### NUM BER 13-08- 0052 7-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I -E D I N B U R G
TE XAS YO UT H COMM ISSION - EVIN S R EGION A L JU VEN ILE CEN TE R, A pp ellan t,
v . NEL INA GA RZA , A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 9 3rd Dist rict C ou rt o f H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld eza n d J u st ic es G arza a n d V el a

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza App ellant , Te x as Youth C o mm ission-Evins R egional Juvenile Cent er (“TYC” ), appeal s t he tr ial co u rt ’s deni al of its pl ea to the jur is dicti on i n fav or of appel lee , N eli na Gar z a. By two i ss u e s, the TYC co ntends thatthe tr ial co urt c ommitt ed rev ersi ble er ro r becau se: ( 1) Gar

z a fail ed to ex hausther admi nis trati v e remedie s u nder the Tex as W his tl e b lo wer A ct, seeT EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. §§ 554. 001- .010 (V er non 200 4) ; and ( 2)2

Gar z a’s cl aims under chapt er 261 of the famil y

co de c oul d hav e been broug ht un der the Tex as W his tl ebl ow er

Act and are, thus, precl uded. SeeT EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 26 1.1 10(b ), ( l) ( Ve r no n 20 08 )

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND This di sput e per

tai ns to nu merou s g ri ev ances fil e d b y Garz a ag ain st TYC for
e m p lo yme n t re ta lia ti o n th a t a lle ged ly res u lt e d be ca u se sh e rep o rt e d ch ild ab u se atT YC dur ing a r iotthatoc cur re d at the E v ins R eg ion al Juv eni le Ce nter (the “E v ins faci li ty ”)i n l ate Oct ober and ear ly

N ov ember

2004. A . The Riot at the Ev ins Fac ility In late Octob er 200 4, T YC o f f ic ia ls learned thata group of y out hf ul of

fend ers int ended t o r iotat the Ev ins faci li ty to protes t t he remov al of pri v il eg es as puni shmentfor mis behav ior

. In respo n se t o t h e threat, TYC off ic ial s b ro ug ht i n j uv eni le cor re cti onal off ic ers from other

faci li ti es a ro u n d the sta te. These off ic ers, als o k now n as the STAR tea m, w ere traine d in quelling riots and dea ling w ith disrupt iv e situa tions. On the n ig hto f O c to be r 3 1, 2 00 4, a g rou p of you th ful o ffend ers s etfi re to t heir dor mito ry

and inc it ed a ri ot on one of the faci li ty ’s dor mito ry floors. M embers o f the STAR team mov ed to q uel l the r iot

. The act ion s of the STAR team in quel li ng the r iotse rv ed as the b asi s for

Gar z a’s repor

ts of chi ld abuse

. In v ar iou s a dmini strati v e c omplai nts , G arz a al leg ed th at s he personal ly w it ness ed the a cti ons of s ev eral members of t he STAR team dur ing the r iot

. Gar z a as ser ted t hat s he obser v ed s ev eral STAR team members phy si cal ly abuse the y outhful offenders, inc lud ing throw ing them to the g ro und, str ik ing them in the face and bod y , t hrow ing them ag ain st the
w all , han d- cuffing them and pl aci ng them in fire ant pil es for hours a t a ti me, and cursi ngI n he rd ep os i t i on , G ar z a m ad e t he f ol l ow i ng s t at em en t s wi t h r es pe ct t o t he a ct i on s of t he STAR 1 t eam : I wi t nessed t hey wer e hog- t y i ng t he y out h. T heywer e pu t t i ng t hem on t op o fantpi l es. T hey wer e l eav i ng t hem out t her e up t o f our hour s. I had t i m ed i t , so I k now how l ong i t was. T hey wer e ba si cal l y j ust v er bal abu se [ si c] t owar ds t hem , cur si ng t hem

. T hey wer e al so ba ngi ng t hem aga i nst t he wal l s.

. . . . T hey[ t he y out hf ul off ender s] had t hei rhan ds be hi nd t hei rback and t hen t hei r f eet , and t hey w ere t i ed up t og ethe r.

. . . . And t heywer e l y i ng o n t hei rst om ach.
3 att he m. 1 T here af ter, Garza reported these alleged abu ses to bot h Sup erinte nde nt Bill Roach and AssistantSupe rinten den t Jean To mlinso n. Garza later conte nde d tha t neith er Roach
nor Tomli nson did anythi n g i n r e sp onse to he r re por ts. G arz a s ubseq uentl y made an
ano nymou s report to th e Chi ld Protect iv e Services child abuse hotline and f iled a repo rt
w it h the Edi nburg Pol ic e D epar tment. Gar

z a als o par

ti ci pated in an on- camera i nter v iew
w it h the l ocal Edi nburg medi a, de sc ri bin g the all eg ed abus es that she had w it ness ed. B. Garza’ s Complaints A bout Employ ment Retalia tion Garza conten ded thatshortly af ter repo rting the alleged insta nce s o f ch ild abu se she: ( 1) w as subj ect ed to a re tal iat or y host il e w or k env ironment; (2 ) re cei v ed unwar ra nted
w ri t t e n re p r i ma n d s ; ( 3 ) w a s d e n i e d t h re e p ro mo t i o n s ; ( 4 ) w a s s u bj e c t e d t o a wor kl oad inc re ase; ( 5) w as v er bal ly co unsel ed i n M arch 2005; (6 ) w as ov er ly sc ru ti niz ed i n c ar ry ing out her j o b re s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ; ( 7 ) re c e i v e d l o w p e r fo r ma n c e e v a l u a t i o n s ; a n d ( 8 ) w as co n st ru ct ivel y ter m in a te d . Ga rza st a te d th a t s h e w a s su bje ct e d to th is t re a tm e n t b y TYC off ic ial s b ecaus e of the chi ld abuse repor ts she made.W i th re s p e c t t o h e r firs t c o m p l a i n t, G a rza s ta te d th e fo l l o w i n g : 2 I hav e a y out h on m y casel oad t hat hi s m ot hernee ded m oneyt o he l p pa y t he r ent f ort hi s m ont h. So, on 11- 16- 04 , I went i nt o M r
. R oach’ s off i ce t o ge t hi s si gnat ur e on a m o n e y re q u e s t fo r th e y o u th

. M r. R o a c h a s k e d m e i f I c h e c k e d o n w h y th i s yo u th w a n te d to send m oneyhom e because par ent s have been k now[ n] t o st eal f r om t he y out h. I i nf or m ed hi m t hat I had spoken t o t he m ot her

. T hen he m akes a [ si c] t he co m m ent , “ I wi l l onl y si gn t hi s f ora t r ust wor t hyper son. ” M r
. R oach had a gr i n on hi s f ace. I r espond bysay i ng, “ y es s i r, th a t i s w h y I c h e c k e d w i th h i s m o th e r a n d th e p a ro l e o ff i c e r w h i c h h a d to g o a n d c o m p l e te a ne w hom e ev al uat i on b ecause t he f am i l y had t o be r e- l ocat ed t o a new nei ghbor hood so t he p ar ol e off i cerwi l l app r ov e t he h om e. T he y out h woul d not be a bl e t o go hom e ot herwi se [ si c]

. Hi s m ot herwas i l l and notabl e t o wor k f ora f ew weeks and she d oe s n ot h ave si ck l eav e. ” He si gns t he r equestt hen st at es, “ so y ou wentt o ap pr ov e t he h om e. ” I st at ed, “ no, th a t i s th e [p a ro l e o ff i c e r’s ] j o b .”

