Trostle v. Combs
2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 2847, 2003 WL 1740482, 104 S.W.3d 206 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee handbook that contains explicit and repeated disclaimers preserving the at-will employment relationship does not create a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment, and a demotion does not deprive an employee of a liberty interest unless it is so significant as to be the essential equivalent of a termination.
Facts:
- Mark Trostle and Carroll Draper were longtime employees with good records at the Texas Department of Agriculture.
- In late 1998, Trostle was invited by his friend, an employee of Zeneca Ag Products, to a hunting lease; Trostle, in turn, invited Draper.
- Trostle and Draper provided their own transportation, food, and supplies for the trip.
- On February 11, 1999, Department officials questioned Trostle and Draper about the trip, alleging it violated ethics policies because Zeneca was a company regulated by the Department.
- Officials threatened Trostle and Draper with termination and prosecution unless they signed statements, which they did.
- On February 19, 1999, Trostle and Draper were given the choice to quit, be fired, or accept a demotion with a salary reduction and probation.
- Both Trostle and Draper accepted the demotions, which resulted in significant salary reductions and loss of responsibilities.
- Appellants allege that Susan Combs, the Commissioner of Agriculture, told a third party that Trostle and Draper had taken a bribe from Zeneca.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Trostle and Carroll Draper sued Susan Combs and other officials of the Texas Department of Agriculture in a Texas district court (trial court).
- The plaintiffs alleged deprivation of property and liberty interests under the constitution, as well as state law claims for slander, conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial court denied the defendants' initial motion for summary judgment, except as to the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims.
- The trial court granted the defendants' second motion for summary judgment, entering a take-nothing judgment against Trostle and Draper.
- Trostle and Draper (appellants) appealed the summary judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin (an intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do at-will government employees, whose employee manual contains explicit disclaimers preserving the at-will relationship, have a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest in their continued employment that is violated when they are demoted without being afforded the disciplinary procedures described in the manual?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Lee Yeakel
No. At-will government employees whose employee manual contains explicit disclaimers do not have a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest in their employment that is violated by a demotion. First, the court reasoned that the employees did not have a protected property interest in their jobs. Under Texas law, employment is presumed to be at-will. Although the Department's policy manual detailed disciplinary procedures, it also contained multiple, unequivocal disclaimers stating that the policies did not create an employment contract and that employees could be terminated at will. Citing Federal Exp. Corp. v. Dutschmann, the court held that such disclaimers negate any implication that the manual restricts the employer's right to terminate or demote employees. Second, the court determined the employees were not deprived of a liberty interest. A demotion infringes a liberty interest only if the change in status is so significant it is essentially a loss of employment. Citing Moore v. Otero, the court found that while the demotions involved loss of pay and supervisory duties, they were not comparable to a de facto termination (e.g., being reassigned to janitorial duties) and thus did not trigger due process protections. Finally, the slander claim failed because the only evidence supporting it was an attorney's affidavit based on double hearsay, which is not competent summary-judgment evidence.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the doctrine of at-will employment in Texas, particularly within the public sector. It clarifies that the inclusion of detailed disciplinary procedures in an employee handbook is insufficient to create a property interest if the handbook also contains clear and repeated at-will employment disclaimers. The decision sets a high threshold for a demoted employee to successfully claim a deprivation of a liberty interest, requiring a change in status so severe it is tantamount to discharge. This precedent makes it more difficult for public employees in Texas to challenge adverse employment actions on due process grounds when their employment is governed by a manual with such disclaimers.
Unlock the full brief for Trostle v. Combs