From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7" Subject: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:15:21 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C82A06.99941BD0" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16545 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C82A06.99941BD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=83970 Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
Send this document to a=20 colleague    Close=20 This Window


Affirmed and Opinion filed October 30,=20 2007.

 

 

In The

 

Fourteenth=20 Court of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-06-00303-CV

____________

 

JOSEPHINE S.=20 ALOBAIDI, = Appellant

 

V.

 

THE=20 UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT=20 HOUSTON, = Appellee

 

 

On Appeal from the = 190th District Court

Harris County, = Texas

Trial Court Cause = No. 05-39746

 

 

O P I N I=20 O N

         =20 In this retaliatory-discharge case, a former employee challenges = the trial=20 court=3Ds order=20 granting the plea to the jurisdiction filed by her former = employer, a=20 university center. The former employee contends that (1) the = university=20 center waived sovereign immunity by previously having pursued an = appeal of=20 her workers=3D = compensation award and (2) prohibiting her from using the state = courts to=20 pursue her Labor Code chapter 451 retaliatory discharge claim[1]=20 against that institution violates the state and federal equal = protection,=20 due process, and due course of law clauses.  We = affirm.

I. =20 Factual and Procedural Background

In the=20 fall of 2001, appellant Josephine Alobaidi filed a = workers=3D = compensation claim alleging she had sustained a = chemical-inhalation injury=20 while working at The University of Texas Health Science Center at = Houston,=20 which is part of The University of Texas System.  See = Tex. Educ. Code Ann. = ' = 65.02(a)(9) (Vernon 2002).  The University of Texas System = was the=20 party against whom Alobaidi asserted her workers=3D = compensation claim, but Alobaidi named only The University of = Texas Health=20 Science Center at Houston as the defendant in this = anti-retaliation=20 suit.  Because the difference between these two entities does = not=20 affect the outcome in this case, we refer to both entities as = Athe=20 Center@ = in this=20 opinion.

The Center=20 contested Alobaidi=3Ds=20 workers=3D = compensation claim, and Alobaidi subsequently prevailed in a=20 contested-benefit hearing before the Hearings Division of the = Texas=20 Workers=3D = Compensation Commission.  The Center next sought relief in=20 administrative proceedings before the Commission, and the = Commission also=20 denied relief.  The Center then filed suit for judicial = review in the=20 Harris County District Court, alleging Alobaidi had not sustained = a=20 compensable injury.  Following a bench trial, the district = court=20 rendered judgment against the Center and ordered it to pay = Alobaidi=20 attorney=3Ds fees of=20 $23,075.  The trial court announced its decision in early = August=20 2004.  A few days thereafter, the Center terminated=20 Alobaidi=3Ds=20 employment.

Alobaidi=20 sued the Center in this case alleging she had been wrongfully = discharged=20 because of her workers=3D = compensation claim.  The Center responded with a plea to the=20 jurisdiction and a motion to dismiss, alleging = Alobaidi=3Ds claims=20 were barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.  The trial = court=20 granted the Center=3Ds plea to=20 the jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

II. =20 Standard of=20 Review

In this=20 appeal, Alobaidi challenges the trial court=3Ds grant of=20 the Center=3Ds plea to=20 the jurisdiction and dismissal of her case.  She also = challenges the=20 constitutionality of the statutes on which the trial = court=3Ds decision=20 rests.  In filing a plea to the jurisdiction, a litigant = challenges=20 the trial court=3Ds=20 subject-matter jurisdiction.  Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. = Blue,=20 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000).  Because subject-matter = jurisdiction=20 is a question of law, we conduct a de novo review of the trial=20 court=3Ds ruling=20 on the plea.  See Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 = S.W.2d 922,=20 928 (Tex. 1998).  Likewise, we also apply de novo review to = questions=20 raising constitutional concerns.  See State v. Hodges, = 92=20 S.W.3d 489, 494 (Tex.=20 2002).          =

III. =20 Issues and=20 Analysis

A. =     =20 Did the trial court err by holding the university center did not = waive=20 sovereign immunity by filing its district court petition to set = aside the=20 award of the Texas Workers=3D Compensation=20 Commission?

 

In her=20 first issue, Alobaidi argues the trial court erred in granting the = Center=3Ds plea to=20 the jurisdiction because that institution waived sovereign = immunity when=20 it initially filed suit seeking judicial relief against her in the = workers=3D = compensation case.  Alobaidi bore the burden of alleging = facts that=20 affirmatively showed the trial court had subject-matter=20 jurisdiction.  See Tex. Ass=3Dn of Bus.=20 v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852=20 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993).  Absent the State=3Ds consent=20 to suit, a trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.  = Tex.=20 Dep=3Dt of=20 Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d=20 636, 638 (Tex. 1999).

Immunity=20 from suit prohibits suits against the State unless the State = expressly=20 consents to the suit.  Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. = Taylor,=20 106 S.W.3d 692, 696 (Tex. 2003).  A state agency, such as the = Center,=20 shares this immunity.  See Lowe v. Tex. Tech. Univ., = 540=20 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Tex. 1976); Clark v. Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. = Ctr. at=20 Houston, 919 S.W.2d 185, 187 (Tex. App.CEastland=20 1996, writ denied).  For the legislature to waive the=20 State=3Ds=20 sovereign immunity, a statute or resolution must contain a clear = and=20 unambiguous expression of the legislature=3Ds waiver=20 of immunity.  Taylor, 106 S.W.3d at 696; see = Tex. Gov=3Dt=20 Code Ann. = ' = 311.034=20 (Vernon Supp. 2006).

Alobaidi=20 concedes the legislature has not consented to workers=3D = compensation anti-retaliation suits against the Center.  = See=20 Tex. Lab. Code = Ann.=20 '' = 451.001,=20 451.002 (Vernon 2006) (providing remedies for persons discharged = for=20 having filed a workers=3D = compensation suit); ' = 501.024(6) (excluding persons University of Texas employees who = are=20 covered under Chapter 503); ' = 503.002(a) (not including sections 451.001 and 451.002 as general=20 workers=3D = compensation laws applicable to The University of Texas = employees); see=20 also Clark, 919 S.W.2d at 187B88=20 (holding the Center immune from workers=3D = compensation anti-retaliation suits).  Instead, relying on = Reata=20 Construction Corp. v. City of Dallas, she argues the Center = waived its=20 sovereign immunity by seeking district court review of her=20 workers=3D = compensation award.  See 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex.=20 2006).

In=20 Reata Construction, the Texas Supreme = Court held=20 that a governmental entity that brings an action waives immunity = from suit=20 for claims that are germane to, connected with, and properly = defensive to=20 its action, to the extent of an offset. =20 Id. at 373; see State v. Fid. & = Deposit Co.=20 of Md., = 223=20 S.W.3d 309, 310 (Tex. 2007) (summarizing Reata holding); = Tex.=20 Dep=3Dt of=20 Transp. v. Precision Solar Controls, Inc., 220=20 S.W.3d 494, 494 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) (same).  Thus, = Reata=20 Construction provides for a waiver of immunity only = Ato the=20 extent [a party=3Ds] claims=20 offset those asserted by [the state entity].@  197=20 S.W.3d at 373.  AOnce it=20 asserts affirmative claims for monetary recovery, the [state = entity] must=20 participate in the litigation process as an ordinary litigant, = save for=20 the limitation that the [state entity] continues to have immunity = from=20 affirmative damage claims against it for monetary relief exceeding = amounts=20 necessary to offset the [state entity=3Ds]=20 claims.@ =20 Id. at 377.

In the=20 workers=3D = compensation case, the Center sought judicial review of the = appeals=20 panel=3Ds decision=20 regarding compensability of Alobaidi=3Ds=20 injury.  See Tex. Lab.=20 Code Ann. ' = 410.301=20 (Vernon 2006).  The Center never asserted a claim for = monetary=20 relief.  In its district court petition, the Center sought a = take=20 nothing judgment against Alobaidi and the costs it expended in the = suit.  In the present case, the Center is the defendant and = has not=20 asserted any claim for relief against Alobaidi.  Therefore, = there can=20 be no offset and no waiver of sovereign immunity.  See = Bexar=20 Metro. Water Dist. v. Educ. & Econ. Dev. Joint Venture, = 220 S.W.3d=20 25, 32 (Tex. App.CSan=20 Antonio 2006, pet. filed) (holding city water districtCwhich had=20 prayed for judgment and costs and filed a plea in abatement but = had not=20 made affirmative claims for monetary relief in suit brought by = purchaser=20 seeking specific performanceCdid not,=20 by its conduct, waive governmental immunity to suit).  = Accordingly,=20 we overrule Alobaidi=3Ds first=20 issue.

B.  =    =20 Do sections 501.024 and 503.002(a) of the Texas Labor Code violate = the=20 state and federal equal protection clauses?

 

In her=20 second issue, Alobaidi argues that prohibiting her from using the = state=20 courts to sue the Center under the Texas Labor Code violates the = equal=20 protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions, = particularly=20 because that institution was able to maintain its earlier action = in the=20 district court.[2] =20 Alobaidi complains of (1) Texas Labor Code section 501.024, which = excludes=20 The University of Texas and Texas A&M University employees = from=20 coverage under workers=3D = compensation law applicable to state employees and (2) section = 503.002(a),=20 which does not incorporate sections 451.001 and 451.002 = (authorizing=20 anti-retaliation suits) as general workers=3D = compensation laws applicable to University of Texas employees.[3]

The=20 federal constitution provides: ANo State=20 shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal=20 protection of the laws.@ =20 U.S. Const. = amend. XIV,=20 ' = 1. =20 Similarly our state constitution provides:  AAll free=20 men, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no = man, or=20 set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, = or=20 privileges, but in consideration of public services.@ =20 Tex. Const. art. = I,=20 ' = 3. =20 The federal analytical approach applies to equal protection = challenges=20 under the Texas Constitution.  Bell v. Low Income = Women, 95=20 S.W.3d 253, 266 (Tex. 2002).

We presume=20 the constitutionality of the statutes challenged in this = case. =20 See Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Bldg. = &=20 Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575, 108 S. Ct. 1392,=20 1397B98, 99 L.=20 Ed. 2d 645 (1988).  Alobaidi bears the burden of proving the = statutes=20 unconstitutional.  Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Meno, = 917=20 S.W.2d 717, 725 (Tex. 1995).  If the classifications in the = statutes=20 do not impinge on a fundamental right or distinguish between = persons on a=20 suspect basis, the statutes need only be rationally related to a=20 legitimate governmental purpose to survive Alobaidi=3Ds=20 equal‑protection challenge.  Ford Motor Co. v. = Sheldon, 22=20 S.W.3d 444, 451 (Tex. 2000).

 =20 Alobaidi concedes this case does not involve a suspect = class. =20 Instead, she argues it involves a fundamental right, the = Aright to=20 access the courts,@ = grounded=20 in the open-courts provision of the Texas Constitution.  = See=20 Tex. Const. art. = I,=20 ' = 13. =20 She then urges this court to apply a strict-scrutiny = analysis. =20 See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 = U.S. 432,=20 440, 105 S. Ct. 3249, 3254, 87 L. Ed. 2d 313 (1985) (plurality=20 op.).

The=20 open-courts provision, however, does not apply to = Alobaidi=3Ds claim=20 because her claim is a statutory, rather than a common-law,=20 claim.   See Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. = Auld, 34=20 S.W.3d 887, 902B03 (Tex.=20 2000).  Additionally, although statutes depriving any relief = to=20 medical-malpractice plaintiffs who fail to file a cost bond and an = expert=20 report arguably deprive such plaintiffs of Aaccess to=20 the courts,@ = this=20 court has applied a rational-basis test to those statutes.  = See=20 Andress v. MacGregor Med. Ass=3Dn,=20 P.A., 5 S.W.3d=20 855, 859B60 (Tex.=20 App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (responding to due process challenge = and=20 looking only to whether the legislature acted arbitrarily or = irrationally=20 in attempting to achieve its stated purposes).  Were this = court to=20 hold that a fundamental right is involved every time a statute = deprives=20 any person of the right to bring a statutory claim, many statutes = would be=20 subject to strict scrutiny and likely invalidation.  We = decline=20 Alobaidi=3Ds=20 invitation to apply a strict-scrutiny analysis and instead apply = the=20 rational-basis test.

AUnder=20 rational-basis review, where a group possesses >distinguishing=20 characteristics relevant to interests the State has the authority = to=20 implement,=3D = a=20 State=3Ds decision=20 to act on the basis of those differences does not give rise to a=20 constitutional violation.@ =20 Bd. of Trustees v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 366B67, 121 S.=20 Ct. 955, 963, 148 L. Ed. 2d 866 (2001) (quoting City of = Cleburne,=20 473 U.S. at 441, 105 S. Ct. at 3255).  A>Such a=20 classification cannot run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause if = there is=20 a rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and = some=20 legitimate governmental purpose.=3D@ =20 Id. at 367, 121 S. Ct. at 969 (quoting Heller v. = Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320, = 113 S. Ct.=20 2637, 2642, 125 L. Ed. 2d 257 (1993)).  In=20 other words, legislation survives an equal‑protection = challenge so long as=20 the legislation is rationally related to a legitimate state=20 interest.  Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1, = 14, 108 S.=20 Ct. 849, 859, 99=20 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1988). =20 A state interest is legitimate so long as it does not Arun afoul=20 of some specific federal constitutional prohibition, or of some = valid=20 federal law.@ =20 See  Lincoln Fed. Labor Union v. N.W. Iron & Metal = Co.,=20 335 U.S. 525, 536, 69 S. Ct. 251, 257, 93 L. Ed. = 212=20 (1949).

The legislative = record need not=20 show the legislature=3Ds reasons.  = See=20 Garrett, 531 U.S. at 367, 121 S. Ct. at 964.  Instead, = the party=20 challenging the constitutionality of legislation has the burden to = negate=20 A>any reasonably = conceivable=20 state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the=20 classification.=3D@  Id. = (quoting=20 Heller, 509 U.S. at 320, 113 S. Ct. at 2643) (internal = quotation=20 omitted).  The rational basis a reviewing court envisions = need not be=20 the one that actually motivated the legislature.  See FCC = v. Beach=20 Commc=3Dns, = Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 315, = 113 S.=20 Ct. 2096, 2102, 124 L. Ed. 2d 211  (1993).

In=20 Richards v. Texas A&M University System, the Waco Court = of=20 Appeals explained one possible rationale:

The A & M and = UT systems=20 are the only state educational institutions for whose employees = the State=20 has not waived sovereign immunity from suit under the = Anti‑Retaliation=20 Law.  Those institutions also share the distinction of being = the only=20 state educational institutions that are authorized to meet their=20 workers=3D compensation = obligations by=20 self‑insurance.  See Tex. Lab. Code Ann. = '' 502.022, 503.022 = (Vernon=20 1996).  The distinction between insured and = self‑insuring entities=20 can constitute a valid rational basis for a distinction between=20 them.  For example, the Supreme Court of Mississippi has held = that a=20 statute that waived sovereign immunity for municipalities that=20 participated in an insurance plan, but did not waive it for = municipalities=20 that self‑insured, did not deny equal protection.  = Mosby v.=20 Moore, 95‑CA‑00672‑SCT, &  & 17‑21 (Miss. = 1998), 716=20 So.2d 551, 555B56.

