# City of LaPorte v. Barfield

> Texas Supreme Court · June 8, 1995 · 898 S.W.2d 288

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9772015

## Case

- **Full name:** CITY OF LaPORTE, Texas, Petitioner, v. William BARFIELD, Respondent; CITY OF LaPORTE, Texas, Petitioner, v. Allen Ray PRINCE, Respondent
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 8, 1995
- **Citations:** 898 S.W.2d 288; 1995 WL 246149
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Gonzalez
- **Judges:** Hecht, Gonzalez, Phillips, Hightower, Cornyn, Gammage, Enoch, Spector, Owen
- **Cited by:** 363 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Superseded by statute, as recognized in Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman.
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9772015

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a statute authorizing a navigation district to "sue and be sued" waived immunity
- holding that Chapter 504 waives the governmental immunity of political subdivisions for retaliatory discharge claims under Chapter 451
- concluding that the legislature must have intended to waive immunity because the provisions of the anti‑retaliation law are not susceptible to any sensible construction absent that conclusion
- holding perfect clarity is not required to establish waiver if a “statute leaves no reasonable doubt of its pui’pose” and therefore concluding the Legislature must have intended to waive immunity because it could discern “no other sensible construction” of section 3(a)(5) of t…

## Opinion text

GONZALEZ, Justice,
dissenting.
As the Court recognizes, the City of La Porte is immune from liability for the retaliatory discharge of its employees unless that immunity has been waived by the legislature. It may be good public policy to subject governmental entities to liability for retaliating against their employees who file workers compensation claims, but this decision rests solely with the legislature. For the legislature to waive sovereign immunity, it must affirmatively do so by clear and unambiguous language. See Texas Educ. Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432, 447 (Tex.1995) (Gonzalez, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Guillory v. Port of Houston Auth., 845 S.W.2d 812, 813 (Tex.1993); Mount Pleasant Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Lindburg, 766 S.W.2d 208, 211 (Tex.1989); Duhart v. State, 610 S.W.2d 740, 742 (Tex.1980). Because the legislature has not met this standard, I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals *300 and render judgment in both eases that plaintiffs take nothing.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9772015. Public record. Not legal advice.