381 S.W.3d at 531-32. When challenging the District’s assertion of immunity, Manbeck argued that the District could not “avail itself of governmental immunity” because the District initiated the lawsuit. Id. at 532. The supreme court disagreed and explained that the District initiated the “suit as part of the review process under the workers’ compensation regime, but it never sought affirmative relief.” Id. Further, the court reasoned that rather than bring an affirmative claim for money damages “against which Manbeck’s claims could be offset,” the district “merely availed itself of its statutory right to challenge Manbeck’s award of monetary relief by pursuing an appeal of the administrative decision to district court.” Id. at 532-33; see also Reata Constr. Corp., 197 S.W.3d at 378 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the supreme court held that the
holding that entity coverage inapplicable because there were no remaining securities claims against the debtor holding that when governmental entity asserts affirmative claim for monetary damages against party entity does not have immunity from partys claims germane to connected to and properly defensive to claims asserted by the entity to the extent any recovery on those claims will offset any recovery by entity holding that claims including constitutional claims must be asserted in trial court to be raised on appeal holding that the eleventh amendment immunity bars title i employment discrimination claims against a state for monetary damages holding that an employer is only allowed to be reimbursed from a tort recovery to the extent that the recovery duplicates the elements of damage covered by compensation benefits