City of DeSoto v. White

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas held that a municipality's failure to notify a suspended police officer that electing a hearing examiner would limit judicial review was a mandatory but nonjurisdictional violation. The omission did not deprive the hearing examiner of authority to hear the appeal, and dismissal or reinstatement was not the appropriate remedy. The Court concluded that abatement was appropriate to allow the officer to make an informed appellate election.

Holdings

1. The statutory requirement that the disciplinary letter notify an officer of the appeal limitations resulting from electing a hearing examiner is mandatory but not jurisdictional. The City's failure to provide that notice did not deprive the hearing examiner of authority to hear White's appeal.
2. When the statute is silent about the consequences of noncompliance, abatement rather than dismissal is the appropriate remedy for failure to provide the section 143.057(a) notice.
3. Because White's failure to appeal within the ten-day period was attributable to the City's failure to provide the required notice, the statute permits a reasonable extension of time for White to make a new appellate election after receiving full notice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the statutory requirement that a disciplinary letter notify a police officer that electing a hearing examiner waives most district-court review is jurisdictional.
2. If the notice requirement is not jurisdictional, what remedy is appropriate for the City's failure to provide the required notice.
3. Whether White should receive an opportunity to make a new appellate election after receiving the omitted notice.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded