Appeals court rules against firefighters

A Dallas appeals court ruled in favor of the city of McKinney over a lawsuit brought by several McKinney firefighters regarding back pay and benefits.

According to documents filed in 416th Judicial District Court, the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas affirmed a civil ruling that denied 43 firefighters back pay for temporarily serving in higher classified positions within the McKinney Fire Department.

The 43 firefighters filed their original lawsuit in February 2004, and claimed the city violated a section of the Texas Local Government Code by “failing and refusing to pay [them] the salary prescribed for higher classified positions during the time [they] temporarily have [sic] performed the duties of such positions” also known as “step-up pay.” The plaintiffs asked the court for back pay and benefits as they relate to the statute as well as injunctive and mandamus relief to prevent future violations of the code, according to the judgment.

The city of McKinney stated that the plaintiffs’ claims were “barred by governmental immunity,” and the court ruled in favor of the city, according to the judgment.

The plaintiffs brought their case to the Dallas appeals court in which they claimed the court’s order lacked “subject matter jurisdiction” under the Texas Local Government Code, and the defendant reaffirmed its claim that the charges were dismissed due to government immunity.

“In this case, appellants concede that, under the recent Texas Supreme Court decision of City of Houston v. Williams, there does not appear to be any waiver of immunity for claims under the statutory provisions governing civil service wages and benefits,” the judgment read. “Appellants assert, however, that the relief they seek is not money damages and, there, their claims do not fall within the scope of claims from which the government is immune from suit.”

The appeals court said suits filed against cities that fall within the boundaries of immunity “must seek to control governmental actions or subject the government to liability.” Therefore, if financial damages are the only remedy, the suit is barred by governmental immunity.

The plaintiffs argued, however, that their claim doesn’t fall into financial damages since it is for “equitable” back pay for services rendered. The appeals court called their argument “forceful,” but the lack of an immunity waiver forced them to rule in favor of upholding the decision, according to the judgment.

However, the appeals court did overturn part of the previous court’s ruling that dismissed the plaintiffs’ requests for “declaratory, injunctive and mandamus relief and remand appellants’ claims to the extent those forms of relief are sought,” according to the judgment.

Anna Folmnsbee, McKinney’s communications and media manager, said the case has been sent back to 416th District Court to determine if the city followed all state rules regarding the application of “step-up pay.” She said by e-mail that, “The City continues to assert its compliance with all laws governing public safety employees.”

McKinney Mayor Bill Whitfield applauded the appeals court’s decision in a released statement.

“We are very pleased with this result,” Whitfield said in the statement. “The City Council has worked hard to keep our public safety personnel’s compensation very competitive. Our system is a fair one.”

City attorney Mark Houser could not be reached for comment.

Contact Danny Gallagher at dgallagher@acnpapers.com. To post comments online, access this story on the Web at www.scntx.com.

Current Rating: 0 of 0 votes!

Rate File: Select Rating: * ** *** ****

 Plano Apartments
 Plano Attorneys
 Plano Auto Dealers
 Plano Auto Parts
 Plano Auto Repair
 Plano Beauty Salons
 Plano Car Rental
 Plano Dentists
 Plano Doctors
 Plano Flowers
 Plano Hotels
 Plano Insurance
 Plano Loans
 Plano Mortgages
 Plano Movers
 Plano Pizza
 Plano Realtors
 Plano Restaurants
 Plano Storage
 Plano Tax Preparation
 Plano Travel
 Featured
 More...