Opinion filed May 14, 20 09



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 1 1- 07 -0 02 61 -CV

____ ____ PE RLAKA RIM E JORD AN , A ppellant

V.
ECT OR COU NTY , T EXA S, Ap pellee

On App eal from the 70th Distric t Court

Ector C ounty, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. A- 122,198

O P I N I O N P e r l a K ar i m e J o r d ana

p p e a l s f r o m a s u m m ar

y j u d g m e n tg r an t e d

i nf a v o r o f E c t o r C o u n t y, Texas, that she take nothingon her w histleblower cla im, in which she all ege s t h at s he wa s terminated f

or havingcalled to the attention of her boss, the Count y Attorney of Ector County , that a position in which she was inter ested wa s filled without a public posting or that she was terminated fo r f a ili ngto f oll owa c a ll- in p oli c y

wh e n s he , in

fa c t, h a d f

oll ow e d th e po lic y . We a ff ir m. J ordan a sserts two issues on appe al: whether she complied with the prer equisite to bring ing suit under T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 55 4. 00 6( a ) ( Ve rn on 20 04) an d w he the r s he c re a te d a pr imaT EX
. G OV ’ T C O D E A NN . §§ 554. 001-.010 (Ve rnon 2004)

. 1 2 fac ie c a s e u n d e r

th e T e xa s Wh is tl e b lo w e r A c t. I nf

a c t, th e s in g le c o n tr o ll in g is s u e in th is appea l 1 is whether the trial court lac ks jurisdiction to hear Jordan’s whistleblower c laim beca use she did not ini tiate a g ri e va nc e pr oc e dure a ft e r t

he County

Attor ne y of Ec tor C o u nt y t e r m i n a t e d h e r e mpl oy

me nt. I n h e r o ri g ina l pe tit ion , Jor da n a lle g e s th at sh e wa s te rm inate d o n o r a bo ut Jul y 18 , 2 00 5, in

re ta liatio n fo r re po rt ing to the Pe rs on ne l De pa rtme nt of Ec tor County that he r e mpl oy e r, the County Attorney of Ector County , had hire d a leg al sec reta ry or admini strative indi vidual without posti ng or, alternatively , that she was terminated for not comply ing w ith a call-in policy when, in fa ct, she had complied with the call-in policy

. Ector Count y filed a traditional motion for summary judgme nt and a no- evidenc e motio n fo r sum mary judgme nt as well as a

plea to the jurisdiction all of whic h rely on Ector County ’s asser tion that J ordan f

ailed to file or initiate a

gri ev an ce fo llowing he r te rm inatio n, wh ic h E c tor

County a sse rt s is a

ne c e ssa ry pr e re qu isi te to f

ili ngsu c h a

su it. Acc ording to J ordan’ s aff idavit filed in response to Ec tor County ’s motion, she asserts that on J une 30, 2005, prior to he r termination, she soug ht to file a g rieva nce w ith the county ’s per sonnel de pa rtme nt b e c a

us e a le g a l se c re tary

po sit ion in whic h s he wa s in te re ste d h a d n ot bee n p ub lic ly posted. I t is undisput ed that Jordan did not file or initiate a g rieva nce a fter she was ter

minated. S e c t i o n 5 5 4

. 0 0 6 ( a ) o f t h e T e xa s W h i s t l e b l o w e r A c t r e qu i r e s a c l a i m an t t o t i m e ly ini tia te g r i e v an c e o r a

p p e a l p r o c e d

u r e s o f t h e e mp l o y

i n g s t a t e o r l o c a l g o v e r

n m e n t a l e n t i t y r e la tin g to
s u s p en s i o n o rt erm i n at i o no f e mp l o y m en to r a dv er s e p er s o n n el ac t i o nb ef o re s u i n g. S ec t i o n5 5 4

. 0 0 6 (a ). W h er e t h e p l ai n t i ff h as fa i l edt o fi l e o r i n i t i at e s u ch a gr i ev an ce , s o v er ei gn immun ity is n ot w a ive d a

nd the fa ilure c on sti tut e s a

jur isd ic tio na l ba

r t o th e wh ist le blo we r c la im. Med. Arts Hosp. v. Robison , 216 S.W .3d 38, 40-41 (Tex. A pp.— Eastland 2006, no pet.). The ref ore, gi v en t h e f

ac tt h at J o rd an fa i l ed t o fi l e o r i n i t i at e s u ch a gr i ev an ce af t er h er t erm i n at i o n , s o v er ei gn immunit y has not bee n waived, a

nd her w histleblower cla im is j urisdictionally barr ed. I n asser ting that she did in fact file or initiate a g rieva nce, Jordan re fer s us to the gr ievanc e sh e so ug ht t o in iti a te pr ior to h e r te rm inatio n, a g ri e va nc e ba se d u

po n h e r a sse rt ion

tha t th e c ounty attorney failed to post a leg al sec reta ry position as req u i red by

county policy . The purpose of requiringthe filing of a g rieva nce is to allow the e mploy er a n opportunity to corr ect its own er rors by resolving disputes befor e being subjected t o the ex pense and eff ort of litigation. Med. Arts Hosp. , 216 S.W .3d at 42. Jord an’ s su it i s b a se d u po n h er cla im th at she wa s w ro ng fu lly te rm inate d inJohn G . H ill , For m er Just ic e, Cour

t of A ppea ls , 2nd D is tri ct

of T ex as at For

t W orth, s itt ing by

a ss ig nm ent

. 2 3 violation of the Texas Whi stleblower Ac t. Conseque ntly , the g rieva nce Jordan filed pr ior to being terminated c ould not have addressed her wrong ful termination under the Texas Whi stleblower Ac t beca use the ter

mination had not y et occ urre d. We h o l d that such a g rieva nce doe s not meet the require ments of Section 554.006(a ) bec ause it fails to a ddress the termination, which is the subjec t of this law suit. Cons equently , J ordan f ailed to meet the jur isdictional prere quisite require d by the statut e be fo re ini tia

tin ga wh ist le blo we r c la im. Ac c or din g ly , we ov e rr ule bo th h e r i ssu e s o n a

pp e a l. The judg ment is affirme d.

J O H N G

. H ILL JUSTI CE
May 14, 2009 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

H i l l , J. 2