M r. C an ary w as s i t t i ng the re w i t h a sm i l e o n h i s fac e. I do n’ t k no w i f t he y bo t h w ere m o c k i n g m e o r ju s t t ryi n g to b e l i ttl e m e
. W e l l , I fe l t l i k e M r. R o a c h i s q u e s ti o n i n g m y i n te g rit y a n d w o r k e th ic s . I h a v e b e e n w o r k in g f o rT Y C 7 ye a r s a n d 1 0 1⁄2 m o n th s . M y r e c o r d s h o u ld speak f or i t s el f. I hav e al way s bee n cou r t esy[ si c] t o ev er y one and hav e sho w [ si c] p ro fe s s i o n a l i s m e v e n a fte r I h a v e b e e n d i s re s p e c t [ s i c ] a n d d e g ra d e d

. . . . G ar z a’ s secon d com pl ai nt per t ai ned t o T om l i nson’ s re l uct ance t o t ur n ove ra v i deo t ape oft he r i ot 3 to tw o a tt o r n e ys r e p r e s e n tin g yo u th s in v o lv e d . G a r z a a lle g e d th a t “ M s . T o m lin s o n m a d e m e f e e l lik e I d o n ’t k now w h a t I ’ m d o i n g [ , ] a n d s h e h a s t o b e o n t o p o f m e
. W h e n i n f a c t s h e d o e s n o t kn o w a n y t h i n g ab out c on du c t i ng a l eve l 1 h ea ri ng
. ”

In h e r th i rd c o m p l a i n t, G a rza n o te d th a t: 4 I w en t t o a dm i ni s t rat i on t o fi nd M s
. T om l i ns on an d i nfo rm he r t ha t M r. M oton [ c ou ns el for a y o u th i n v o l v e d i n th e ri o t] w i s h e s to vie w th e ta p e
. . . . M r. R o a c h w a s v i e w i n g th e ta p e w i th D avi d G ue rr a, B el i nd a L an franc o[, ] an d I be l i eve t he ot he r pers on w as B ri t t C an ary
. . . . M r. R oach w as ve ry ru de and di sr espect f ul t o m e. He spoke t o m e i n a v er y dem andi ng r ude v oi ce an d l ooked at m e wi t h ha t e i n hi s ey es. He scar ed m e; I have nev erseen M r
. R oach l ook at m e l i k e t hat orspea k to m e i n t hat t one ofv oi ce. M r
. R oach st at ed[ , ] “ I hav e no t v i ewed t he t ape unt i l now. W hen and i fI ’ m goi ng t o al l ow t he at t or neyt o v i ew i t , I wi l l spea k t o t he a t t or ney
. ” I l ooked at hi m wi t h an okay l ook. T hen he st at es, “ I ’ m at no one[ ’ ] s beck and cal l ” st ar i ng m e do wn.
. . . M r
. R oach m ade m e f eel l i k e I was do i ng so m et hi ng wr ong byal l owi ng t he a t t or neyand hi s cl i ent s ( y out h) t o vi ew t he t ape. I di d no t app r eci at e t he t one 4 T he reco rd conta ins three g riev ance s f iled by Garz a w ith T YC of f icials. The f irst g ri ev ance, recei v ed byT Y C off ic ial s on Nov ember 23, 2004, cont ain ed th e foll ow ing three compl ain ts: ( 1) “ On 11-16 -0 4, Mr . Roac h is q uest ion ing m y integ ri ty and w or k e thi cs ” ; ( 2) 2 “O n 11- 18- 04, M s. Tomli nson is q uest ion ing ( doubti ng ) myabil ity to per form my j ob dut ies
on c omplet ing the lev el 1 heari ng s for the y outh that w ere i nv olv ed i n the r ioton 1 0- 30- 04" ; 3 and (3) “ On 11-18-04 , Mr. Roach w as obst ructing my ability to prot ect th e [S]t ate ’s interest in prosec uti ng the ri ot c ases .” I n a l etter date d J anuar

y 3, 2005, Br itt C anar

y , D irect or

of 4o f v o i c e a n d th e m a n n e ris m th a t h e s p o k e to m e
. H o w M r. R o a c h d i s re s p e c te d , b e l i ttl e d [,] and degr aded m e i n f r ont of m y co- wor k er s, an out si de a t t or ney , and par ent s. I n t hi s co m pl ai nt, G arza referred t o T YC ’ s de c i s i on t o rel ea s e a y ou t hfu l offen de r bac k t o h i s do rm 5 fr o m s e c u rit y a fte r G a rza h a d a l l e g e d th a t t h e o ff e n d e r h a d i n a p p ro p ria te l y to u c h e d h e r b u tto c k s
. G a rza bel i ev ed t hat T YC off i ci al s wer e r et al i at i ng a gai nst herbychoo si ng t o r el ease t he o ff enderback i nt o t he gener al pop ul at i on. 5 Juv eni le Co rrect ion s w it h the T Y C, notified Gar z a that he had c oncl uded t hat R oach and T om linson “did n ot inte ntion ally q uest ion your ethics or integrity .” C an a ry base d his
conc lus ion on c onv ersat ion s h e had w it h R o a ch , Tomli nson, C hest er C lay , t he D eputy Di re cto r of Juv eni le Cor re cti ons, and Amy C ooper , t he hear ing of ficer . Cana ry

note d tha t “[t]his de cision exhaust s y our ad min istrativ e rem edie s.” The sec ond g ri ev ance, fil ed on Febr uar y 8, 2005, inv olv ed a w ri tten re pr imand that Gar z a recei v ed for fa ili ng to follo w proper procedu re s i n fil li ng out ag ency forms and inc ide nt repor

ts. Garz a soug ht to hav e the w ri tten re pr imand ex pung ed from h er personne l file and a rg u e d t h a tT Y C w a s n o tc o n s i s t e n ti n i s s u i n g w r i t t e n re p r i ma n d s
. T o ml i n s on condu cte d the i nv est igati on of Gar z a’s se cond g ri ev ance, and, after sp eaki ng w it h J uan Gonz ale zand Bel ind a Lanfra nco, D ata C oordin ator , c oncl uded t hat G arz a di d not v iol ate TYC procedu re s a nd that Garz a w as enti tl ed to the re li ef soug ht. In a l etter date d Apr il 18, 2005, Tomli nson noti fied Ga rz a tha t t he w ri tten re pr imand w as to be resc ind ed. T he th ird g riev ance , s ig n e d b y Garz a on March 21, 20 05, alleged tha t: “Mr. Bart Cal dw ell [t he c ur re nt s uper int endent of the Ev ins R eg ion al Juv eni le Cente r] and Jean Tomli nson are harss ing [s ic] me a nd c re ati ng a ho sti le w or k e nv ironment for me atwor k.” The g ri ev ance als o not ed tha t “O n 3 -7 -0 5, atabout5:30 p.m., I w as threaten [si c] w it h ter minat ion and the c hai n of command w as used. Ms

. Tomli nson re lea sed J.Z

. . . . from security because I w as the v ictim of the sex ual contact ” and tha t “[m]o st of the case w orkers know how I’m begi n [si c] treated. ” W it h respect t o the reli ef soug ht, Gar z a s tated thatsh e 5G a r z a s ta te d in h e rd e p o s itio n th a t s h e in j u r e d h e rb a c k in A u g u s t 2 0 0 5 , w h e n s h e s lip p e d a n d f e ll 6 on t he f l oorat t he Ev i ns f aci l i t y . She f ur t herst at ed t hat T YC t er m i nat ed h eri n Jan uar y 200 6. 6 w ant ed TYC of

