Laura McClelland v. Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education in His Official Capacity; And Weatherford Independent School District

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided December 1, 2025·No. 15-25-00131-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 15-25-00131-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/1/2025 12:19 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE No. 15-25-000131-CV CLERK FILED IN Fifteenth Court Of Appeals 15th COURT OF APPEALS Austin, Texas AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/1/2025 12:19:59 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk Laura McClelland, Appellant v.

Michael Morath, Commissioner of Education, and Weatherford Independent School District Appellees

REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT LAURA McCLELLAND

ON APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-25-000504

BRIM & BRIM, P.C. Richard Arnett, Of Counsel State Bar No. 01333300 5926 Balcones Drive, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78731 Telephone: (512) 328-0048 Facsimile: (512) 328-4814 Email: rarnett@arnettlaw.net

Attorney for Laura McClelland

Identity of Parties and Counsel

Appellant: Appellant’s Counsel:

Laura McClelland BRIM & BRIM, P.C.

Richard Arnett, Of Counsel State Bar No. 01333300 5926 Balcones Drive, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78731 Telephone: (512) 328-0048 Facsimile: (512) 328-4814 Email: rarnett@arnettlaw.net

Appellees Appellees’ Counsel:

Weatherford Independent Colby Rideout School District Leasor Crass, P.C.

302 W. Broad Street Mansfield, Texas Telephone: (682) 422-0009 Facsimile: (682) 422-0008 Email: colby@leasorcrass.com

Michael Morath Keegan Howe, Assistant Attorney General Texas Commissioner of Education Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas Telephone: (512) 475-4300 Facsimile: (512) 320-0157 Email: keegan.howe@oag.texas.gov

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

Identities of Parties and Counsel……………………………………….…….. ii

Table of Contents………………………………………………………….…. iii

Index of Authorities………………………………………………………….. iv

Introduction………...………………………………………………………….1

Section 22.003(b) …………………. ……………………………………….. 1

Mootness……………. ……………………………………………………… 1

Prayer for Relief………………………………….………………………..... 3

Certificate of Service ……………………………………………………….. 4

Certificate of Compliance ………………………………………………….. 4

iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page

Click v. Tyra, 867 S.W.2d 406 (Ct. App. Tex. 14th Dist. 1993, no writ) ……………………………... 3

Hudspeth v. Chapel Hill I.S.D., No. 03-06-00243-CV, 2007 WL 1647818, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin June 8, 2007, no pet.) … 2

Myrtle Springs Re.d Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Hogan, 705 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.). ……………………….. 2

Nehls v. Hartman Newspapers, LP, 522 S.W.3d 23, 33 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) ………………… 3

Perry v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 902 S.W.2d 544, 547 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ. dism'd w.o.j.) ……………. 2

Constitutional Provisions, Statutes & Regulations

Texas Education Code, Section 7.057 (a)(2)(A) …………………………. 1

Texas Education Code, Section 22.003 ……………………………….. passim

Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, Section 37.004……..…….… 2

iv

INTRODUCTION

Appellees largely ignore the controlling authorities relied upon by Ms.

McClelland and offer little that necessitates a reply. However, there are some points

that warrant a brief response.

SECTION 22.003(b)

Appellees still fail to address the actual words of the statute, continuing to

attempt to wish away the word “other.” The Commissioner dwells on the use of the

term “personal leave” in Section 22.003(a), Brief at p. 25, but then asks the Court to

substitute “personal” for “other” in Subsection (b), which is contrary to every known

rule of statutory construction. Similarly, he argues that “all” only encompasses that

which follows but then substitutes “personal” for “other” in order to administratively

amend the law and reach the result desired.

MOOTNESS

Appellees provide no explanation for why Ms. McClelland’s challenge to the

legality of WISD’s policies does not remain a live controversy within the controlling

authorities. E.g. Brief of Commissioner, p. 9-10. Section 7.057(a)(2)(A) of the Texas

Education Code provides jurisdiction to the Commissioner over appeals of “actions

or decisions of any school district board of trustees that violate: (A) the school laws

of this state .…” The Board of Trustees decision to uphold and apply its Board

Policy DEC violated Section 22.003(b) and the controversy remains alive as long as

Ms. McClelland’s contractual relationship with WISD is governed by this illegal

provision.

The operational policies adopted by a school board before making an employment contract with a teacher form part of the contract and the teacher's employment is subject to those policies. Perry v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 902 S.W.2d 544, 547 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ. dism'd w.o.j.); Myrtle Springs Reverted Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Hogan, 705 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Tex.App.- Texarkana 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

Hudspeth v. Chapel Hill I.S.D., No. 03-06-00243-CV, 2007 WL 1647818, at *2

(Tex. App.—Austin June 8, 2007, no pet.).

In what appears a transparent attempt to mislead, Appellees continue to

mischaracterize Ms. McClelland’s argument regarding the Declaratory Judgment

Act. Obviously, the Commissioner of Education does not have jurisdiction over

lawsuits filed under the UDJA. The point is that Ms. McClelland’s challenge to the

legality of WISD’s contractual policies cannot be considered moot in order to

deprive the Commissioner and courts of jurisdiction for want of a case or controversy

when such challenges are not so considered when brought as a “question of

construction or validity” by any other litigant under the UDJA, even before a breach.

Section 37.004, Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code.

Additionally, the case the Commissioner relies upon for refutation of Click v.

Tyra, 867 S.W.2d 406 (Ct. App. Tex. 14th Dist. 1993, no writ) actually refutes his

position. The case before this Court involves a written, official policy of WISD that

forms a part of its contractual relationship with Ms. McClelland and violates state

law. The Court in Nehls v. Hartman Newspapers, LP, 522 S.W.3d 23, 33 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied), did not question that such cases are

governed by the rule in Click, stating:

Unlike the relators in Click, Hartman has offered no evidence or support for the notion that appellants have a policy or practice of routinely withholding discoverable public information such that it is a “recurring problem.”

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Appellant prays that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed, and

the Court invalidate school district policies requiring exhaustion of Temporary

Disability Leave and Family and Medical Leave Act leave while employees are

on assault leave.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Richard Arnett Richard L. Arnett Texas Bar No. 01333300 rarnett@arnettlaw.net Telephone: (720) 366-7774 Of Counsel to Brim & Brim, P.C. 5926 Balcones Drive, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78731 Telephone: (512) 328-0048

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 26, 2025, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon Mr. Colby Rideout attorney for the Weatherford Independent School District, by email at colby@leasorcrass.com, and Mr. Keegan Howe, Assistant Attorney General, by email at keegan.howe@oag.texas.gov.

/s/ Richard Arnett Richard L. Arnett

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that the brief submitted complies with Rule 9.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because it has been prepared in a conventional typeface no smaller than 14-point for text, except for footnotes, which are no smaller than 12- point, and the word count of this document is 575. The word processing software used to prepare this brief and calculate the word count of the document is Microsoft Word. Dated: November 26, 2025 /s/ Richard L. Arnett Richard L. Arnett

Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Laura McClelland v. Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education in His Official Capacity; And Weatherford Independent School District, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Laura McClelland v. Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education in His Official Capacity; And Weatherford Independent School District (Laura McClelland v. Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education in His Official Capacity; And Weatherford Independent School District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Myrtle Springs Reverted Independent School District v. Hogan
705 S.W.2d 707 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Perry v. Houston Independent School District
902 S.W.2d 544 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Click v. Tyra
867 S.W.2d 406 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)