Is a Texas district court reporter a state or county employee, and who can fire one?

Plain-English summary

Robert Henneke, the Kerr County Attorney, asked the Attorney General whether the official court reporter for the 198th Judicial District, a multi-county district, is a district (and therefore state) employee or a county employee. The Attorney General started by explaining that state law does not fix the employment status of district court reporters for all purposes. Courts and the Legislature have recognized that a public servant can be a state employee for one purpose and an employee of another entity for a different purpose, so the AG could not give a single label that holds in every situation.

The county attorney then narrowed the request to four specific questions. On who may terminate a district court reporter, the AG explained that each judge of a court of record appoints the official court reporter, who is a sworn officer of the court holding office at the pleasure of the court, and that no county official may overrule the district judges on firing reporters. The district judge who appoints the reporter therefore has the sole authority to terminate that reporter, even though the county pays the salary.

On the second and third questions, which asked who would be the correct defendant in a hypothetical employment-discrimination suit and whether the state or the counties would pay a resulting judgment, the AG declined to answer. Those questions depend on the underlying facts and the type of claim, and potential liability cannot be resolved through the opinion process. On the fourth question, the AG concluded that because the Legislature vested control of state district court reporters in the district judges rather than the counties, a Texas court would likely hold that a county has no authority to influence or direct a district court reporter's employment.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2013. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later Attorney General opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

The Kerr County Attorney (as the opinion described it): The opinion told the county attorney that there was no all-purpose answer to whether a district court reporter is a state or county employee, because the status is context-specific. It gave concrete answers on two of the four supplemental questions: the appointing district judge alone may fire the reporter, and a county has no authority to influence or direct the reporter's employment. It declined the two questions about who would be the proper defendant and how any monetary judgment would be apportioned among the counties, explaining that those turn on facts and claim types the opinion process does not resolve.

The counties in a multi-county judicial district (as the opinion described it): The opinion described the counties as generally funding the reporter's salary (apportioned by population in a multi-county district) while lacking authority to overrule the district judges on hiring, firing, or assignment. It did not decide whether or how the counties might bear employment-law liability.

Common questions

Is a district court reporter a state employee or a county employee?
The opinion said it depends on the purpose. State law does not set the status for all purposes, and the same person can be treated as a state employee in one context and a county employee in another.

Who can fire a district court reporter?
According to the opinion, the district judge who appoints the official court reporter has the sole authority to terminate the reporter; no county official can overrule the district judges on that.

Can a county control a district court reporter's work to limit its own liability?
The opinion concluded a county likely has no authority to influence or direct a district court reporter's employment, because the Legislature vested that control in the state district judges.

Did the AG say who would be liable in a discrimination lawsuit?
No. The AG declined the hypothetical questions about the correct defendant and how liability would be apportioned, because potential liability is fact-specific and not resolved through an attorney general opinion.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion built on the court-reporter provisions of the Government Code: section 52.041 (each judge of a court of record appoints the official court reporter, who is a sworn officer holding office at the pleasure of the court), section 52.045(a) (the official oath), section 52.051 (salary set by the judge and funded by the county), and section 52.054(a) (apportioning a multi-county reporter's salary among the counties by population). A footnote noted an exception in section 24.579(c) for the 435th District Court reporter, and another identified the 198th District as composed of Bandera and Kerr counties under section 24.377.

For the control and termination points, the AG relied on Bloom v. Bexar Cnty., 130 F.3d 722 (5th Cir. 1997), which applied a hybrid economic-realities/common-law-control test and stated that Texas district court reporters are subject solely to the control of the state district judges. The opinion cited Canales v. Jim Wells Cnty., 2013 WL 244835 (S.D. Tex. 2013), for the principle that a public servant can hold different employment statuses for different functions, and section 76.006(a), (c) as a legislative example of the same idea. It declined the liability questions under Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0430 (2006).

Citations

Cases:

• Canales v. Jim Wells Cnty., No. 2:12-CV-171, 2013 WL 244835, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2013)
• Bloom v. Bexar Cnty., 130 F.3d 722, 725 (5th Cir. 1997)

Statutes:

• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 52.041 (West 2013)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 52.045(a)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 52.051
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 52.054(a)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 76.006(a), (c) (West 2013)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 24.579(c) (West Supp. 2012)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 24.377

Other authority:

• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0430 (2006) at 4
• Act of May 26, 2013, 83d Leg., R.S., H.B. 3153, § 1.03

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/greg-abbott/ga-1023
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2013/ga1023.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official PDF. Minor extraction artifacts were corrected; the linked PDF is authoritative.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
GREG ABBOTT

September 17, 2013

The Honorable Robert Henneke Opinion No. GA-1023
Kerr County Attorney
County Courthouse, Suite BA-103 Re: Whether an official court reporter for a
700 Main Street multi-county judicial district is a state
Kerrville, Texas 78028 employee or a county employee and related
questions (RQ-1124-GA)

Dear Mr. Henneke:

You ask whether the official court reporter for the 198th Judicial District (the "District") is a district employee (and thus an employee of the state) or a county employee.[1]

In approaching your question, we first note that state law does not specify the employment status of district court reporters for all purposes. Indeed, the courts and the Legislature have recognized that a public servant can simultaneously be an employee of the state for one purpose and the employee of another entity for another purpose.[2] Because a district court reporter's employment status may depend on the specific context, we cannot answer your original question with a designation that will be applicable in all instances.

