Court Opinion

ID: 9630583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:14:45.618223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:24.785863
License: Public Domain

RICKHOFF, Justice,
concurring.
In my opinion, the adverse employment action must be taken bases on the contents of the “whistle-blower” report. In this case, none of the appellee’s superiors were critical of the content of her report; her supervisors agreed that Starr County officials were abusing the requisite legal procedures in the methods they were using for mental health commitments. The adverse employment action was related to the manner in which the appellee acted subsequent to the report that caused her to be viewed as an uncompromising non-team player. The appellee was forceful, difficult, and opinionated at a time when a new supervisor had a yen for team players. The adverse employment action is not linked to her criticism of Starr County but with her attitude in the workplace. Because the majority reaches the same result, I concur.