Court Opinion

ID: 5103011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-01 23:25:53.317441+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:50.856044
License: Public Domain

Case Number: 04-97-00423-CV 12/01/2000 Case stored in record room 12/01/2000 Mandate issued 10/26/2000 Motion for Rehearing - Disposed proceeding denied 08/21/2000 Motion for Rehearing - Filed 08/21/2000 Motion for Rehearing forwarded 07/14/2000 M/E/T to file Motion for Rehearing disposed Granted 07/13/2000 M/E/T to file motion for rehearing 07/06/2000 Order of the Court Issued Court of Appeals Opinion ordered published 07/06/2000 Court approved judgment sent to attys of record 07/06/2000 Opinion issued Record in case consolidated with another case. 11/10/1999 Oral argument 11/10/1999 Created for Data Conversion -- an event inserted to correspond to the submitted date of a process 11/03/1999 Letter brief 10/25/1999 Brief filed. 10/18/1999 Letter sent to parties from Supreme Court - See Remarks 08/26/1999 Cases consolidated by Supreme Court 08/26/1999 Petition for Review disposed Granted 08/26/1999 Petition for Review disposed Granted 08/26/1999 Set for Submission 08/26/1999 Amount of time allotted for oral argument. 08/26/1999 Created for Data Conversion -- an event inserted to correspond to the submission date of a process 07/06/1999 Waiver notice for brief on the merits 06/29/1999 Brief filed. 05/24/1999 Motion to withdraw disposed of Granted 05/24/1999 Motion for Extension of Time disposed. Granted 05/24/1999 Waiver notice for brief on the merits 05/21/1999 motion to withdraw 05/21/1999 Motion for extension of time to file brief. 05/21/1999 Designation of Attorney filed 05/14/1999 Record Received (See Remarks) 05/03/1999 Waiver notice for brief on the merits 04/27/1999 Record Requested in Petition for Review 04/26/1999 Brief on the Merits Requested 03/02/1999 Case forwarded to Court 02/26/1999 Response to Petition for Review waived 02/16/1999 Petition for Review filed
Rogelio A. Gonzalez appeals the trial court's dismissal of his case for want of jurisdiction on the ground that state-agency immunity has been waived for purposes of anti-retaliation claims. We agree and therefore reverse the judgment and remand the case for proceedings on the merits.
 Factual and Procedural Background
When dealing with a plea to the jurisdiction, "we take the factual allegations in the plaintiff's petition as true."Fernandez v. Kerrville State Hospital, No. 04-97-00387-CV, slip op. at 2, 1998 WL 784326 (Tex.App.-San Antonio Nov. 12, 1998, no pet. h.) (citing Brannon v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 148 Tex. 289,224 S.W.2d 466, 469 (1949)). "Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, the material facts are undisputed." Id.
Gonzalez attempted to bring a workers' compensation claim for injuries suffered while working for TPWD, but was discouraged from doing so by his supervisor. When Gonzalez later made a second request to file a workers' compensation claim, he was effectively prevented from doing so by his supervisor who had already reported the incident non-job related. After the incident, Gonzalez was placed on a year's leave without pay. When he returned, he was not allowed to do the light-duty work his doctor recommended and he received pressure to take early retirement. Gonzalez sued, claiming TPWD terminated him and otherwise discriminated against him because of his pursuit of a workers' compensation claim. Subsequently, TPWD moved to dismiss Gonzalez' suit based on sovereign immunity. The trial court agreed and dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction.
 Discussion
TPWD is immune from suit unless the Texas Legislature has waived immunity. Fernandez, 04-97-00387, slip op. at 3. Here, the trial court ruled TPWD was immune from a suit brought under the Anti-Retaliation Law. See Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 451.001 (Vernon 1996). However, as this court recently held in Fernandez, "the Texas Legislature left `no reasonable doubt' that it intended to waive immunity from suit under the Anti-Retaliation Law for state agencies covered by chapter 501 of the Texas Labor Code."Fernandez, 04-97-00387, slip op. at 13; see Tex. Lab. Code Ann. ch. 501. Because TPWD is an agency under chapter 501 of the Texas Labor Code, see Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 501.001(6); see, e.g.,Director, State Employees Workers ' Compensation Div. v. Bass,703 S.W.2d 397 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1986, no writ), it is not immune from suit under the Anti-Retaliation Law. *Page 565
We therefore reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for proceedings on the merits.