f icials to stop retaliat ing against her. Cana ry investig ate d G a rza ’s t hird g ri ev ance and, after speak ing w it h C aldw ell , Tomli nson, and Ji mmyR ey es, R ecreati on Prog ra m S p eci ali st, C anar y deni ed Ga rz a’sreq uestfor reli ef in a l etter date d Apr il 11, 2005. In his Apr il 11, 2005 l etter , C anar y note d tha t G arz a had not p re sent ed any
ev ide nce to s ug g estthat she w as re tal iat ed ag ain st and that his dec is ion w as “fin al, and not s ubj ectto appeal .” In ea rl y 2005, Garz a appli ed for the posi ti ons of prog ra m admin is trator and ass is tant super int e n d e nt atthe Beto Hou se, a TY C facil ity l ocat ed i n M cAl len , Tex as. I n her dep osition , Garza noted thata TYC of f icial told her tha t she was being g room ed fo r each of these position s. However, TYC of f icials ultimat ely hired oth er p eop le for t he p osition s. Gar z a al leg ed th at s he w as deni ed thes e promoti ons becau se of t he chi ld abuse repor t s he had mad e ea rlier. Garza also alleged in her de positi o n t e s t im ony that T YC of f icials
re tal iat ed ag ain st her by ter minat ing her w hen s he w as unabl e to re sume h er reg ula r duti es a s a ca s e wo rk e r d u e t o in ju ri e s su s t a in e d a tt h e E vin s fa c il it y. 6 C. Proced ural H ist or

y On May 10, 200 5, Ga rz a f iled he r orig inal pe tition in this ma tter, asserting a cause of action und er chap ter 554 of the governmen t code for harassm entand a hostile work
env ironment c re ated by TY C off ic ial s. SeeT EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § § 55 4 .0 0 1 -. 0 1 0 . T YC f ile d it s or ig ina l answer and aff ir mati v e defenses on Ma y 31, 2005. In thi s fili ng , T YC all eg ed, a mong o th e r thing s, that Gar z a fail ed to : (1 ) compl y w it h the appl ic abl e s tatut e of li mita ti ons re q uir ing her to file her lawsui t w it hin ni nety days a fter t he oc cur re nce of any all eg ed adv erse personne l act ion , see id. § 5 5 4

. 0 0 5 ; (2 ) e xh a u s th e r a d m in is t r a t i ve7

re medies as req uired by ch apter 554, see id. § 554 .00 6(a), (d); or (3) ma ke any report, in go o d fa it h , t o a n a p p ro p ri a t e la w e n fo rc e m e n ta u t h o ri ty. On Aug ust 31, 2 007, Gar z a fil ed her

first amended pe ti ti on. In t his fil ing , G arz a reass erted t he c lai ms made in her or ig ina l peti ti on, a nd s he i ncl uded a new ca use of acti on for di sc ri minat ion under se cti on 261. 110 of the family co de. SeeT EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 261.110

. In ad dit ion , G arz a not ed th e foll ow ing i n her first amended pe ti ti on: Beca use of such repor ti ng made i n g ood faith , Pl a intiff suffered adverse pe rso nne l actions atthe Evins Regi ona l Juv enile Cen ter. Spec ific all y , Pl ain ti ff

w as p a ss ed up for promoti ons, su ch as Prog ra m Admin is trator

and Ass is tant Super int endent at t he faci li ty kn ow n as the B eto Hou se. Fur ther , Pl ain ti ff ’s co mplai nts and g ri ev anc e s w ere g enerall y not consi dered or

resol v ed i n a t imel y manner

as othe r compl ain ts and g ri ev ances bec ause of her re p o rtin g v iol ati ons of law bac k i n N ov ember

of 2004. Pl ain ti ff ’s wor k a ss ig nment was als o af fected bythe dis cr imi nati on s he suffered atwor k. Pl ain ti ff ’s job per formance and ev alu ati on hav e al so been q uest ion ed and subj ectto undue s cr uti ny resul ti ng i n harass ment.

. . . . As a re sul t of s uch adv erse personne l act ion s, Pl ain ti ff has su ffered harass ment and mental ang uis h. TYC su bseq uen tl y

fil ed i ts sec ond amende d pl ea to the jur is dicti on on Ma rc h 25, 2008. In it s plea to t he j ur is dicti on, TY C arg ued t hat t he tr ial co urt l ack ed j ur is dicti on to hear Gar z a’s c la im s becau se Gar z a fail ed to co mply

w it h the g ri ev ance procedu re s outl ine d by

se cti on 554. 006 of the g ov er nment c ode. SeeT EX
. G OV ’ T C O D E A NN
. § 554.006 (a ), ( d)

. TYC furth er al leg ed th at G arz a’s p rio r g ri ev ances w ere i nsuffici ent t o est abl is h a “h ost il e w or k env ironment” cl aim. TYC als o arg ued that Gar z a w as precl uded from b r i n g i n g a c l a i m u n d e r c h a p t e r 2 6 1 o f t h e fa mi l y c o d e b e c a u s e t h e s u b s t a n ce of Gar z a’s cl aims —th e “ all eg ed retal iat ion for re por ti ng ch il d abus e ( a c ri minal act) ”— inv oked8

both chapt er

261 of the famil y

co de and chapt er

554 of th e go vernment code, and the family co de s peci fical ly

prov ide s that “[ a] publi c e mploy ee w ho has a c ause of acti on unde r Cha pter 554, Gov er nment Code,

. . . m ay not br ing an act ion based on that condu ct under this sectio n.” T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 261. 110( l); seeT EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 554. 002. Af ter a h e a rin g on May 28, 200 8, th e trial court requeste d a tran script of Garz a’s depo s i ti on th at w as ta k en on Au g us t 28 , 20 07 , w hi c h TY C prov i de d. The tr i al court subs eq uentl y

d e n i e d T Y C ’ s p l e a t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o n A u g u s t1 8 , 2 0 0 8

. I n i t s o rd er deny ing TY C’ s p lea to the j ur is dicti on, t he tr ial co urt not ed th e follo w ing : “I T IS O RD ER ED that Pl ain ti ff

[G arz a] i s p re cl uded fro m submi tti ng any j ur y is sues under Cha pter 261 of the Tex as Fami ly

C o d e o n a n y

ca uses of act ion thatco uld su sta in an acti on unde r Cha pter 554 of the Tex as Gov er nment C ode k now n as the Tex as W his tl ebl ow er ’s [s ic] Act .

. . .” This i nter loc utor

y appeal foll ow ed.

II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW W e hav e j ur is d ict io n t o rev iew a di str ict c our

t’ s i nter loc utor

y order thatg ra nts or deni es a pl ea to the jur is dicti on bya g ov er nmental uni t. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 51. 014( a) (8 ) (V er non 200 8) , § 1 0 1 .0 0 1 (3)( B) ( Ver non 200 5)

. A pl ea to the jur is dicti on i s a di lat or

y pl ea used to defeat a cause o f acti on w it hout re g ard to w hether the cl aims as ser

ted h av e mer it

. Bl

and Indep. Sch. D is t. v. Blue , 3 4 S

. W

. 3 d 5 4 7 , 5 5 4 (T e x. 2000)

. The ple a chall eng es the t ri al cour t’ s s ubj ect -matter

j ur is dicti on. Id. ; s ee Tex. Dep't of T ra nsp. v. Jo nes , 8 S.W .3d 6 3 6 , 638 ( Tex . 199 9)

. W hether a t ri al cour

t has su bje ctmatter j ur is dicti on and w hether a ple ader has all eg ed facts that aff ir mati v ely demons trate the t ri al cour

t' s s ubj ect -matter ju ris d icti on are q uest ion s o f law thatw e rev iew

de n ov o. Tex. D ep't

of Par ks & W ildli fe v. M ir anda , 133 S.W .3d 2 17, 2 26 ( Tex . 200 4) ; Tex. Natur al9

Res. Conse rvation Com m 'n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W .3d 8 49, 8 55 ( Tex . 200 2)

. T he p laintif

f has the b urde n to plea d facts af f irmatively

showi ng that th e trial court h a s j u r i sdi cti on. Tex. A ss 'n of B us. v. T ex. Ai r Con tr ol Bd. , 8 5 2 S

. W

. 2 d 4 4 0 , 4 4 6 (T e x. 1993) ; Univ. of N. T

ex. v. Har

vey, 124 S.W .3d 216, 220 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 03, p et. den ied). W e const rue the p lead ings liberally in favor of t he plea der, look to the plead er's int ent, and ac ceptas tr ue th e factual al leg ati ons in th e p le adi ng s. See M ir anda , 133 S.W .3d a t 226 , 228 ; City of F or t Worth v. Cr

ock ett , 142 S.W .3d 550 , 552 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 20 04, p et. deni ed)

