Opinion
CV. 3:00-CV-0218-R
January 22, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Now before this Court is Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction, filed on September 5, 2000. For the reasons stated below, this Motion is DENIED as to Defendants Snoble, Burke and Turner, and GRANTED as to Defendant DART.
Defendants make only two arguments in what is essentially a Motion to Reconsider this Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order on Defendant "Motion to Dismiss, issued on July 6, 2000. Defendants first argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to any of the Defendants for a violation of he Sabine Pilot rule of law for Texas atwill employment. See Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985). Defendants next argue that all Defendants are immune from the Sabine Pilot claim under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Both of these arguments have been addressed and resolved by this Court's earlier opinion.
The 12(b)(6) argument is resolved by this Courts finding that: "Plaintiffs allege that federal law and FTA regulations require audits of contracts involving federal funds and the refusal to do so constitutes an illegal act which would have subjected them to criminal charges." Memorandum Opinion and Order at 8. Thus, Plaintiffs have stated an adequate Sabine Pilotclaim. See Sabine Pilot, 687 S.W.2d at 735 (the narrow exception to the at-will employment rule covers the discharge of an employee for the sole reason that the employee refused to perform an illegal act).
The sovereign immunity issue is resolved by this Court's finding that: "Even if DART were found to be a "person" within the meaning of § 1983, as a governmental agency, the Eleventh Amendment "bars suit in federal court by citizens of a state against their own state or a state agency or department." Memorandum Opinion and Order at 6 (quoting,Richardson v. Southern Univ., 118 F.3d 450, 452 (5th Cir. 1997). This ruling to the Plaintiffs § 1983 claim applies equally to its Sabine Pilot claim because, as both parties stated in their briefs, theSabine Pilot exception to the at-will employment doctrine does not supercede the State's right to assert sovereign immunity. See Carroll v. Black, 938 S.W.2d 134, 135 (Tex.App. 1996)). Finally, because Defendants Snoble, Burke and Turner have bee sued in their individual capacities, they are not entitled to share DART's sovereign immunity defense. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30 (1991).
Therefore, because they are not immune and because the Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to maintain a claim under Sabine Pilot, the Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction as to Defendants Snoble, Burke and Turner is DENIED. Because Defendant DART is immune from liability pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, the Plea to the Jurisdiction as to DART is GRANTED and the Sabine Pilot claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
It is so ORDERED.