The costs of=20 workers=3D compensation = insurance=20 claims and suits can be high and unpredictable.  A = self‑insuring=20 entity, of course, does not enjoy the primary benefits of = insurance, which=20 are to limit the entity=3Ds exposure by = distributing=20 liability over many insureds.  Cf. Reed Tool Co. v. = Copelin,=20 689 S.W.2d 404, 407 (Tex. 1985).  The Legislature may have = believed=20 that it was necessary to protect the A & M and UT systems from = the=20 additional risks and burdens of potentially large = anti‑retaliation=20 lawsuits.  Although we have no reason to believe that those=20 institutions discharge employees for filing workers=3D compensation = claims or=20 suits, the costs of defending against or settling employment = suits, even=20 suits that the defendant believes are groundless, can be=20 substantial.

 

131 S.W.3d=20 550, 559B60 (Tex.=20 App.CWaco 2004,=20 pet. denied).

The Waco=20 court further observed that protection of the public treasury = Ais one of=20 the prime reasons for modern sovereign immunity.@ =20 Id. at 560.  In the present case, Alobaidi prayed for = loss of=20 past earnings, loss of future earnings and benefits, pain and = suffering,=20 emotional distress, loss of reputation, and Asimilar=20 damage,@ = prejudgment and postjudgment interest, attorney=3Ds fees,=20 costs, and Asuch other=20 and further relief, at law or in equity.@  A=20 rational basis exists for the legislature not to waive sovereign = immunity=20 for such suits directed against a self-insuring state educational=20 institution.  See id.; see also Clark, = 919=20 S.W.2d at 188.[4] =20 Accordingly, we overrule Alobaidi=3Ds second=20 issue.

B.  =    =20 Do sections 501.024 and 503.002(a) of the Texas Labor Code violate = the=20 federal due process clause and the state due course of law=20 provision?

 

In her=20 third issue, Alobaidi argues that prohibiting her from using the = state=20 courts to sue the Center under the Texas Labor Code violates the = federal=20 due process clause and the state due course of law = provision.  The=20 federal constitution provides: ANo State=20 shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, = without due=20 process of law . . . .@ =20 U.S. Const. = amend. XIV,=20 ' = 1. =20 Our state constitution provides: ANo citizen=20 of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, = privileges or=20 immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due = course of=20 the law of the land.@ =20 Tex. Const. art. = I,=20 ' = 19. =20 Because Alobaidi has not asserted or briefed an argument that the=20 substantive due process analysis under the Texas Constitution is = different=20 from that under the United States Constitution, we apply the = analysis=20 under the United States Constitution.  Under the federal = guarantee of=20 substantive due process, legislation not affecting a fundamental = right or=20 interest is valid if it bears a rational relationship to a = legitimate=20 state interest.  Williamson v. Lee Optical, 348 U.S. = 483, 491,=20 75 S. Ct. 461, 466, 99 L. Ed. 563 (1955).

Presuming,=20 without deciding, that a state entity=3Ds immunity=20 from suit can ever implicate due process or due course of law = concerns, we=20 conclude the immunity at issue in this case does not.[5] =20 As discussed in Section III. A., above, the present case does not = affect a=20 fundamental right, and as explained in Section III. B., above, = declining=20 to waive a self-insuring university system=3Ds immunity=20 from workers=3D = compensation anti-retaliation suits bears a rational relationship = to the=20 State=3Ds=20 legitimate interest in conserving the university=3Ds=20 resources.  Accordingly, we overrule Alobaidi=3Ds third=20 issue.

We affirm=20 the trial court=3Ds=20 judgment.

 

 

 

/s/     =20 Kem Thompson Frost

Justice

 

 

Judgment=20 rendered and Opinion filed October 30, 2007.

Panel=20 consists of Justices Anderson, Frost, and Mirabal.*

 

 

 

*=20 Senior=20 Justice Margaret Garner Mirabal, sitting by = assignment.


[1]  See Tex. Lab. Code Ann. = '' 451.001B.003 (Vernon 2006).

[2]  Alobaidi states, AHere, the equal protection issue is one = of the=20 government versus a citizen.@  She then asks whether the = government can=20 provide itself a particular right, that is, access to the courts, = against=20 one of its citizens while at the same time denying that citizen an = identical right of access to the courts in an action against the = same=20 government.  To the extent we have addressed that aspect of = her=20 argument in Section III. A., above, we do not revisit it = here. =20 Moreover, Alobaidi=3Ds characterization of her equal = protection issue=20 rests on the unwarranted assumption that an action seeking review = of a=20 workers=3D compensation award concerns the same = statutory=20 right as an action for retaliatory discharge.

[3]  An identical provision applies to = employees=20 of The Texas A&M University System.  See Tex. Lab. Code Ann. = ' 502.002(a) (Vernon 2006). The = legislature enacted=20 the predecessor to chapter 451 (the anti-retaliation provisions) = in=20 1971.  See Act of April 22, 1971, 62d Leg., R.S., ch.=20 115,  '' 1B3,  1971 Tex. Gen. Laws 884, = 884B85 (previously codified as Rev. Civ. = Stat. Art.=20 8307c, '' 1B3) (repealed and recodified 1993).  = In 1981,=20 the legislature included the anti-retaliation provisions in a list = of=20 provisions applicable to state employees.  See Act of = May 31,=20 1981, 67th Leg. R.S., ch. 352, '' 1B2, 1981 Tex. Gen. Laws 937, 937 = (repealed and=20 recodified 1993).  The 1981 legislation did not refer to the=20 provisions covering The University of Texas System or Texas = A&M System=20 employees.  See id. '' 1B4.  The legislature=3Ds first post-1971 amendment of the = predecessor to=20 section 503.002(a) did not include the anti-retaliation provisions = as=20 sections applicable to University of Texas employees.  = See Act=20 of Dec. 12, 1989, 71st Leg., 2d C.S., ch 1, ' 15.39, 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 1, = 109B10 (repealed and recodified 1993).=20

[4]  Alobaidi distinguishes = Richards and=20 Clark because those cases did not involve situations in = which the=20 university was the first party to avail itself of the = courts.  In a=20 similar vein, she also argues she was not given the same right as = the=20 Center in this case.  The Center=3Ds petition under Texas Labor section = 410.301 did=20 not involve the same type of action or statutory right as a suit = under=20 sections 451.001 and 451.002.  See Section III. A., = and =20 n.2, supra.

[5]  In Federal Sign v. Texas = Southern=20 University, the Texas Supreme Court opined, AThe State=3Ds immunity to suit is, purely as a = matter of=20 sovereignty, impervious to due process concerns.@  951 S.W.2d 401, 411 (Tex.=20 = 1997).

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C82A06.99941BD0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/opinions/images/icoEMail.gif R0lGODlhFAAPAKIAAAAAgIAAAP///8DAwICAgAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAFAAPAAADNCi63P4wykaq vba4Mrr/ndaITxAM5JI2JrotQCwr7jjVDCnPAq7eKwEHRAwWjshkcsJsShIAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C82A06.99941BD0 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/includes/oca.css .TitleBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlueCenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TitleMaroon { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: maroon; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .NavWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.NavWhite:hover { TEXT-DECORATION: underline } .BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } A.BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.BreadCrumbs:hover { COLOR: blue } .TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextJustify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = black; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextNormal:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow } .TextSmallBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextSmallJust { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextSmall { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmallJust { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmall:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } A.TextSmallJust:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmallWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = white; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextWhite { =09 } A.TextWhite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .LinksSite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.LinksSite { =09 } A.LinksSite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextNotify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow } .SiteMaster { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster { LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; COLOR: maroon; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, = Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase:hover { COLOR: blue } .ErrorNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .ErrorSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .SystemMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: = navy } .SystemErrorMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: red } .buttonUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #fff5d7; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #576a9d; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .buttonTanUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #576a9d; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff5d7; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextLargeBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .DocketHeaderTitle { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, ' Helvetica', sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextLargeBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TextLargeBlackcenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } .TextRed { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .TextHidenGray { FONT-SIZE: 0pt; COLOR: #ebebe1; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .Time { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: 4em; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C82A06.99941BD0--