Case No. 23-0711
Martin Tomczak claimed $1,000 in unpaid wages from his former employer, Six Brothers Concrete Pumping, and the Texas Workforce Commission ruled for him under the Texas Payday Law and ordered Six Brothers to pay. Six Brothers timely sought judicial review in Harris County, naming both the commission and Tomczak as Labor Code § 61.062 requires, but § 61.062(d) says suit must be brought in the county of the claimant's residence, which was Montgomery County.1
Six months into the case the commission, but not Tomczak, filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing that the mandatory venue provision is a statutory prerequisite to suit under Government Code § 311.034, and the trial court dismissed for want of jurisdiction with prejudice. The First Court of Appeals affirmed in a first-impression holding that the "must be brought" language creates a condition precedent (679 S.W.3d 746). The Court requested merits briefing and denied the petition for review on December 20, 2024, and denied Six Brothers's motion for rehearing on July 18, 2025.1
Petition for review from the First Court of Appeals; petition denied December 20, 2024, and rehearing denied July 18, 2025 (Docket).
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Payday Law's venue provision, Labor Code § 61.062(d), is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to suit that entitled the commission to sovereign immunity.1
Six Brothers (Petitioner): venue is not jurisdictional and is waived if not timely raised, the commission is only a nominal party, and sovereign immunity is not implicated.
Workforce Commission (Respondent): the commission is a real party defending its decisions, this is a suit against a governmental entity, and the mandatory venue requirement is a statutory prerequisite that must be met before suit.1
Not applicable—the petition was denied.
None noted
The concurrence doubted that a suit against a commission named only for procedural reasons is a suit "against" a governmental entity under § 311.034, and questioned whether a mandatory-venue provision fits the administrative and procedural prerequisites in the Chatha, Sims and Tanner line of cases, noting that earlier courts of appeals decisions holding venue nonjurisdictional predate § 311.034 or ignore it, and that Paxton v. American Oversight called a similar venue provision "garden-variety." Neither argument was raised in the court of appeals, so the concurrence concluded the Court should deny rehearing to let the courts of appeals consider the questions first and expected further opportunities to address them.1
Motion for rehearing denied (Docket).
Justice Young, joined by Justice Busby, concurred in the denial of rehearing.2
The following is current as of October 9, 2026.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 10/20/2023 | Petition for Review (Petitioner) |
| 03/07/2024 | Response to Petition (Respondent) |
| 06/14/2024 | Brief on the Merits Ordered |
| 08/14/2024 | Petitioner's Brief on the Merits |
| 10/14/2024 | Respondent's Brief on the Merits |
| 07/18/2025 | Motion for Rehearing - Disposed |
| 07/18/2025 | Justice(s) concurring in the denial of rehearing Justice Young filed an opinion concurring in the denial of the motion for rehearing. |
| — | opinion concurring in the denial of the motion for rehearing |
Review SCOTX decisions faster than ever.
With a SCOTX Report account, receive AI-generated summaries of every opinion and order, plus direct links to the briefing, opinions, and orders themselves—so you can quickly determine whether each opinion and order deserves your attention.
Create a Free Account Log In