The Texas Court of Appeals ruled on August 27, 2026, in the case of Rosalinda E. Romero v. Texas Permanent School Fund Corp., affirming a lower court's decision regarding sovereign immunity. This ruling affects employees in Texas, particularly those who serve on juries and may face termination for their civic duty.
In this case, Rosalinda Romero, who worked for the Texas Permanent School Fund Corporation (the Fund), claimed she was unlawfully terminated for serving as a juror. The court's decision clarifies the limits of state immunity in employment law, which is significant for employees who may seek legal recourse against government entities.
Rosalinda Romero began her employment with the Texas Permanent School Fund Corporation in 2007. On June 3, 2024, she reported for jury duty, only to find out that her reporting time had changed. After returning home to work remotely, she logged her time as a full day of jury duty. Later that month, the Fund terminated her employment. Romero filed a lawsuit against the Fund, claiming her termination violated Section 122.001 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which protects employees from being fired for serving on a jury.
The Fund responded by asserting that it had sovereign immunity, meaning it could not be sued unless the state had explicitly waived that immunity. The trial court agreed with the Fund and granted its plea to the jurisdiction, leading to Romero's appeal.
In its ruling, the Texas Court of Appeals held that Section 122.001 does not clearly and unambiguously waive the Fund's sovereign immunity. Chief Justice Scott A. Brister stated, "The Legislature intended to prohibit employees in general from being terminated for jury service, but it did not clearly waive immunity for government employers in particular." This decision emphasizes that any waiver of sovereign immunity must be explicitly stated in the law.
The court examined the legislative history of Section 122.001, noting that prior to 2019, the law only applied to private employers. In 2019, the legislature amended the law to remove the word “private” but did not include any language that clearly waived the Fund's immunity. The court concluded that the absence of explicit language regarding immunity meant that the Fund remained protected from lawsuits.
The ruling highlights the importance of legislative clarity when it comes to waiving sovereign immunity. The court noted that ambiguity regarding such waivers should be resolved in favor of retaining immunity. The decision reinforced that statutory provisions need to be interpreted in a way that does not assume a waiver unless it is clearly stated.
This ruling has significant implications for employees in Texas who may face similar situations. It underscores the challenges that employees might encounter when trying to hold government entities accountable for employment-related issues, particularly in cases involving jury service. The decision may deter some employees from pursuing claims against state employers due to the uncertainty surrounding sovereign immunity.
Moving forward, employees who believe they have been wrongfully terminated for jury service may need to consider the limitations imposed by sovereign immunity. This ruling does not only affect Rosalinda Romero but also sets a precedent for future cases involving state employment and employee rights.
As for what’s next, it remains unclear if Romero will seek further legal action or if there are related cases pending. The court's ruling is final unless appealed to a higher court, but details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing.