X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellant, the city of New Braunfels, brings this consolidated interlocutory appeal, challenging the district court’s orders denying its pleas to the jurisdiction. The city argues that appellees Roger G. Allen and Christopher S. Allen failed to show clear and unambiguous waivers of sovereign immunity in their claims for wrongful termination. The appellees filed suit alleging three claims for relief: 1. claims for wrongful termination under the Texas Whistleblower Act; 2. claims under Chapter 614 of the Texas Government Code; and 3. negligence claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The appellees, former police officers with the city, were terminated, allegedly in retaliation for filing reports of misconduct by a supervisor. Roger contends an additional reason for his termination was his filing multiple reports of sexual harassment by a separate supervisor. The appellees filed grievances with the city and subsequently filed suit alleging claims under the Whistleblower Act, claims under Chapter 614 of the government code, and negligence claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The Whistleblower Act provides a 90-day “limitation period” for an employee to file suit. But before filing suit, the employee is required to initiate the governmental agency’s grievance or appeal procedure not later than 90 days after the alleged violation occurred or was discovered by the employee through reasonable diligence. Section 554.006 also provides a complicated procedure that tolls the 90-day limitations provision of �554.005. The interplay between the limitations section and the grievance procedure requires resolution of facts regarding when the employee’s grievance was filed and denied; it also includes a possible election that the employee may make regarding whether to exhaust applicable grievance or appeal procedures or terminate the procedures and file suit. The city filed pleas to the jurisdiction on all claims, specifically insisting that appellees failed to comply with the limitations provision of the Whistleblower Act. Appellees, relying on a different understanding of when their grievances were filed and a different reading of the tolling provisions of the statute, responded that their whistleblower suits were timely filed. Further, they argued that even if the city’s allegations were true, �554.005 of the Whistleblower Act is clearly a statute of limitations provision, and therefore, it gives rise to the affirmative defense of limitations, but is not grounds for a plea to the jurisdiction. The city argued its pleas to the jurisdiction in a consolidated hearing before the district court. At the hearing, appellees did not present any argument supporting the validity of their negligence claims or claims under Chapter 614 of the government code. Appellees argued, however, that they complied with the limitations provision of the Whistleblower Act and that, in any event, noncompliance with the limitations provision is not grounds for a plea to the jurisdiction. The district court denied the city’s pleas to the jurisdiction. The city now brings this interlocutory appeal, asserting that appellees have failed to show clear and unambiguous waivers of sovereign immunity for their three claims. HOLDING:Affirmed in part, reversed and dismissed in part. The court reverses the district court’s orders denying the city’s pleas to the jurisdiction with respect to the negligence claims and the claims under Texas Government Code Chapter 614. However, this court has previously held that noncompliance with the limitations provision of �554.005 of the Whistleblower Act gives rise to the affirmative defense of limitations, but is not grounds for a plea to the jurisdiction. Texas Dep’t of Mental Health v. Olofsson, 59 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. App. � Austin 2001, pet. dism’d). In reaffirming Olofsson, the court affirms the district court’s orders denying the city’s pleas to the jurisdiction with respect to appellees’ whistleblower claims. OPINION:Kidd, J.; Kidd, Puryear and Pemberton, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.