the Fire Fig hters filed the pre sent suit, alleg ing that the ordinanc e violated the Civil Service A ct by preve nting them f

rom rec eiving both ty

pes of supplemental pay

. The trial c ourt g rante d summary judgme nt in favor of

the City , and this appea l followed.4 STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW Summary judgme nts are r eviewe d de novo. Va le nc e Op e ra ti ng Co. v . D or se tt , 16 4 S. W.3 d 6 56 , 6 61 (T e x. 20 05 ). To pr e va il on a moti on fo r s umm ary jud g me nt, the mov ant m

us t show that there is no issue of materia l fac t and that i t i s entitled to judgment a s a matter of law. TX Far W

est, Ltd. v. Texas Inv

s. Mgmt., Inc

. , 127 S.W .3d 295, 301 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004,

no pe t.)

. Ev ide nc e fa

vo ra ble to the no n- mov ant is take n a s tr ue and e ve ry

re a so na ble inf e re nc e mus t be indulg ed in favor of the non- movant and any doubts resolved in its favor. Id.

DI SCU SSIO N I n two points of error

on appea l, the Fire Fig ht er s ar gue that the City ’s ordinanc e prohibiting individual fire fig hters fr om simul taneously recei v i n g both cer

tification pay

and

e du c a tio na l in c e nti ve pa

y vio late s th e Civ il Se rv ic e Ac t by (1 ) f a ili ngto a wa rd c e rt if ic a tio n p ay

to all those fire fig hters who qua lify and (2) fa i l i n g t o awa

rd educ ational incentive pa y to all fire fig hters who mee t the criter ia.

B e c a u s e h o me - r

u le c it ie s d e r iv e th e ir

p o w e r f r o m t h e T e xa s Co n s ti tuti o n, s ee Tex. Cons t. art. XI , § 5, and possess the full power of self- g overnme nt, home-rule c ity ordinanc es
are presumed valid. In re Sanc hez , 81 S.W .3d 794, 796 (Tex. 2002). Fur thermore , “a g ener al law and a c ity ordinanc e will not be held repug nant t o eac h other[] if any other re asonable construction, leavingboth in effe ct, ca

n be re ache d.” City

of B e au mo nt v . F

all , 291 S.W . 202, 206 (Tex. 1927) (empha sis omitted). Acc ording ly , if we c an re ach a rea sonable c onstruction of the City ’s ordinanc e and the Civil Service Ac t that leaves both law s in effe ct, we must do so.Our an a ly sis is limi te d to the fa c ts o f t his c a se , in

wh ic h th e re is n o a sse rt ion that th e City 3 is w it h h o ld in g c e rti f

ic a ti o np ay

b a s e d o nme mb e r s h ip in

a p r o te c te d

c la s s o r in an y ma n n e r that would fail to satisfy

a rational basis reviewin the event of an equal protec tion c halleng e. See, e .g. , Ne e le y v . W est Ora nge -C

ov e Con so l. I

nd e p. Sc h. Di st. , 176 S.W .3d 746, 784 (Tex. 2005) (obser ving that when no suspec t class or fund amental right is involved, “the g overnme nt is permitted to give classes dispar ate tre atment . . . as longas it has a r ational basis for doingso”). 5 Se c ti o n 1 4 3
. 0 4 4 ( b ) , g o v e r n in g c e rti f

ic a ti o n p ay , s tate s th a t if e a c h f ir e f igh te r in a

mun i c i p a l i ty i s a f

f o r d e d an o p p o rtun i ty t o qu a l i f y f o r c e rt i f i c a t i o n , th e m un i c i p a l i ty “ may a u th o r iz e
cer tification pay

to those fire fig hters who meet the require ments for certification.” Tex. L oc. Gov’ t Code Ann. § 143.044(b) (empha sis added). This la ng uag e clea

rly indicates that the City ’s pay ment of ce rtifi ca t i o n p ay is discretionary . The F ire F ighte rs ar g ue, howe ver, that once the City has

e xer c ise d it s disc re tio n to pro vid e c e rt if ic a tio n pay , the statut e re qu ir e s that the pa y me nt be ma de to “those fir e fig hters” me eting the re quirements, without exception. Id.

We f i n d i t s i g n i f

i c an t th a t th e s t a tu t e u s e s th e w o r d “ m ay , ” r a th e r th an “ s h a l l , ” in

connec tion with the authorization of certification pay

. See Tex. Gov’t C o d e An n . § 311.016 (West 2005) (in interpre ting statutes, “may” cre ates discretionar y authority or g rants per

mission or power , while “sha ll” imposes duty). Kee ping in mind that we must rea ch a r easona ble construc tion of the ordina

nce that is consistent with section 143.044(b) if it is possibl e to do s o, we hold that by p r o v i d i n g th a tt h e C i ty “ may authorize ce rtification pay to th o se fire fig hters who mee t the require ments,” sec tion 143.044(b) g rants the City discretionar

y authority to set conditions resulting in t he awa rd of c e rt if ic a tio n p ay

to s ome fi re fi g hte rs me e tin g the re qu ir e me nts , b ut n ot o the rs . See 3 id. (empha sis added).

