Jones v. Hanvey, 05-25-01127-CV, February 17, 2026.
On appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court of Rockwall County
Synopsis
The Dallas Court of Appeals held that school district employees are entitled to dismissal under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 101.106(f) because student discipline falls within the general scope of their employment. The court determined that even when educators allegedly violate specific district policies, ignore medical restrictions, or utilize prohibited “aversive techniques,” their conduct remains work-related, shifting liability exclusively to the governmental unit.
Relevance to Family Law
In high-conflict custody litigation and SAPCR proceedings, parents frequently attempt to join or sue school district personnel for injuries occurring during extracurricular activities or in-school discipline. Jones v. Hanvey reinforces the nearly impenetrable shield of the Texas Tort Claims Act’s election-of-remedies provision. For family law practitioners, this underscores that personal vendettas or “lesson-teaching” lawsuits against coaches or teachers are procedurally futile; the focus must remain on the governmental entity or, more strategically, using the underlying policy violations as evidence of a child’s “best interest” or “safety” concerns in a custody modification, rather than seeking individual tort damages from the educator.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The plaintiffs, Robert and Misty Hanvey, sued three cheerleading coaches at Rockwall-Heath High School after their daughter, E.H., developed Exertional Rhabdomyolysis. The injury allegedly resulted from a “punishment” workout consisting of fifty modified burpees. Crucially, E.H. was recovering from strep throat and had provided a doctor’s note excusing her from physical activity. The coaches ignored the note, allegedly yelling at E.H. to continue despite her visible physical distress. A subsequent school district investigation confirmed the coaches violated five internal policies, including the Educator Code of Ethics and prohibitions against using “aversive techniques” for discipline. The coaches moved to dismiss the claims against them individually under Section 101.106(f), arguing they were acting within the scope of their employment.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether school district employees act within the “general scope of their employment” under Section 101.106(f) when they impose physical discipline that violates both district policy and the Texas Education Code.
Rules Applied
The court applied Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 101.106(f), the “election of remedies” provision, which requires a court to dismiss a suit against a governmental employee if the suit is based on conduct within the general scope of that employee’s employment and could have been brought against the governmental unit. The court also examined Texas Education Code § 37.0023, regarding prohibited aversive techniques, and § 22.0511, regarding professional employee immunity, ultimately concluding that these Education Code provisions do not abridge the procedural protections of the Tort Claims Act.
Application
The court’s analysis centered on the definition of “scope of employment,” which the Tort Claims Act defines as the performance of the duties of an employee’s office or employment. The court navigated a narrative of “duty versus manner.” It reasoned that because the Cheer Coaches were hired to instruct, manage a team, and maintain discipline, the act of conditioning or punishing students for performance fell squarely within their job description. The court rejected the Hanveys’ argument that violating a policy (the doctor’s note or the “aversive technique” prohibition) takes an act outside the scope of employment. To the court, the nature of the conduct—discipline—was the controlling factor, not the quality or legality of the conduct. Even if the coaches were “rogue” in their methods, they were still performing the task of “coaching” at the time of the injury.
Holding
The court held that the Cheer Coaches were acting within the general scope of their employment as a matter of law. Because they were employees of a governmental unit and the conduct complained of related to their professional duties of student discipline and instruction, Section 101.106(f) mandated their dismissal from the suit.
The court further held that allegations of policy violations or the use of prohibited disciplinary techniques do not create an exception to the election-of-remedies provision. The court rendered judgment reversing the trial court’s denial and dismissed the claims against the individual coaches, effectively directing the plaintiffs to seek recourse against the school district alone.
Practical Application
When representing a parent whose child has been injured at school, practitioners must recognize that the individual educator is almost always “judgment proof” via Section 101.106(f). Instead of pursuing the individual, family litigators should leverage the school district’s internal investigation reports—which often contain admissions of policy violations as seen in this case—as “smoking gun” evidence in the family court to argue for changes in conservatorship or to restrict a parent’s ability to enroll a child in certain programs without mutual consent.
Checklists
Evaluating the Viability of Suing a School Employee
- Identify the Employer: Confirm the individual is a “professional employee of a school district” as defined by the Education Code.
- Analyze the Activity: Determine if the injury occurred during a “work-related” task (e.g., classroom time, sports, bus transit).
- Scope of Duty Test: Ask: Was the employee doing the type of work they were hired to do, even if they did it poorly or illegally?
- Statutory Bar: Evaluate if the claim “could have been brought” against the District under the TTCA (e.g., motor vehicle exception) or if it is a generic tort.
Strategic Alternatives in Custody Litigation
- Obtain the District Investigation: Use the 101.106(f) dismissal to argue that the District has effectively admitted the employee’s “wrongdoing” by claiming the acts were in the “scope of employment.”
- Character Evidence: Use findings of “Ethics Code violations” (Standard 3.2 or 3.5) from the school’s investigation in a SAPCR to challenge a parent’s judgment if that parent supported the school’s actions.
- Protective Orders: In extreme cases of “aversive techniques,” evaluate whether the school incident warrants a request for injunctions in the family court regarding the child’s participation in specific extracurriculars.
Citation
Jones v. Hanvey, No. 05-25-01127-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 17, 2026, no pet. h.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling can be weaponized in Texas custody cases by providing a roadmap for discovery. While the tort suit against the coaches failed, the reason it failed—because the District was the responsible party for the coaches’ “negligent discipline”—provides a basis for the family lawyer to subpoena the District for the internal investigation files. In a “Best Interest” analysis under Holley v. Adams, the fact that a child was subjected to “aversive techniques” that caused Rhabdomyolysis is a powerful factor. Furthermore, if the other parent is a school employee, this case clarifies that they enjoy immunity from suit, but not from the evidentiary consequences of their policy violations being introduced in a bench trial to determine their fitness or for seeking supervised possession.
~~cb2763ca-4c0c-4d54-b66f-d6ee920debe8~~
Share this content: