In Williams v. Chatman, 17 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1999, pet. denied), the parents of a student who drowned at a school-sponsored pool party sued several school-district employees, among others, claiming that the employees were negligent and grossly negligent in supervising the students. The school employees moved for summary judgment claiming immunity under section 22.051 of the Education Code. The parents argued that the employees were not acting within the scope of their duties and were therefore not protected by immunity because: " (1) the party was not on school property; (2) it occurred after normal school hours; (3) the employees were not required to attend, (4) the employees were not paid for attending the party." Williams, 17 S.W.3d at 698. Without stating a specific test to determine if the employees were acting within the scope of their duties, the court of appeals in Williams analyzed the school-district employees' summary-judgment evidence and concluded that they established as a matter of law that they were acting within the scope of their duties when the incident occurred. Id. at 697-99. The court noted that the defendants' summary-judgment proof showed that the employees were requested to attend the party to supervise the students and that employees were expected to attend school-sponsored functions outside of normal school hours at the principal's request. Id. at 698-99. The court stated that "the purpose of the employees' attendance was to supervise the students, an obligation they would not have but for their employment with the school district." Id. at 699. Therefore, the court of appeals concluded that the employees' summary-judgment evidence conclusively established that they were acting within the scope of their duties. Id. In Williams, the court of appeals was evaluating whether the defendants, in response to negligence claims, had proven the statutory immunity elements. The court held, without stating any particular test for how to determine if the employees were acting within the scope of their duties, that the employees' and school superintendent's testimony established that accompanying and supervising the students on school-sponsored activities, including field trips, was part of each employee's job. Thus, the employees were acting within the scope of their duties while at the party.