# Six Bros. Concrete Pumping v. Tex. Workforce Comm'n Supreme Court of Texas, No. 23-0711 **Six Bros. Concrete Pumping v. Tex. Workforce Comm'n, No. 23-0711, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: The Court denied rehearing of its denial of the petition for review in a $1,000 Texas Payday Law dispute in which an employer's suit for judicial review was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was filed in Harris County rather than the claimant's home county, and Justice Young, joined by Justice Busby, concurred in the denial.** Practice areas: employment, governmental immunity, administrative law, civil procedure ## Key issues - The Court denied rehearing of its denial of the petition for review in a $1,000 Texas Payday Law dispute in which an employer's suit for judicial review was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was filed in Harris County rather than the claimant's home county, and Justice Young, joined by Justice Busby, concurred in the denial. - The concurrence said two issues raised on rehearing merit further consideration in a suitable case: whether a suit that names the Workforce Commission only as a required defendant is truly a suit "against a governmental entity" under Government Code § 311.034, and whether a mandatory-venue provision is a "statutory prerequisite to suit" that carries jurisdictional consequences. ## Factual History 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 (Young, J., concurring, PDF pp. 1-2; Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 13). ## Procedural History 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 (Young, J., concurring, PDF pp. 2-3; Docket). ## Issues Presented 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 (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 12). ## Legal Arguments **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 (Young, J., concurring, PDF pp. 3, 6; Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF pp. 12-15). ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case Not applicable—the petition was denied. ## Practice Area Tags employment, governmental-immunity, administrative-law, civil-procedure ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Petition for review from the First Court of Appeals; petition denied December 20, 2024, and rehearing denied July 18, 2025 (Docket). ## Amicus Involvement None noted ## Court's Reasoning 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 (Young, J., concurring, PDF pp. 3-22). ## Disposition Motion for rehearing denied (Docket). ## Vote Breakdown Justice Young, joined by Justice Busby, concurred in the denial of rehearing (Young, J., concurring, PDF pp. 1-22). --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/23-0711. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.