. If a pl ea to the jur is dicti on c hal len g es th e ex is tenc e of jurisdictiona l fa cts, w e con sider relevant evidence su bm itted byt he p ar ti es w hen nece ssary to resol v e the jur is dicti onal i ss ues ra is ed, a s t he tr ial co urt i s req uired to do. Mi ra nda , 133 S.W .3d a t 227 ; Blue , 34 S. W .3d at 555 (conf ining evid e n t ia ry review to evidence th at is
re lev ant t o the j ur is dicti onal i ss ue)

. A tr ial co urt’ s rev iew

of a p le a to the j ur is dicti on c hal len g ing the ex is tenc e of jur is dicti onal facts mir ro rs thatof a tradi ti onal moti on for summary

judg ment. Mi

ra nda , 133 S.W .3d a t 228 ; seeT EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a( c)

. The g ov er nmental uni t i s req uired to meet the
summar y j udg ment s tandard of proof for i ts ass erti on that the t ri al cour t l ack s j ur is dicti on. Mi ra nda , 133 S.W .3d at 228. The pl ain ti ff i s t hen req uired to sh ow thatthere i s a di sput ed mater ial factreg ardin g the ju ri sdi cti onal i ss ue. Id. If the e v ide nce creates a factq uest ion
re g ardin g j ur is dicti on, t he tr ial co urt mus t d e n y t h e pl ea to the jur is dicti on and lea v e i ts
re sol uti on to the fact finder

. Id. at 227- 28. But, i f the ev iden ce i s u n d isp u ted or fails to
ra is e a factq uest io n o n the j ur is dicti onal i ss ue, t he tr ial co urt r ule s o n the pl ea to the jur is dicti on as a matter of law

. Id. at 22 8.A “ [p ]e r s o n n e l a c tio n ” is d e f in e d in th e W h is tle b l o w e r A c t a s “ a n a c tio n th a t a ff e c ts a p u b lic 7 em pl oy ee ’ s co m p e n s a ti o n, pro m oti on , t ran s fer, w ork as s i gn m en t , or pe rform an c e e val ua t i on
. ” T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 55 4. 001( 3) ( Ver non 2004)

. T he Uni t ed St at es Supr em e Cour t has hel d t hat i n est abl i shi ng a n adv er se pe r sonnel act i on, a pl ai nt i ffm ust show t hat “a re asonab l e em pl oy ee woul d hav e f ound t he ch al l enged ac t i on m ateri al l y ad vers e .
. . . ” B u rli n g to n N . & S a n ta F e R y . C o . v . W h i te , 548 U

. S. 53, 68 ( 2006) ( i nt er nal q u o ta ti o n s o m i tte d ); s ee M on tgo m eryC ou nty v

. P ark , 246 S. W

. 3d 610, 612 ( T ex. 2007) ( “ [ F] ora per sonnel a c tio n t o b e a d v e r s e w ith in t h e m e a n in g o fth e [T e x a s W h is tle b lo w e r ] A c t, it m u s t b e m a te r ia l, a n d th u s lik e ly to d e te r a re a s o n a b l e , s i m i l a rlys i tu a te d e m p l o y e e fro m re p o rti n g a vio l a ti o n o f th e l a w .”).

T h e W h i s t l e b l o we rA c t p r o v i d e s t h a t a “ [ s ] t a t e g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t y ” i s “ a b o a r d , c o m m i ssi on, 8 depar t m ent , offi c e, orot herage ncyi n t he e xecut i v e br anch ofst at e go v er nm ent , cr eat ed u ndert he c on s t i t uti on or a s t atut e o f t he stat e .
. . . ” T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 5 54

. 00 1(5 )( A ). 10 III . A N AL Y S IS A . G arz a’s Wh ist leb lo w er C laim s In it s firs t is sue, TYC arg ues that the tr ial cour t commi tted re v ersi ble err o r by
re fusing to gra n t it s plea to t he j ur is dicti on bec ause Gar z a “ faile d to ex hausther adm inistrative rem edie s w ith respe ct to the pro mo tion d enia ls, termin ation , and ‘hostile
wo rke n viro n m e n t

. ’” Ga rza co n t e n d s t h a t s h e in it ia t e d a n d e xh a u s t e d h e r a d m in is t ra t ive
reme dies w ith respe ct to he r “ host ile work en v ironm ent ” an d retaliat ion claims. She also cont ends that (1 ) she w as not req uired t o draft her co mplai nts w it h the sa me ex act ing stan dard app lied to plea dings d raf ted byatto rneys, and (2) TYC of f icials had no tice of

all of he r cl aims becau se they w ere the ones “w ho w ere the final ar bit ers o f her g ri ev ances .” 1. I ni ti at io n of

an Act io n Un der

t he Texa s Wh ist leb lo w er Act The Tex as W his tl ebl ow er Act ( the “ Act ”)prev ents st ate o r loc al g ov er nmental
e n t i t i e s fro m s u s p e n d i n g , t e r mi n a t i n g , o r t a k i n g a n a d v e rs e p e rs o n n e l a c t i o n ag ain st a 7 publ icempl o yee wh o i n g ood fait h repor ts a v iol ati on of l aw

by the sta te g ov er nmental
e n t it y t o a n a p p ro p ri a t e l a w e n fo rc e m e n ta u t h o ri ty. T EX
. G OV ' T C OD E A NN . § 554 .00 2(a). 8 The Actcontai ns an ex press w aiv er of the S tate’ s s ov ereig n i mmunity

. See i d. § 554. 0035 (“ A publ icempl oy ee w ho al leg es a v iol ati on of thi s c hapter may su e the empl oy ing st ate11

or local gov ernm ent al ent ity for the relief provided by this chap ter. Sovereign immu nity is
w aiv ed and abol is hed t o the extent of l iab il ity for th e reli ef all ow ed unde r thi s c hapter for
a v iolation of

this chap ter.”); see also Tex. Dep’ t of Hum an Se rvs. v. Okoli , 263 S.W .3d 275, 278 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 7, pet. filed ) (n oti ng that the first sent ence of
secti on 554. 0035 of the g ov er nment c ode waiv es immuni ty from s u itand the s econd sent ence w aiv es immuni ty from l iab il ity ). Before fil ing su it , howev er , a cl aimant“ m ust i nit iate ac ti on u n d e r t h e g r i e v a n c e or appea l p ro c e d u re 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 me n t a l e n t i ty re l a t i n g to suspe nsion or termina tion o f emp loymentor adverse personn el action .” T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 554.006 (a ) (e mphasi s a dded) ; see Univ. of Tex. M e d

. B ra n c h at Ga lveston v. Bar re tt , 159 S.W .3d 631, 632 (Tex . 2005) ( "Before sui ng under the Tex as W his tl ebl ow er Act , a publ ic employ ee must ti mely ini ti ate h is empl oy er's g ri ev ance or appeal procedu re s relating to em ployee discipline ."); U niv . of T ex. Med. B ra nch at G alv esto n v. Savoy, 86 S.W .3d 7 82, 7 85 ( Tex . Ap p.–Bea umont 20 02, p et. deni ed)

. If a final de cisi on i s n ot
re ndered w it hin si xty

days a fter t he dat e g ri ev ance procedu re s a re i nit iat ed, t hen t he employ ee may

el ectto ex haustthe a p p lic a ble g ri ev ance procedu re s p re v iou sl y i nit iat ed
or ter minat e the g ri ev ance procedu re s a lt og ether and ti mely

f il e s uit

. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 554 .00 6(d)(1), (2). T he req uirem ent tha t an emp loyee "initia te" gr ievance proce dure s before filing suit is to af ford the emp loyer an o ppo rtunity to correc ti ts errors by resolv ing dispute s before li ti g ati on. City of Sa n An to ni o v . Marin , 19 S. W .3d 438 , 441 (Tex. App. –Sa n Ant onio 200 0), di

sappr oved of onothe r gr

ounds by Bar re tt , 159 S.W .3d a t 633 n.7. Se cti on 554 .0 0 6 d o e s not require tha t gr ievance or app eal proce dure s be exhaust ed b efore suitAt t he t i m e G ar z a’ s l aw s ui t was f i l ed, t he p r ev i ous v er si on o fsect i on 3 11. 034 oft he g ov er nm ent 9 c o d e w a s i n e ff e c t. See Act of June 15, 200 1, 77t h Le g. , R