Simi larly , section 143.044(c ) provides that a m unicipality may authorize educ ational i n ce n t i v e p ay

“[ i ] f t h e c ri t er i a fo r e d

u ca t i o n al i n ce n t i v e p ay

ar e c l ea rl y

es t ab l i s h ed , ar e i nwr i t i n g,Those fire fig hters who qualify for both educ ational incentive pa y and ce rtification pay

may 4 elec t to rece ive the bene fit that provides the g reatest amount of re muneration. 6 and ar e applied e qually ” to ea ch fire fig hter who me ets t h e cr i teria. Id. § 1 43 .0 44 (c ). Th e statut e d o e s n o tl i m i tth e mun i c i p a l i ty’ s a u th o r i ty t o p r o mu l g a t e th e c r i t e r i a f o r e d u c a t i o n a l i n c e n t i v e p ay. In this case, the Cit y has included a criter ion that in order to re ceive educational incentive pay , the fi re fi g hte r m

us t no t a lso be re c e ivi ngc e rt if ic a tio n pa y . Th is re qu ir e me nt is c le arl y e sta bli sh e d, is in writing, a

nd is applied equa lly

to eac h fire f

ighte r, as r eq u i red by

the statute. See id. The

or din anc e pr ov ide s w ri tte n n oti c e to a ll f ir e fi g hte rs e mpl oy e d b y

the City that in or de r to be e lig ibl e f o r e d u c a t i o n a l i n c e n t i v e p ay, th e y mu s t n o t a l s o b e r e c e i v i n g c e rt i f i c a t i o np ay. This is all that the

4 statut e re qu ir e s. As a

re su lt, we ho ld t

hat th e City ’s ord in ance is no t in c on sis te nt w ith section 143.044(c ).

Wit h respe ct to both cer

tification pay and educational inc entive pay , the Fire Fig hters also conten dthat the ordinanc e violates a “non-discr imination requirement” applicable to pay
su pp le me nts un de r t

he Civ il Se rv ic e Ac t. I

n s up po rt of thi s argum e nt, the F ir e F ig hte rs c ite section 143.041(b) , which states that a ll fire fig hters “in the sa me classific atio n ar e entitl ed to the same ba se salar

y .” Id. § 143.041(b). While this provision ref ers only to ba se salary , the Fire Fig hters cite City of A us tin v . Ca sti llo , 25 S.W .3d 309, 311 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. denied), a nd City of H ar lin ge n v . A v ila , 9 4 2 S.W .2d 49, 53 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997, writ denied), for the proposition that the non-discrim ination require ment has also bee n applied to the supplementa l pay ments listed in section 143.041(c). See Tex. L oc. Gov’t Code Ann. § 143.041(c ). In response , the City contends that the non- discrimination require ment does not apply to supplemental pay

and th a te v e ni f

i td o e s , th e C i ty’ s o r d i n an c e i s n o n - d i s c r i m i n a t o r y.7 Be cause we a gr e e th a

t t h e Ci ty ’ s o r d in a

n c e is neutral and non- discriminatory , we ne ed

no t re so lve the iss ue of wh e the r the no n- dis c ri min a tio n r e qu ir e me nt a pp lic a ble to b a se sa lary

a lso applies to supplemental pay . The City ’s ordinanc e, which limits fire fig hters to receivingeither educational incentive pay or ce rtification pay

but not both, is applied equa lly to all fire f

ighte rs and treats all simi larly

situated fire fig hters the same. Any fire f ighte r who qua lifies for both ce rtification pay and educ ational incentive pa y must elec t to rec eive only one of those benef its. Be cause the pay supplements authorized by the C i t y ar e d i sbursed in a f air, e ven-ha

nded, and non- discriminatory

manner , the ordinanc e is consistent with the Civil S ervic e Ac t. Se e Av ila , 924 S.W .2d at 53 (holding that once c ity

chooses to provide seniority or long evity pay supplements under se ction 143.041(c) , it “must do so in a fair, eve n-hande d, non-discriminatory manner ”). We overrule the Fire Fighte rs’ point s of er ror a nd hold that the City ’s ordinanc e does

no t vi olate the Civ il Se rv ic e Ac t. CO NC LU SION

We affir m the trial court’ s order

g rantingsummary

judgme nt.

__________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Waldrop and He nson Affir med Filed: Nove mber 20, 2009