Court Opinion

ID: 9667893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:57:17.625389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:41.345834
License: Public Domain

*647KILGARLIN, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in reversing the judgment of the court of appeals and remanding this cause to that court for consideration of the merits of the temporary injunction granted by the District Court of Harris County, Texas. But, this case can and properly should be resolved under a long line of Texas cases holding that when facts are undisputed, bypassing administrative channels by immediately resorting to the courts is permissible.
Before discussing the basis of my concurrence, I note that neither the court nor the dissenting opinion mentions Grounds v. Tolar Independent School District, 707 S.W.2d 889 (Tex.1986). In fairness to Houston Independent School District, as Grounds was the major case relied upon by it for support of its position, Grounds should be discussed. In Grounds, we held that when administrative remedies were sought by a teacher, an order of the State Commissioner of Education could not be collaterally attacked by suit in a court while appeal from the administrative order was still available. But, Grounds was limited to rights accruing under the Term Contract Non-renewal Act. The case at bar is dissimilar, being neither a term contract non-renewal dispute, nor an effort to collaterally attack an order of the Commissioner of Education.
I take issue with the dissent that numerous questions of fact must still be decided in order to resolve the current dispute. The record contains the recommendation of the H.I.S.D. school superintendent to provide for tutorials; the action of the school board in approving the recommendation; the schedule of each H.I.S.D. high school reflecting amended hours of work so as to provide tutorial time; H.I.S.D. rules pertaining to the operation of tutorial programs, reflecting, among other things, which courses of study shall be covered and who shall attend; copies of employment contracts of the individual plaintiffs with H.I.S.D.; and, a copy of H.I.S.D. administrative procedures, reflecting a guaranteed maximum seven and a half hour instructional day for teachers. Additionally» by statute, teachers are guaranteed a minimum duty-free lunch period. It being undisputed that the regulation adopted by H.I.S.D. on January 6, 1986, required an instructional day for senior high school teachers commencing with the Spring 1986 schedule in excess of seven hour thirty minutes per day, there are no facts left to resolve. The question is simply one of breach of contract and, pending resolution of that issue, whether the teachers had a right to a temporary injunction enjoining H.I.S.D. from enforcing its increased school day policy.
The current provision governing appeals from school board actions is Tex.Educ.Code Ann. § 11.13. That statute was most recently interpreted in Benavides Independent School District v. Guerra, 681 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.). In Benavides, the court of appeals stated “[cjontrary to the contention of B.I.S.D., section 11.13 does not mandate exhaustion of the administrative remedies stated therein.” Id. at 248. Like this case, Benavides involved an appeal of an order granting a temporary injunction. Be-navides held that when facts were not in dispute, immediate resort to the courts was proper. It relied upon two supreme court cases, Cook v. Neill, 163 Tex. 49, 352 S.W.2d 258 (1961), and Mission Independent School District v. Diserens, 144 Tex. 107, 188 S.W.2d 568 (1945).
Diserens, the case relied upon by the dissent, concluded that as there were not controverted questions of fact (as in our instant case, Diserens involved a breach of contract allegation), immediate resort to the courts was proper. Cook v. Neill observed that the language in Diserens was dicta and stated in respect to another case following the rule of Diserens, “[i]f taken out of proper context and read literally, this language would compel the result that in all school cases where there is not a pure question of law involved, the school authorities would have jurisdiction of the controversy to the complete exclusion of the courts. This is not the law.” 163 Tex. at 59; 352 S.W.2d at 264 (emphasis in original).
*648In reality, Cook v. Neill supports the position of the teachers’ union in this case as it would have permitted, even when facts were in dispute, resort to the courts, so long as a binding election to pursue the administrative route had not first been made. Consistent with Cook v. Neill is Benton v. Wilmer-Hutchins Independent School District, 662 S.W.2d 696 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1983, writ dism’d w.o.j.), where the court of appeals observed that while not all facts were undisputed, those still in dispute were immaterial. The court of appeals reversed the denial of a temporary injunction in a suit by teachers against the school district to enjoin the district from making pay deductions from the teachers’ monthly checks. The Dallas court concluded that irreparable harm would exist if the injunction did not issue and further determined that the remedy of administrative appeal was wholly inadequate.
A case involving reasonableness of school district policy involving tuition-free school attendance was determined to be solely a question of law in Jackson v. Waco Independent School District, 629 S.W.2d 201 (Tex.App.—Waco 1982, writ ref’d n.r. e.). The court of appeals held it had jurisdiction over the matter because the issue of the policy’s reasonableness was a question of law.
The controlling facts in the case at bar being undisputed, I would rely upon sound precedent that the courts do have jurisdiction in this matter. Accordingly, I join in the reversal of the judgment of the court of appeals.
WALLACE, J., joins in this concurring opinion.