You have, however, supplemented your original request to ask four questions about a district court reporter's employment in specific circumstances.[3] Your first supplemental question is, "Who has authority to terminate the employment of a [district] Court Reporter?" Request Supplement at 1. "Each judge of a court of record" appoints an official court reporter. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 52.041 (West 2013). "An official court reporter is a sworn officer of the court and holds office at the pleasure of the court." Id. (emphasis added). All official court reporters "must take the official oath" required of state officers. Id. § 52.045(a). In a district court, the official court reporter "shall be paid a salary set by the order of the judge" and funded by the county,[4] subject to certain limitations. Id. § 52.051; see also id. § 52.054(a) (in a multi-county judicial district, a district court reporter's salary is apportioned among the counties in proportion to population).[5] Although the county generally pays a district court reporter's salary, "[n]o county official has the authority to overrule the district judges with regard to the ... firing . . . of official court reporters in the state judicial system." Bloom v. Bexar Cnty., 130 F.3d 722, 725 (5th Cir. 1997). Thus, the district judge who appoints the district court reporter has the sole authority to terminate him or her.

Your second and third supplemental questions pose the following hypothetical situations: "If a Court Reporter initiates an employment discrimination complaint, who would be the correct Respondent party" in litigation? Request Supplement at 1. "If a Court Reporter obtained a monetary judgment following employment law type litigation (Title VII, Tex. Labor Code Ch. 21, ADA, etc), would the State or the counties within the multi-county judicial district be liable to satisfy that judgment? If the counties themselves are liable, how would the liability be apportioned amongst the counties within a multi-county district?" Id. We cannot determine the correct respondent party of a hypothetical lawsuit, as it will depend on the underlying facts and the type of claim brought. Nor can we speculate on how liability would be apportioned in a hypothetical lawsuit. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0430 (2006) at 4 (questions of potential liability are fact-specific and cannot be resolved in the opinion process). Thus, we decline to address your second and third supplemental questions.

In your last supplemental question, you ask: to the extent the counties within the District have any employment liability, what authority do they have "to influence or direct the employment of the court reporter so as to minimize the counties' potential liability?" Request Supplement at 1. In analyzing whether a county was the "employer" of a district court reporter for purposes of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Fifth Circuit used a hybrid economic realities/common-law control test to determine the extent of the parties' employment relationship. Bloom, 130 F.3d at 725-26. The court noted that "[c]ourt reporters for the Texas district courts are subject solely to the control of the elected state district judges" and that "[n]o county official has the authority to overrule the district judges with regard to the hiring, firing, or assignment of official court reporters in the state judicial system." Id. at 724-25. Given that the Legislature chose "to explicitly vest control of state district court reporters in state district judges rather than counties," a Texas court would likely conclude that a county has no authority to influence or direct the employment of a district court reporter. Id. at 724.

SUMMARY

The employment status of a district court reporter is context-specific and cannot be determined for all purposes. The district judge who appoints an official district court reporter has the sole authority to terminate the court reporter. A county has no authority to influence or direct the employment of a district court reporter.

Very truly yours,

DANIEL T. HODGE
First Assistant Attorney General

JAMES D. BLACKLOCK
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee

Becky P. Casares
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[1] See Letter and Brief from Honorable Robert Henneke, Kerr Cnty. Att'y, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Tex. Att'y Gen. (Apr. 22, 2013), http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opin ("Request Letter" & "Brief").

[2] See, e.g., Canales v. Jim Wells Cnty., No. 2:12-CV-171, 2013 WL 244835, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2013) (noting precedent for treating a district attorney as a state official with respect to prosecutorial functions but as a county official with respect to employment functions); TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 76.006(a), (c) (West 2013) (providing that community supervision and corrections department employees "are not state employees" for general purposes but "are state employees for the purposes of" indemnification by the state under chapter 104 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code and for participation in a state employee group benefits plan).

[3] Requestor's Supplemental Email (June 10, 2013) (on file with Op. Comm.) ("Request Supplement").

[4] But see TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 24.579(c) (West Supp. 2012) (providing that the state shall fund the salary of the 435th District Court reporter, "[n]otwithstanding any other law").

[5] The District is a multi-county judicial district currently composed of Bandera and Kerr counties. See Act of May 26, 2013, 83d Leg., R.S., H.B. 3153, § 1.03 (codified at TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 24.377).