Source: http://texas-opinions.com/10-Galveston-ISD-v-Jaco-Tex-2010-whistleblower-case-remanded-in-light-of-Lueck-jurisdictionalizing-elements-of-claim.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:12:27+00:00

Document:
Justice Guzman [who wrote the opinion in the court below] did not participate in the decision.
required by the Texas Whistleblower Act. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.002(a).
The trial court denied the plea to the jurisdiction and the District appealed. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
jurisdiction by a governmental unit).
Code are not jurisdictional. 278 S.W.3d 477, 482–83 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009).
to an appropriate law-enforcement authority is a jurisdictional question.
alleges that the District took adverse personnel action against him in violation of the Texas Whistleblower Act.
barred from participating in the playoffs.
reinstated Jaco's job 479 position as Director of Extracurricular Activities, but not Director of Athletics.
court denied the plea, and this interlocutory appeal ensued.
the plaintiff must affirmatively demonstrate the trial court's jurisdiction by alleging a valid waiver of immunity.
the evidence submitted by the parties." Id. (quoting Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm'n v. White, 46 S.W.
evidence pertinent to the jurisdictional inquiry. County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 555 (Tex.2002).
We construe the pleadings liberally in favor of conferring jurisdiction. Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Ramirez, 74 S.W.
3d 864, 867 (Tex.2002) (per curiam). Nevertheless, a waiver of immunity must be clear and unambiguous.
an opportunity to amend. City of Carrollton v. Singer, 232 S.W.3d 790, 795 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, pet.
denied) (citing Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227).
arguments that (a) Jaco admits he did not make a "report," (b) the UIL's parental residency rule is not a "law,"
first determine if they raise jurisdictional issues.
scheme in which immunity to suit and immunity to liability are coextensive. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN.
M Univ. v. Brooks, 180 S.W.3d 694, 703 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.).
for the relief allowed under this chapter for a violation of this chapter.
matter jurisdiction of the trial court by alleging a violation and seeking relief allowed by the Whistleblower Act.
immunity; there are no other conditions.").
Here, Jaco adequately invoked the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction and established waiver of immunity.
the UIL was authorized to regulate or enforce the laws violated in his report, and[/]or investigate the violation.
constitute relief available under the Act to prevailing public employees. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 554.003.
conclude that Jaco established the District's waiver of immunity.
the Act, waiver of immunity from suit is not dependent upon the merits of the claim. See Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med.
613 n. 2 (holding that trial court had jurisdiction, although claim failed on the merits).
ANN. § 554.002. We therefore overrule the District's first issue and do not reach its remaining issues.
of its plea to the jurisdiction.
 There is a dispute between the parties as to whether this employment action constitutes a demotion.
we do not have jurisdiction to consider grounds outside those raised in the plea to the jurisdiction. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
CODE ANN. § 51.014(8) (Vernon 2008); City of Dallas v. Heard, 252 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied).
statute or ordinance, the District did not specially except to the pleading, which we construe liberally. See Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med.
130-31 (Tex. App.-Austin 1998, no writ).
suffer an adverse personnel action. Id.
 See County of Bexar v. Steward, 139 S.W.3d 354, 358-62 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, no pet.); Bexar County v. Lopez, 94 S.W.
3d 711, 713-16 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, no pet.).
curiam, not designated for publication).
 See City of Waco v. Lopez, 183 S.W.3d 825 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005), rev'd, 259 S.W.3d 147 (2008).
no pet.) (mem.op.) with Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Garcia, 243 S.W.3d 759, 760 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2007, pet. filed), State v.
520-21 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, pet. denied).
that the initiation of the grievance procedure is a statutory prerequisite to suit rather than an element of the cause of action. Id.
enforcement authority; and (5) she suffered retaliation as a result of making the report").
 Gentilello, 260 S.W.3d at 227.

References: § 554
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 554
 § 554
 § 51
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.