## Facts

- Milton O’Bryant and other plaintiffs were certified law enforcement officers employed by the City of Midland.
- O’Bryant previously filed two federal lawsuits alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act; both were voluntarily dismissed.
- The City notified O’Bryant and other officers that their duties would be reclassified as civilian positions within three months.
- The City offered affected officers options: remain in the reclassified civilian position; apply to transfer within the police department to continue as an officer; or apply to transfer to a civilian position in another city department, with reduced pay and benefits for civilian roles.
- After the reclassification announcement, O’Bryant and others filed another ADA suit and voluntarily dismissed it; the City then implemented the reclassifications affecting the plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs alleged they were placed into more dangerous assignments or assignments that aggravated disabilities in retaliation for prior lawsuits.
- The City asserted budget constraints, limited resources, and increased law enforcement service needs as reasons for staffing changes.
- During the appeal, one plaintiff (Cross) died, leaving only O’Bryant’s reinstatement claim relevant for remand.

## Issues

1. Whether Texas recognizes a cause of action for breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing in the employer–employee relationship.
2. Whether the summary judgment record raised a fact issue supporting intentional infliction of emotional distress.
3. Whether equitable reinstatement may be pursued as a remedy for alleged violations of the Texas Constitution and, if so, whether O’Bryant’s reinstatement claim should proceed.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas held there is no Texas cause of action based on a duty of good faith and fair dealing in an employer–employee relationship.
- The Court held there was no evidence supporting plaintiffs’ intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.
- The Court remanded O’Bryant’s claim for equitable reinstatement as a remedy for alleged Texas constitutional violations for further proceedings.
- The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part consistent with these holdings.

## Legal Principles

- Texas does not impose a general duty of good faith and fair dealing in ordinary employment relationships; such a duty is limited to specific recognized “special relationships.”
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires legally sufficient evidence that the defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous and caused severe emotional distress; workplace staffing decisions and reassignments, without more, generally do not satisfy that standard.
- Even when tort theories fail, equitable relief such as reinstatement may be available for proven violations of the Texas Constitution, subject to case-specific limits and further fact development.

## Conclusion

The court rejected an implied good-faith employment tort and found no-evidence for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but allowed O’Bryant’s request for equitable reinstatement based on alleged Texas constitutional violations to proceed on remand.


City of Midland v. O'Bryant, 18 S.W.3d 209 (Tex. 2000)