The 13th Court of Appeals has reversed a ruling denying a Texas school district’s plea to the jurisdiction in a wrongful termination lawsuit.
The litigation was brought by Marlene Hinojosa, who was employed by the La Villa Independent School District as “dean of instruction” starting in 2019. Her lawsuit names LVISD and Sonia Lopez as defendants. Lopez became a member of LVISD’s board of trustees in 2023.
In her lawsuit, Hinojosa alleged that after she refused to place Lopez’s daughter on the dean’s list, threats of retaliation were communicated to her by Lopez’s daughter that she would be fired.
Hinojosa claimed that Lopez, “operating outside of her official responsibilities and in violation of her fiduciary duty to (LVISD) employees,” undertook an effort to remove Hinojosa from her position.
On April 24, 2023, LVISD’s superintendent advised Hinojosa that he would not be recommending her contract for renewal and that the dean of instruction position would be recommended for reclassification. She interviewed for the new reclassified position in May but was not hired.
In response to the lawsuit, LVISD and Lopez each filed pleas to the jurisdiction, which were denied by the trial court.
On appeal, the defendants argued that Hinojosa’s claim for tortious interference with a contract fails because she did not establish the existence of a contract subject to interference, and that her breach of contract claim fails because there is “absolutely nothing in the record that would indicate that (LVISD) did not fulfill all of its obligations and pay everything to Hinojosa that she was entitled to under (her) contract.”
“We agree on both points,” states the 13th Court’s Oct. 23 opinion. “As demonstrated above, the evidence established as a matter of law that Hinojosa was not terminated; instead, her employment contract expired according to its own terms.
“Accordingly, there was no adverse employment decision, and the trial court erred by concluding it had jurisdiction over Hinojosa’s constitutional wrongful termination claim.”
Case No. 13-25-00290-CV
