Plaintiff sued the Texas Department of Transportation under the Texas Whistleblower Act, alleging that he was forced to resign based on two incidents in which he reported violations of law to the enforcement authorities within the department. In State v. Lueck, the court held that elements of the Texas Government Code �554.002(a) can be considered to determine both jurisdiction and liability. Whether reporting to enforcement authorities was a good faith report to an appropriate law enforcement authority is a jurisdictional question. Texas Supreme Court, No. 07-1030, 08-28-2009
August 31, 2009 at 12:00 AM
X
Thank you for sharing!
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Sergio Garcia sued the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) under the Texas Whistleblower Act, alleging that he was forced to resign based on two incidents in which he reported violations of law to the “enforcement authorities within [TxDOT].” TxDOT filed a plea to the jurisdiction based on immunity from suit, claiming that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Garcia failed to make a good faith report of a violation of law to an appropriate law enforcement authority. See TEX. GOV’TCODE § 554.002(a). The trial court denied the plea to the jurisdiction and TxDOT took an interlocutory appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE§ 51.014(a)(8) (permitting appeal from an interlocutory order that denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit). The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the section 554.002(a) elements are not jurisdictional prerequisites but rather go to the merits of the claim. 243 S.W.3d 759, 762–63; see also TEX. GOV’T CODE§ 554.0035. However, in State v. Lueck, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (Tex. 2009), we held that “the elements of section 554.002(a) can be considered to determine both jurisdiction and liability.” Accordingly, whether Garcia’s report of violations of the law to “enforcement authorities within [TxDOT]” was a good faith report to an appropriate law enforcement authority is a jurisdictional question. Therefore, without hearing oral argument, TEX. R. APP. P. 59.1, and for the reasons explained in Lueck, we reverse and remand to the court of appeals to determine whether Garcia has alleged a violation under the Act. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 554.002(a).
This premium content is reserved exclusively for Law.com subscribers.
With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas. View Now
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team. View Now
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same. View Now
Law.com Compass includes access to our exclusive industry reports, combining the unmatched expertise of our analyst team with ALM’s deep bench of proprietary information to provide insights that can’t be found anywhere else.
Law.com Compass delivers you the full scope of information, from the rankings of the Am Law 200 and NLJ 500 to intricate details and comparisons of firms’ financials, staffing, clients, news and events.
