# Supreme Court of Texas

══════════ No. 20-0700

══════════ City of Fort Worth, Texas, Petitioner ,

v. Abdul Pridgen and Vance Keyes, Respondents

═════════════════════ ══════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas

═════════════════════ ══════════════════

J USTICE B OYD , dissenting.
Perhaps the Whistleblower Act shou ld limit qualifying reports to exclude reports like those made here. But it doesn’t. And because I don’t believe this Court has authority to amend the statute to impose such limitations, I generally agree with th e court of appeals. __ S.W.3d __, 2020 WL 3286753 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 18, 2020). As this Court acknowledges, the Whistleblower Act does not limit its protection to those who “repor t” information that is “novel” or “previously unknown” to the law-enforcement officials who receive the report. Ante at ___. Nor does it exclude reports made pursuant to the claimant’s “job duties.” Ante at ___. Instead, it only requires that the2 claimant report conduct that the claimant reasonably believes constitutes a violation of law. Wichita County v. Hart , 917 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. 1996). So, as the Court explains, the claimant must provide “facts” and “information” about anot her person’s conduct, not merely opinions, conclusions, or recommendations. Ante at ___. But here, the claimants submitted some evidence that they reported facts and information (in addition to opinions, conclusions, and recommendations) regarding conduct they reasonably belie ved constituted legal violations. The Court says the claimants’ reports were insufficient because they were not “geared toward exposing ” information, did not “supply . . . new information” the police chief did not already have, and were based on sources to which the chief also had access. Ante at ___, ___. Yet the Court acknowledges the Act does not require that the information be “novel” or “previously unknown.” Ante at ___. The Court says the reports were insufficient because they were not “geared toward . . . corroborati ng” facts “that were unverified or subject to dispute,” ante at ___, ___, suggesting that the information must confirm or support some previo usly reported information that is doubtful or conflicts with other repo rted information. But the Act does not impose that requirement either. The Court says the reports were no t “geared toward . . . providing information pertinent to identifying or investigating governmental illegality,” ante at ___, but that is exactl y what the reports did. After reviewing the videos and affidavits , the claimants submitted reports describing the events and concluding that the officer had committed an assault, made a false arrest, used excessive force, committed official3 oppression, and then committed perjury by lying about the events. To me, that seems pretty pertinent to investigating governmental illegality. The Court says the claimants’ communications consisted “largely” of recommendations and conclusions, ante at ___, but the Court concedes that the reports also included factual information regarding conduct the claimants reasonably believed constituted violations of law, see ante at ___. Based on the Act’s language, I’ m compelled to conclude that the claimants submitted some evidence th at they made a “report” as the Act requires. Based on the current record, my be st guess is the claimants would lose this case at trial because the City disciplined them for leaking information, not for making their re ports. But even on that separate causation issue, I agree with the co urt of appeals that the claimants submitted enough evidence to avoid summary judgment. See 2020 WL 3286753, at *8–9. I therefor e respectfully dissent.

Jeffrey S. Boyd Justice

OPINION DELIVERED: May 27, 2022