Damuth v. Trinity Valley Cmty. College (Per Curiam)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Texas?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Texas. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Petitioner had a one-year contract to serve as the head women’s basketball coach and a professor with Trinity Valley Community College (TVCC), a local governmental entity. Five months into the contract, TVCC fired Petitioner. Petitioner sued for breach of contract. The trial court dismissed the case, concluding that TVCC was immune from suit. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the Local Government Contract Claims Act, which waives a local governmental entity’s immunity from suit for breach of a services contract, does not waive immunity from suit for breach of employment contracts. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Act covers government employment contracts generally, and therefore, TVCC’s immunity from suit had been waived for Petitioner’s breach-of-contract claim.
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO . 13-0815 444444444444 BILLY EDWARD DAMUTH, II, PETITIONER, v. TRINITY VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND GLENDON S. FORGEY, INDIVIDUALLY, RESPONDENTS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TWELFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 PER CURIAM The Local Government Contract Claims Act waives a local governmental entity’s immunity from suit for breach of a services contract subject to the Act. TEX . LOC. GOV ’T CODE §§ 271.151(2), 271.152. In City of Houston v. Williams, we held firefighters’ employment contracts to be subject to the Act. 353 S.W.3d 128, 131, 139 (Tex. 2011). Nevertheless, in the present case, the court of appeals held that the Act does not cover government employment contracts generally. ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.—Tyler 2013). We disagree and so reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case to the trial court. Petitioner Billy Damuth had a written employment agreement for “services . . . as Head Women’s Basketball Coach/Professor” with respondent Trinity Valley Community College (“TVCC”), a local governmental entity to which the Act applies. TEX . EDUC. CODE §§ 130.005, 130.205; TEX . LOC. GOV ’T CODE § 271.151(3)(B). Five months into the one-year contract, TVCC fired Damuth. Damuth sued TVCC for breach of contract. On TVCC’s plea of immunity, the trial court dismissed the case. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the Act does not waive immunity from suit for breach of employment contracts. ___ S.W.3d at ___. The CA gave three reasons. None has merit. First: the Act does not specifically mention employment agreements and cannot be read to cover them because statutory waivers of immunity must be by clear and unambiguous language. TEX . GOV ’T CODE § 311.034. But “services” clearly includes what an employee provides his employer by his efforts. Indeed, TVCC expressly contracted for Damuth’s “services.” Second: the Act is part of Title 8 of the Local Government Code, entitled “Acquisition, Sale, or Lease of Property,” which applies “in situations where third parties are doing business with a governmental entity,” and it gives “no indication” that it “applies to employees of the governmental entity.” ___ S.W.3d at ___. But “[t]he heading of a title, subtitle, chapter, subchapter, or section does not limit or expand the meaning of a statute.” TEX . GOV ’T CODE § 311.024. “In ordinary usage the term ‘services’ has a rather broad and general meaning. It includes generally any act performed for the benefit of another under some arrangement or agreement whereby such act was to have been performed.” Van Zandt v. Fort Worth Press, 359 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1962) (quotation omitted). Though the Legislature has defined “services” in some contexts, it has not done so in the Act, and “the term is broad enough to encompass a wide array of activities.” Kirby Lake Dev., Ltd. v. Clear Lake City Water Auth., 320 S.W.3d 829, 839 & n.8 (Tex. 2010) (citing, e.g., TEX . BUS. & COM . CODE § 17.45(2), and TEX . UTIL. CODE § 11.003); see also TEX . GOV ’T CODE § 851.001(8) (defining 2 “employee” in terms of providing “services”). The term is certainly broad enough to include services provided by employees. Third: although Williams held that the Act covers firefighters’ employment contracts, firefighters are civil servants and treated differently from other employees. The argument is a non sequitur. The law’s sometimes special treatment of civil service employees says nothing about whether they should be treated differently under the Act. Nothing in the Act itself indicates that its waiver of immunity is limited to suits by civil servants. TVCC advances no other argument in support of the trial court’s dismissal of the case. Accordingly, we conclude that TVCC’s immunity from suit has been waived for Damuth’s breach-ofcontract claim. We grant Damuth’s petition for review and, without hearing oral argument, reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case to the trial court. TEX . R. APP . P. 59.1. Opinion delivered: November 21, 2014 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