. S. , ch. 115 8, § 8, 200 1 T ex. G en. Laws 2 431, 2 4 3 3 (a m e n d e d 2 0 0 5 ) (c u rr e n t ve rs i o n a t T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 31 1.03 4 (V ernon Supp. 200 8) )

. T he p re v i o u s ve rs i o n o f s e c ti o n 3 1 1 .0 3 4 p ro v i d e d th e fo l l o w i n g :

I n or dert o pr eser v e t he l egi sl at ur e’ s i nt er est i n m anagi ng st at e f i scal m at t er s t hr ough t he a ppr opr i at i ons p r ocess, a st at ut e sha l l notbe const r ued as a wai v erof sov er ei gn i m m uni t y unl ess t he wai v eri s eff ect ed by cl earand unam bi guous l angua ge. I n a st at ut e, t he use o f“ per son, ” as def i ne d bySect i on 3 11. 005 t o i ncl ude gov er nm ent al ent i t i es, doe s not i n d i c a te l e g i s l a ti v e i n te n t t o w a iv e s o v e re i g n i m m u n i tyu n l e s s th e c o n te x t o f th e s ta tu te i ndi cat es no ot herr easona bl e con st r uct i on. I d. H ow eve r, i n 20 05 , the l eg i s l ature am en de d s ec t i on 3 11

. 03 4 t o i nc l ud e t he fol l ow i ng l an gu ag e: “Stat utory p re re q u i s i te s to a s u i t, i n c l u d i n g th e p ro v i s i o n o f n o ti c e , a re ju ris d i c ti o n a l re q u i re m e n ts i n a l l s u i ts a g a i n s t a gov er nm ent al ent i t y . ” Act of June 18, 2005, 79t h Le g. , R

. S. , ch. 115 0, § 1, 200 5 T ex. G en. Laws 3 785, 378 5. T h e 2 0 0 5 a m e n d m e n t t o s e c ti o n 3 1 1 .0 3 4 b e c a m e e ff e c ti v e o n S e p te m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 5

. In th e in s ta n t c a s e , G a rza 12 ca n b e fil ed; rather , i t req uires that suc h procedu re s b e ti mely i nit iat ed and that the g ri ev ance or

appeal auth or ity

hav e s ixty

days t o render

a f in a l d e cision. Bar re tt , 159 S.W .3d a t 632 ; see City of F or t Worth v. Shi

ll ing , 266 S.W .3d 97, 1 0 2 (Te x . App .–Fo rt W orth 20 08, pet. f ile d ). W h il e t he W histleb low er Act doe s not dicta te w hataction s are re q uired to "ini ti ate" the g ri ev ance procedu re , the Act is re medial in nature and shoul d be li berall y co nst ru ed to effecti ts pur pose. Moo r e v . U niv . of Hou s to n- Clea r

L ake , 165 S.W .3d 97, 102 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 200 5, no pet. ); City of New Brau nfe ls v. Al len , 132 S.W .3d 157 , 161 (Tex. App. –Au stin 20 04, no pe t.). 2. Disc ussi on T YC argues thatGarz a failed to exhaust he r adm inistrative rem edie s w ith respe ct to he r co m p la in ts fo r pro m o ti o n de n ia ls, t e rm in a ti o n , a n d “ho st ile wo rk e n viro n m e n t. ” T YC also argues th at be cause Garz a did no t specif ically g riev e ea ch of

her com plaint s, she did
n o t p ro v ide TY C w it h adeq uate noti ce of her compl ain ts in a ti mely manner ; t herefore, Gar z a di d notmeet the s tatut or y prereq uis it es to f il ing suit , w hic h the re by depr iv ed th e tr ial
cour t of su bje ct- matter

j ur is dicti on ov er

her co mplai nts

. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 311 .03 4 (Verno n Sup p. 20 08). 9f ile d h e rla w s u it o n M a y 1 0 , 2 0 0 5

. T h u s , t h e 2 0 0 5 a m e n d m e n t t o s e c tio n 3 1 1 .0 3 4 w a s n o t in e ff e c t a t t h e tim e

G ar z a f i l ed h erl awsui t and , t her ef or e, i s notapp l i cabl e, cont r ar y t o T YC’ s asser t i ons. 13 Bot h pa rties conf ine th eir analysis t o G a rza’s March 21, 20 05 griev ance beca use itw as the only

gr iev ance file d w it hin ninety day s o f Garz a’s l awsui t. SeeT EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 554.005 ( Ver non 200 4) ( re q uir ing thatthe employ ee fil e s uitno l ater than the 90th day after the date on w hic h the all eg ed v iol ati on “( 1) occ ur re d; or (2 ) w as dis cov ered by the employ ee throu g h reas onabl e dil ig ence” ). How ev er , w e find that Gar z a’s F ebr uar

y 8, 2005
co m p la in t is a lso with in th e p u rvie w o f th is a p p e a l b e ca u se T YC di d no t is su e its f in d in gs as to t hat c omplai nt un ti l Apr il 18, 2005, and Gar z a filed her lawsui t on Ma y 10, 2005. See id. § 55 4.006( c) ( “Ti me use d by the employ ee i n acti ng under the g ri ev ance or

appeal procedu re s i s ex cl uded, ex ceptas prov ide d by Subs ect ion ( d) , from the p er iod es tabl is hed by Sect ion 55 4.0 05. ”), ( d) (“ If a fi nal decisioni

s not render

ed befor e the 61st day af

ter the date proce dure s are initiate d . . ., the em ploye e m ay elect

to . . . e xhau st the app licable pr ocedu re s u nder

Subs ect ion( a) , i n w hic h ev ent the employ ee must sue not l ater than the 30th day after the date thos e procedu re s are ex haust ed to obtai n re li ef under thi s c hapter

. . . .” ) (e mphasi s a dded)

. In rev iew ing Garz a’s gr iev ances , w e are mindful of the supreme court ’s pract ic e of
cons tr uin g “ the p lea din g s l ibe ra ll y i n the pl ain ti ff ’s fav or .” See Tex. Dep ’ t of T ra n sp. v. Ram ir ez , 74 S.W .3d 864, 867 (Tex

. 2002)

. “G ood faith all eg ati ons are to be tak en as tr ue, unle ss the de fend antplead s and proves th a tt h e p etition ’s allegations w ere f raud ulen tly
ma de to confer j u ri sdiction .” City of A ust in v. Ender

, 3 0 S

. W

. 3 d 5 9 0 , 5 9 3 (T e x. App.–A ust in 2000, no pet .)

