Opinion ID: 895305
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Scope of Section 271.152’s Waiver of Immunity

Text: The City next claims that the Firefighters seek to avoid, rather than enforce, their ordinance-based contract, and their suit is therefore not a suit for breach of a contract within the limited scope of section 271.152’s waiver. See Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 271.152 (waiving immunity “for the purpose of adjudicating a claim for breach of the contract”). The pleadings provide some indication that the Firefighters’ ultimate recovery could depend on a showing that certain parts of the City of Houston Code of Ordinances violated state law, specifically the civil service provisions of Chapters 142 and 143 of the Local Government Code. See City of Houston , 183 S.W.3d at 424–25. That indeed was the basis for much of the court of appeals’ original opinion in favor of the Firefighters. See generally id. at 419–26. We decline to decide whether any of the Ordinances violate these specific statutory provisions, leaving this merits determination to the trial court, see Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue , 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000), but conclude the City’s argument fails because the Firefighters’ claim is, overall, one for breach of contract. In determining whether jurisdiction is proper, we look to the pleadings, “construing them liberally in favor of the plaintiffs and looking to the pleader’s intent.” City of Waco v. Kirwan , 298 S.W.3d 618, 621 (Tex. 2009). Viewing the Firefighters’ pleadings as a whole, the Firefighters currently plead a cause of action for breach of contract. Further, it is “settled that the laws which subsist at the time and place of the making of a contract . . . form a part of it, as if they were expressly referred to or incorporated in its terms.” Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy , 71 U.S. 535, 550 (1867). Relevant statutes can form a part of an employment contract. Byrd , 6 S.W.2d at 740 (holding that a state law governing civil service pensions was “part of the contract of employment and is read into the contract as fully as though it had been actually incorporated therein”); see also Wilson v. Andrews , 10 S.W.3d 663, 667–68 (Tex. 1999) (holding that the Civil Service Act, as amended, becomes part of the employment contract between a city and its firefighters when the city adopts it). The trial court may determine that at least some portions of the relevant statutes form a part of the unilateral contract between the City and Firefighters. Therefore, the Firefighters’ suit is properly characterized as one for breach of contract.