Court Opinion

ID: 9648490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:23:57.967152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:01.922727
License: Public Domain

TIJERINA, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The central issue arises out of a dispute over appellee’s termination as a full-time principal. He was subsequently offered employment as a part-time principal. Appellee, without exhausting his administrative remedies, filed suit and obtained an injunction against appellants.
The general rule as to whether an action for wrongful termination of a teacher’s contract is a question of law or fact was decided in Ball v. Kerrville Independent School District, 504 S.W.2d 791, 795 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1974, writ ref’d n.r.e.), where the court stated:
... [N]o decision, as far as we know, has held that in a case involving the alleged wrongful termination of a teacher’s contract, immediate recourse to the courts is permissible. In all cases involving the alleged wrongful termination of a teacher’s contract, our courts have held that exhaustion of the administrative remedies is a condition precedent to judicial review.
Thus, it has been held that the wrongful termination of an employee of a school district presents a fact question and the employee or teacher must apply to the school authorities for relief before filing suit in the district court. See Garcia v. *251Pharr, San Juan, Alamo Independent School District, 513 S.W.2d 636, 641 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1974, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Farrar v. Colorado Independent School District, 444 S.W.2d 204, 206 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland 1969, writ ref’d n.r.e.); see also TEX.EDUC.CODE ANN. § 11.13 (Vernon 1972).
The record reflects that there are questions of fact to be determined by school authorities prior to judicial review. One of the reasons given for the change in the appellee’s status as a principal was the number of teachers he supervised. It is undisputed that appellee’s sole purpose in seeking relief in the district court was to question his termination as a full-time principal. Therefore, the contract dispute in this case should be submitted for administrative determination. The trial court was clearly without jurisdiction. I would reverse the judgment and remand the cause with instructions that appellee exhaust his administrative remedies.