. Mo re ov er , secti on 554.006 does not req uire an employ ee to
use par ti cul ar words w hen i nit iat ing a g rie van ce , w hic h i s c onsi ste nt w it h a l ibe ra l14

constru ct io n o f

t he Act. SeeT EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 554. 006; see a lso Moore , 165 S.W .3d a t 102 ; Al

len , 132 S.W .3d a t 161

. Contra ry to T YC ’s a ssertion s, section 5 54. 006 d oes notrequire tha t the g riev ance or appeal procedu re s b e ex haust ed before a l awsui t may be fil ed; rather , s ect ion 554. 006 onl y re q uires that suc h procedu re s b e ti mely i nit iat ed and that the e mploy er be g iv en s ixty day s in w hic h to re spond to the g ri ev ance. SeeT EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 554. 006; Bar re tt , 159 S. W .3d a t 632 ; Shi

ll ing , 266 S.W .3d at 102. Therefore, the re lev ant i nq uir y i s w hether Gar z a i nit iat ed her

co mplai nts throug h TY C’ s g ri ev ance proces s. In he r Febr uar

y 8, 2005 gr iev ance, Garz a c omplai ned abo ut a w ri tten re pr imand that she had recei v ed. Gar

z a all eg ed in her

co mplai nt t hat t he repr imand w as unw ar ra nted and sought to have it expunged from her personn el f ile. Garza f urthe r alleged that T YC of f icials
w ere notacti ng i n a cons is tent manner in is sui ng w ri tten re pr imands

. After condu cti ng an inv est ig ati on, TY C off ic ial s d eter mined that Gar z a had not v iol ated TYC proce dures and that she w as enti tl ed to hav e the repr imand ex pung ed from her record. Tomli nson prov ide d Gar

z a w it h a c opy

of her findi ng s o n Apr il 18, 2005. In he r Ma rc h 21, 2005 g ri ev ance, Garz a complai ned about TY C’ s e ar ly rele ase of a y outhful offender

bac k i nto t he g eneral popul ati on ev en thoug h the y outhful offender had all eg edl y touc hed G arz a i nappropr iat ely

. In ad dit ion , G arz a too k iss u e w it h a meet ing condu cte d on Ma rc h 7, 2005, at w hic h TY C off ic ial s a ll eg edl y threatened her

w it h ter minat ion

. Spec ific all y , G arz a s tated the follo w ing i n her M arch 21, 20 05 g ri ev ance: ( 1) “Mr . Bart Caldwell and Jean To mlinso n are ha rssing [sic] me and creating a hostile work environme nt for me at w ork”; (2) she w as threa ten ed wit h t ermin ation ; (3) TYC of f icials
w ere reta liating against her; an d (4) m o s to f t he ca seworkers at th e Evins fa cility w ere15

aware of how T YC of

f icials w ere trea ting her. Gar z a prov ide d depos it ion testi mony that she appli ed for

the posi ti ons of prog ra m admini strator

and an assi sta nt super int endent posi ti on at the Beto Hou se in Janua ry 2005. Gar z a al leg ed th at a TYC off ic ial tol d h e r th a t she was bei ng g ro omed for both of the posi ti ons. H ow ev er , TY C off ic ial s h ired ot her peopl e for the p osi ti ons, w hic h Gar z a al leg ed
w as in retaliat ion for her ma king the child ab u se repo rt. Garz a recalled thatCanary infor med her

thathe d id not a pprov e of he r maki ng the chi ld abuse repor t. Gar z a tes ti fied tha t TYC of

f icia ls w ere nice, accom mo dat ing, and cord ial to her prior to the child abu se re por t; how ev er , TY C off ic ial s b ecame inc re asi ng ly hos ti le tow ards her

after the repor

t was ma de. In fact, G ar

z a al l eg ed t ha t, a fte r

s he ma de t he c hi l d ab us e rep or t, TY C o ffic ials: (1 ) w ere r ude t o her ; ( 2) refused to hel p her ; ( 3) repeated ly q uest ion ed her

abil ity to do her job ev en th ough sh e h a d wor ked for TY C for more tha n s ev en y ears; (4 ) prev ented her f rom doin g he r job; (5) issued he r unw arrante d reprima nds; and (6) rate d he r less fa v orab ly on her per formance ev alu ati ons. W hen as ked about h e r “h o sti le w or k e nv ironment” compl ain t, Gar

z a s tated that : Everything just hap p e n e d a to nce. How could I say? The y

just sto pped t alk ing to me. M y su per v is or woul dn’ t e ven look at me. They jus t—e v er

y body w as— itj ustbec ame, l ik e, v er y hos ti le.

. . . . Y es
. Th ey

wou l d— l i k e th e s ec ur i ty s ta ff w ou l d ref use t o he l p me w hen ever we ha d to bring out so m e o f the youth o utside . Th ere’s a proce dure thathad to be followed. Th ey w ould not assist m e at all.

. . . . Jus t t he w ay

they w ere treati ng me. Theyw ere al w ay s t aki ng me i nto the ir off ice. Basically[,] they would threat en to f ire me , on several occasion s. Theyw ere y ell ing at me. M s. Tomli nson w oul d—had cu rs ed atme before, say ing thatw hat I w as doi ng w as in co rre ct , that I di d notkn ow w hat I w as16

doi ng , and thi s was g oin g on, li ke, on a dai ly bas is

. Gar z a l a ter s tated thatsh e wor ked w it h TY C unti l Janua ry 2006, w hen s he w as medic all y

se parated. Gar

z a had prev iou sl y

inju re d her backw hen she sli pped and fell on the flo or at the E v ins facil ity in Aug ust2005. Pr ior to her se parati on, G arz a had not wor ked for TY C for thre e m o nths w hil e s he w as re cov er ing from her i nju ri es. O nce her

doctor cl eared her

for l ig ht du ty , G arz a retur ned t o wor k. U pon her re tur n, TYC off ic ial s p lac ed her on reg ula r duty , w hic h i ncl uded l ifti ng up t o 100 pounds , cl imbi ng sta irs, and rest ra ini ng unr uly y outhful offenders. Gar z a tes ti fied that li g ht duty encom p a ss e d ty pic al admini strati v e tas ks l ik e ans w er in g t he te lep hone an d fil ing

. Gar z a tr ied to per

form the tasks of a T YC emp loyee on regular duty, but do ing so agg rav ate d he r injuries. Because she w as unabl e to per

form her reg ula r duti es, TY C sentGar z a a letter

notify ing her of her medic al separati on i n J anuar y 2006. G arz a al leg ed th at t he e ven ts s u rroundi ng her medic al separati on from TY C w as y et an other i nst ance of ret ali ati on by TY C off ic ial s. L a t e r, co u n s e l fo r T YC q u e s t io n e d G a rza a s t o wh y s h e d id n o tsp e c if ic a ll y gri e ve eac h i nst ance of ret ali ati on al leg edl y eng ag ed i n by

TY C off ic ial s. Gar

z a respon ded by all eg ing thatsh e di d notbel iev e tha t s he had any one t o w hic h to g ri ev e. Gar z a als o w as unabl e to re cal l w hether she fil ed a g ri ev ance per tai nin g to the d eni als of the tw o j ob promo tions. I n rev iew ing Gar z a’s depos it ion tes ti mony , w e are unabl e to dis cer n any com me nta ry

on the third job prom otion w hich Ga rz a referen ces on app eal. Garza’s F ebru ary8, 200 5 an d March 21, 2 005 griev ance s neith er conta in the deta il t h a tT YC su gge s t s is re qu ir e d n o r th e d e t a il G a rza p ro vid e d in h e r d e p o s it io n t e s t im o n y. Howev er , w e c a n n o t c oncl ude t hat TY C est abl is hed as a matter of law thatGar z a fail ed to i nit iat e a g ri ev ance becau se the record c ontai ns a copy of C anar y ’s Apr il 11, 2005 l etterI n M o n tg o m e ry C o u n ty H o s p i ta l D is tri c t v . S m i th , th e B e a u m o n t C o u rt o f A p p e a l s a l s o d e c l i n e d to 10 cr eat e a f ut i l i t y ex cept i on t o t he W hi st l ebl owerAct , whi ch woul d ha v e al l owed an em pl oy ee t o av oi d t he gri eva nc e p roc es s w he re t he pe rso n revi ew i ng he r t erm i na t i on w as “t he pe rso n w ho m ad e t he de c i s i on t o fi re her and whom she accused of com m i t t i ng a cr i m e. ” 181 S. W

. 3d 8 44, 853
- 54 ( T ex. App. –Beaum ont 200 5, n o p e t.). T o r is e to a n a c tio n a b l e l e v e l, a h o s tile e n v ir o n m e n t m u s t b e “ b o th o b j e c tiv e ly a n d s u b j e c tiv e ly

