HOUSTON — The 14th Court of Appeals has affirmed a ruling granting the University of Houston-Downtown sovereign immunity from a lawsuit brought by a former dean.
Charles Gengler, the former dean of UHD’s College of Business, sued the university for breach of a settlement agreement related to his employment.
Gengler was placed on administrative leave pending an internal investigation after UHD was made aware of allegations against him, which are not stated in the record before the 14th Court.
According to an Inside Higher Ed article, two UHD preliminary investigation reports “substantiated” that the former dean “said on multiple occasions that it would make him look good that he hired a Black, gay man.”
Court records show the parties ultimately signed a release and compromise agreement, in which UHD paid Gengler money in exchange for his resignation from the university and agreement to never seek employment with any component university within the University of Houston system.
Around eight months later, Gengler filed his lawsuit, alleging that UHD breached the agreement by disseminating information and documentation pertaining to him, which resulted in several news agencies publishing articles about him.
Gengler argued that UHD waived its sovereign immunity for his breach-of-contract claim, while the university asserted that its immunity was not waived under the Texas Tort Claims Act or by entering into the agreement.
A trial court granted UHD’s jurisdictional plea and dismissed Gengler’s claims with prejudice, leading to his appeal.
Gengler asserts that the trial court erred by granting the plea and by dismissing his claims with prejudice, because doing so violated his due process rights and the open courts provision of the Texas Constriction.
On May 7, the 14th Court held that the trial court did not err by granting UHD’s plea.
“Gengler’s petition does not affirmatively demonstrate a waiver of UHD’s sovereign immunity for his breach-of-contract and extra-contractual tort claims,” the opinion states. “Neither is a dismissal with prejudice unconstitutional for the reasons Gengler asserts. We overrule his issues and affirm the judgment.”
Appeals case No. 14-25-00138-CV
