Johnson v. Baylor University
2006 WL 348721, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 1310, 188 S.W.3d 296 (2006)
Rule of Law:
Under the Pilot Records Sharing Act (PRSA), a former employer forfeits statutory immunity and the protection of liability releases if they fail to strictly comply with record requests, such as by falsely claiming records are unavailable; additionally, a claim for tortious interference with a prospective contract does not require a showing of malice.
Facts:
- Johnson was employed as a pilot for Baylor University from 1992 to 1994 until he was fired for 'chronic obesity and poor grammar,' despite the university president praising his piloting skills.
- In 1997, Johnson applied for a pilot position with Kitty Hawk Air Cargo and disclosed that his previous termination was due to obesity, not pilot performance.
- Kitty Hawk requested Johnson's employment records from Baylor under the Pilot Records Sharing Act (PRSA) to verify his history.
- Johnson signed a release authorizing Baylor to provide these records to Kitty Hawk.
- Baylor responded to the request by falsely stating that Johnson's personnel files were not 'readily available,' even though the records existed and were accessible.
- A third-party background report commissioned by Baylor informed Kitty Hawk that Johnson had been terminated for 'misconduct' and was ineligible for rehire.
- Because Baylor failed to provide the specific personnel records that would have corroborated Johnson's explanation about the obesity-related termination, Kitty Hawk terminated Johnson's employment.
- Johnson later obtained the documents himself, discovering that Baylor had failed to send them to Kitty Hawk.
Procedural Posture:
- Johnson sued Baylor in state trial court alleging defamation, negligent misrepresentation, and tortious interference.
- Baylor filed both traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment on all claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Baylor on all causes of action.
- Johnson appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a former employer retain immunity under the Pilot Records Sharing Act and signed releases when it provides false information regarding the availability of personnel records to a prospective employer, and is malice a necessary element for a claim of tortious interference with a prospective contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Bill Vance
No, a former employer does not retain immunity when they fail to comply with the statute, and no, malice is not an element of tortious interference with a prospective contract. The court reasoned that the Pilot Records Sharing Act creates a quid pro quo: employers only receive limited liability and release protection if they actually comply with the request for records. By falsely stating records were unavailable, Baylor failed to perform its statutory duty and thus could not claim the statute's protection or the benefit of the release Johnson signed. Regarding the tortious interference claim, the court clarified that Texas law requires only an 'independently tortious or unlawful' act that prevents the relationship, not a specific finding of malice or malicious intent. However, regarding the defamation claim, the court affirmed the lower court's dismissal because Johnson waited more than one year to sue after learning of the injury.
Analysis:
This decision is legally significant because it strictly construes statutory immunity provisions in employment law. It establishes that employers cannot hide behind liability shields—whether statutory (PRSA) or contractual (releases)—if they do not honestly and fully comply with the underlying duties of those statutes. The ruling also clarifies Texas tort law by explicitly removing 'malice' as a hurdle for plaintiffs proving tortious interference with prospective contracts, lowering the bar for such claims. Furthermore, it expands the scope of negligent misrepresentation, confirming that a duty of care exists even if the false information is provided to a third party (the new employer), provided the plaintiff (the employee) is the intended beneficiary of the accurate transfer of information.