11 o ff e n s iv e , o n e t h a t a r e a s o n a b le p e r s o n w o u ld f in d h o s tile o ra b u s iv e , a n d o n e th a t t h e v ic tim in f a c t d id pe rce i ve t o b e s o.” Faragher v. C i t y of Boca Rat on , 5 2 4 U .S . 7 7 5 , 7 8 7 (1 9 9 8 ); see G arcia v. Levi Str auss & C o. , 85 S. W

. 3d 362, 369 ( T ex. App. –El Paso 2002, no pet

. )

. T he Uni t ed St at es Supr em e Cour t has m ade i s c l e a r “th a t c o n d u c t m u s t b e e x tre m e to a m o u n t to a c h a n g e in th e te rm s a n d c o n d i ti o n s o f e m p l o y m e n t . 17 and To mlinso n’s A p ri l 18, 200 5 lette r in respo nse to Garz a’s gr ievance. T hese letters ack n o wledged TY C’ s i nv est ig ati on and conc lus ion thatTY C off ic ial s h ad notretal iat ed ag ain st Gar

z a and that Gar

z a had re cei v ed an unw ar ra nted re pr imand. See Shil li ng , 266 S.W .3d a t 103 ( conc lud ing thatbec ause the C ity co nduct ed an inv est ig ati on of an
em ployee’s gr ievance, th e em ployee ha d cre a t ed a fact issue as to w het her the City ’s gr ievance proce dure s w ere initiate d). In fa ct, T YC ’s not ice argume nt i s belied by the fact that itco mmenced i nv est ig ati ons int o Gar z a’s F ebr uar

y 8, 2005 an d M arch 21, 2 005 g ri ev ances
. See i

d. ; se e al so Mo ntgom er

y C ounty Hosp. D is t. v. Sm it

h , 181 S.W .3d 8 44, 850 (Tex. App. –Be aum ont200 5, n o p e t

. ) (holdin g tha t in the a bsen ce of a statu tory stan dard or a sta n d a rd created byan em ployer’s g riev ance proced ures, an emp loyer is enti tl ed to fair

noti ce of itsempl oy ment dec is ion s t hat a re bei n g gri e ved ). There i s n o 10
ev ide nce— nor

i s i t arg ued—t hat TYC ini ti ated the inv est ig ati ons int o Gar z a’s co mplai nts on i ts ow n or

for a ny othe r re ason than Gar z a’s fil ing of a g ri ev ance. Mo re ov er , t he record c ontai ns jur is dicti onal facts thatsu ppor t Garz a’s al leg ati ons that: ( 1) the act ion s of TYC of fici als tow ards Gar

z a w ere adv erse personne l act ion s; (2 ) that TYC off ic ial s c onti nuous ly eng ag ed i n re tal iat or

y acts ag ain st Gar

z a i n respon se to he r re por ti ng of the a ll eg ed i nst ances of chi ld abuse ; and ( 3) su ch act ion s may hav e c re ated a “ host il e wor k e nv ironment.” See B ur li ngton N. & Santa Fe Ry . Co. v. W

hite , 548 U .S. 11. . . ” Faragher, 524 U

. S. at 788

. “ ‘ [ S] i m pl e t easi ng, ’ off hand com m ent s, an d i sol at ed i nci dent s unl ess

e x tr e m e ly s e r io u s w ill n o t a m o u n t t o d is c r im in a to r y c h a n g e s in th e “ ‘te r m s a n d c o n d itio n s o fe m p lo ym e n t. ’” Id

. a t 7 8 8 ; see also C er re v. O df jel l Ter m inals ( H oust on) , LP , N o. 13- 05- 055- C V, 2006 T ex. App. LEX I S 4083, at * * 11- 12 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i M ay11, 200 6, no pet

. ) ( m em
. op. )

. “ A host i l e wor k env i r onm ent i s one ‘s o s e v e r e a n d p e r v a s iv e th a t i t d e s tr o ys a p r o te c te d c la s s m e m b e r ’s o p p o r tu n ity to s u c c e e d in th e w o r k p la c e .’” C erre , 2006 T ex. App. LEX I S 4083, at * 12 ( quot i ng S h e p h e rdv . C o m p tro ll e r o f P u b li c A c c o u n ts , 168 F. 3d 8 71, 8 7 4 (5 th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ))

.

O n ap peal , T YC d oes not ar gue t hat G ar z a r epor t ed t he a l l eged i nst ances ofchi l d ab use i n ba d 12 f ai t h, nor does i t ar gue t hat G ar z a f ai l ed t o r epor t t he al l eged i nst ances of chi l d abuse t o an appr opr i at e l aw e n fo rc e m e n t a u th o rit y . See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 5 54

. 00 2(a ) ( V ern on 20 04 ). 18 53, 68 (2 006) (recog niz ing that a retal iat ion acti on i s a n acti on th at “ a reason abl e empl oy ee
w oul d hav e found

. . . [to be] mater ial ly adv erse” ); see a lso Montg om ery Count y v. Park , 246 S. W .3d 6 10, 6 12 (T e x. 2007) ( “[ F] or a pe rs onnel acti on to be a dv erse w it hin the
me anin g of

the [T exas W histleb low er] Act, it m u s tb e m ate rial, and th us likely to det er a re asona ble , s imi lar ly

si tuate d empl oy ee from repor ti ng a v iol ati on of the law .” ). U nder the Act , pub li c e mploy ees are protected from retal iat ion for repor ti ng , i n g ood fait h, v iol ati ons of l aw by the employ ing g ov er nmental enti ty or another publ ic employ ee to an appropr iat e la w e n fo rc e m e n ta u t h o ri ty. SeeT EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 554. 002( a) ; see a lso Alejan dro 12
v. Rob sto wn Indep. Sch. D is t. , 131 S.W .3d 663, 66 7 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2004, no pet.)

. W it h the ex cept ion of the t hird p ro m o ti on deni al w hic h Gar z a di d notprov ide any ev ide nce to s uppor

t, the record c ontai ns jur is dicti onal facts that : (1 ) Gar z a’s co mplai nts all f low ed f rom th e retaliat ion an d “hostile work environme nt” language Garza prov ided in her M arch 21, 2 005 g ri ev ance; and (2 ) Gar z a’s F ebr uar

y 8, 2005 g ri ev ance per

tai nin g to
a n un warra n te d rep rim a n d co n st it u te d an o th e r in st a n c e of po te n ti a l re ta lia ti o n by T YC off ic ial s. See, e.g., Watson v . D all as Indep. Sch. D is t. , 1 3 5 S

. W

. 3 d 2 0 8 , 2 2 6 (T e x. Ap p
. –W aco 2 004 , no pe t.) (conclud ing that the emp loyee’s comp laints ab outretaliato ry employ ment acti ons that occ ur re d after th e or ig ina l g ri ev ance w as filed flow ed from t he
or ig ina l g ri ev ance filed reg ardin g retal iat ion ).19

W e disagree w ith T YC ’s arg um entthatGarz a w as required to g riev e ea ch spe cif ic ins tanc e of retal iat ion

. Fi rs t, TYC has n o t p rov ide d a c opy of it s g ri ev ance procedu re s re q uir ing Gar

z a to do s o. See i

d. (n oti ng thatthe g ri ev ance procedu re s for the Dal las Indepen dent Scho ol Di str ict precl uded employ ees from br ing ing separate or ser ial gr ievances arising from any ev entor a series of ev en t s t hatcould ha v e be en p rev iously gr ieved). Second , an em ployee’s han dwr itten W histleb low er com plaint s are notto be h eld to the same ex act ing standard as appli ed to pleadi ng s drafted by att or ney s. See E

nder , 30 S. W .3d a t 595

. Third, t h is Co u rthas appl ied the cont inu ing -v iol ati on doctr ine to W his tl ebl ow er

cl aims

. See Univ. of Tex.- Pan A m . v . D e Los Santos , 997 S.W .2d 8 17, 8 20 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1999, no p et.)( “U nder the ‘c onti nui ng vio la ti on’ doctr ine , eq uit abl e c onsi derati ons mayreq uire tha t t he l imi tati ons per iod not beg in to ru n at the d ate
o f t h e fi rs t i n c i d e n t o f re t a l i a t o r y c o n d u c t , b u t ra t h e r b e t o l l e d u n t i l fa c t s s u p p o rt i v e o f a
cause of action are or shou ld be ap pare nt to a re a s o nab ly prude nt pe rson similarly si tuate d.” ) (i nter nal footnote omitted) ; see als o U niv . of Houston v

