Assistant Chiefs Left Out of $650 Million Settlement Get Partial Win in Texas Appeals Court

The latest round in the ongoing legal saga between the City of Houston and its firefighters has yielded a mixed result—particularly for a group of Assistant Fire Chiefs who say they were unfairly excluded from a massive $650 million backpay settlement.

The Texas Court of Appeals (14th District) held today that the Assistant Chiefs—who had intervened in the long-running lawsuit between the City and the Houston Professional Fire Fighters’ Association, Local 341—can move forward with part of their case. Specifically, they can continue seeking a declaration that they are “fire fighters” under Texas law and are entitled to the same bargaining protections as others in the department. However, they cannot sue the City directly for a share of the settlement money or claim rights under the terms of that agreement.

The case stems from a multi-year impasse between the City and Local 341 after the expiration of their 2011 collective bargaining agreement. When negotiations stalled, the union sued. After years of litigation, the parties reached a $650 million settlement in 2024 to resolve backpay and other compensation disputes.

But there was a catch: the agreement explicitly stated that the union did not represent the department’s Assistant Fire Chiefs. Those positions were considered exempt from overtime, and none of the settlement funds were allocated to cover their service.

A group of thirteen Assistant Chiefs, including plaintiffs Alfredo Martinez and Ruy Lozano, intervened in the lawsuit. They argued that they were still “fire fighters” under the state’s Fire and Police Employee Relations Act (FPERA), and that the union had breached its duty of fair representation by excluding them. They also claimed that the City violated its statutory duty to provide compensation comparable to the private sector, as required under FPERA.

The City and the Association both pushed back hard, filing motions to dismiss the Assistant Chiefs’ claims on jurisdictional grounds. They argued that the Chiefs had no standing, and that governmental immunity shielded the City from suit.

The trial court denied both motions, and the case went up on appeal—yet again. The appellate court issued a split ruling:

• Against the City: The court held that the Assistant Chiefs can pursue claims that the City violated its statutory duty under FPERA—but only to the extent necessary to enforce the Act. That means they cannot sue just to get a piece of the settlement, or to assert contractual claims about backpay or overtime. Those claims fall outside FPERA and remain barred by governmental immunity.
• Against the Union: The court found that the Assistant Chiefs have standing to sue the Association for breach of its duty of fair representation. The court rejected the union’s claim that only the Association itself can bring such actions under FPERA. Since the Assistant Chiefs allege they were improperly carved out of the settlement, they may continue seeking relief under section 174.251 of the Act.

This case underscores the complexity—and potential pitfalls—of how bargaining units are defined and how compensation is negotiated. It also highlights that title alone doesn’t determine whether you’re a “fire fighter” under state labor law. That designation has real legal consequences when it comes to bargaining rights and access to negotiated benefits.

The case now heads back to the trial court, where the Assistant Chiefs will get their chance to prove they were improperly excluded. Whether they ultimately prevail remains to be seen. But for now, they’ve cleared a critical procedural hurdle—and the broader dispute over firefighter compensation in Houston continues to unfold.