. Ba rt h , 178 S.W .3d 1 57, 163 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 5, pe t. deni ed)

. There are s uff ic ien t fa ct ual all eg ati ons in Gar

z a’s pl eadi ng s a nd i n her g ri ev ances to suppo rther co ntent ion s t hat s he
w as subjecte d to on going retaliat ion by TYC of f icials w hich ultim ate ly

created a “hostile
w or k e nv ironment” and coul d i nv oke the c onti nui ng -v iol ati on doctri ne; h ow ev er , w hether tha t doct rine app lies and w hich act s trig gered the limitation s period a re issues th at sho uld be resol v ed by

the tr ier of fact. See B ar

th , 178 S.W .3d a t 163

. In any ev ent, Gar

z a’s jur is dicti onal ev ide nce has created a fact is sue rega rd ing
w hether eac h of her

co mplai nts w ere i nit iat ed by her F ebr uar y 8, 2005 an d March 21, 2 005 g ri ev ances
. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 554.006 (a ). TY C’ s a rg uments on a ppeal do n ot20

est abl is h i ts pl ea to the jur is dicti on as a matter of law ; i nst ead, it s a rg uments hi g hli g ht a fact disp ute as to w het her Garza’s comp laints w ere inde ed “initiate d” un der T YC ’s gr ie va n c e proced ures. Se e Cit y o f D all

as v. W atts , 248 S.W .3d 918 , 921 -22 (Te x. App.–D all as 2008, no pet.) (reason ing that appel lan t’ s a rg uments do n ot es tabl is h i ts ple a to th e jurisdiction a s a m a t t er of law but highlight a fact disp ute as to w het her ap pellee ’s action s “initiated” ap pellan t’s app eal proce dure s). Con sequen tly , the trial court did noterr in deny ing T Y C’ s plea to the jur is dicti on on thi s g ro und. See M ir anda , 133 S.W .3d a t 227
- 28 ( re asoni ng thatthe tr ial co urt mus t den y the pl e a t o the ju ri sdi cti on and lea v e i ts resolut ion to the fact f inde r if the ev iden ce create s a fact questio n regarding juri sdiction ); W atts , 248 S.W .3d a t 921 -2 2. W e ov er ru le TYC ’s first is sue. B. Gar za’ s T exas F amil y

C od e C laim s In i ts sec ond i ss ue, TY C a ss e rt s th a t the tr ial co urt c ommitt ed rev ersi ble er ro r by faili ng to g ra nt i ts ple a to the jur is dicti on w it h re spect to all of G arz a’s cl aims under ch apter 261 of t h e f a m ily cod e. TYC arg ues that all of Gar z a’s cl aims co uld hav e been broug ht under the Act ; t herefore, Gar z a’s family code cl aims w ere precl uded. Gar z a c ounters b y arg uin g that she pleaded facts that supp orted a chapter 261 cl aim that did not fall under the A ct. 1. Employ ment Retalia tion Un der the Texa s Famil y Code Sect ion 26 1.1 10 o f

the fam ily

code provi des th at an emp loyer: maynot sus pend or ter minat e the empl oy ment of, or othe rw is e di sc ri minat e ag ain st, a pe rs on w ho i s a professi onal and w ho i n g ood fait h: (1 ) re por ts chi ld abuse or

neg lect t o: (A) the pe rson’s supe rv isor; (B) an adm inistrato r of t h e f acility

w here the pe rson is21 employ ed; (C ) a st a t e re gu la t o ry a ge n cy; (D ) a l aw enforc ement ag ency ; or (2 ) i n it ia t e s o r c o o p e ra t e s wit h a n in ve s t ig a t io n o r p ro c e e d in g b y a g ov er nmental ag ency

rela ti ng to an al leg a ti o n of chi ld abuse or neg lect. T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 261.110 (b ) (V er non 200 8)

. Mo re ov er , s ubsecti on ( f) prov ide s t hat:

A publ icempl oy ee w ho al leg es a v iol ati on of this se cti on may su e the em ploying state or local gov ernm ent al ent ity for the relief provi ded for by this secti on. Sov ereig n i mmunity i s waiv ed and abol is hed to the extent of li abi li ty created by

thi s s ect ion

. A person hav ing a c lai m under thi s secti on maysu e a g ov er nmental uni t for damag es all ow ed by thi s s ect ion

. Id. § 261.110 (f)

. Howev er , “ [a] publ icempl oy ee w ho has a caus e of acti on unde r Cha pter 554, Gov er nment C ode, based on c onduct des cr ibe d by Subs ect ion ( b) may not b ri ng an action base d on thatcond uct un der this sect ion.” Id. § 261. 110( l). 2. Disc ussi on On ap peal , TY C cont ends that the condu ct at is sue mayg iv e r is e to act ion s u nder both the A ct and t he f a m ily c o d e
. H ow ev er , i n i ts order deny ing TY C’ s p lea to the jur is dicti on, t he tr ial co urt not ed th e foll ow ing : “I T IS O RD ER ED thatPl ain ti ff i s p re cl uded from su bmitti ng any

j ur y i ss ues under

C hapter 261 o f the Tex as Fami ly C ode on any caus es of acti on that coul d s ust ain an a cti on unde r Cha pter 554 of the Tex as Gov er nment Co d e kn o wn as t h e T e xa s W h ist le b lo wer’s [s ic] Ac t .

. . . ” T h is m irro rs t h e la n gua ge prov ide d i n s ect ion 261. 110( l) of the famil y code and protects TYC from c oncur re nt l iab il ity under both ch apter

261 of the family co d e a n d t h e Act. See i d. Gar z a has present ed jurisdictiona l ev iden ce w hich demo nstrat es tha t she reported child abu se to he r supervi sor, a s tate re g ula tor

y ag ency , Chi ld Protecti v e Ser v ic es, and a l aw

enforc ement ag ency , t he22

Edin burg Police Depa rtme nt. Garza has thu s a lleged and provi ded jurisdictional evidence demonst ra ti ng co nti nui ng retal iat or y acts eng ag ed i n by

TY C off ic ial s w hic h c re ated a “h ost il e wor k e nv ironment.” Thi s e v ide nce maysu ppor t a cl aim under

ch apter 261 of the family co de, w hic h, i n tur n, c re ates a facti ss ue reg ardin g j ur is dicti on. See i d. § 261 .11 0(b). W e c oncl ude t hat w hether the act s a ll eg ed by

Gar z a fa ll so le ly unde r the A ct or ch apter 261 of t he famil y

co de i s for

the fact finder

to deci de. See M

ir anda , 133 S.W .3d a t 227 -2 8 (requir ing the trial court t o d e n y a p lea to the jurisdiction if th e evidence creates a fact question as to j urisdiction and to l eave the resolut ion of the fact questio n to th e fact f inde r);
see als o Shi

ll ing , 2 6 6 S .W .3 d at 101. As su ch, TY C has not e sta bli shed it s p lea to the jurisdiction as to Garz a’s chap ter 261 cla ims as a ma tter of law . Accordingly , w e overrule TYC ’s se cond is sue. IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led both of T Y C’ s is sues on appeal , w e af firm the tri al cour

t’ s d eni al of TYC ’s pl ea to the jur is dicti on.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 7t h day

of Ma y , 200 9.