Stay in the Know

HOME
/
Blog
Flores v. Crystal City Indep. Sch. Dist.

Plaintiff worked as a Business Manager in CCISD’s Finance Department. Plaintiff filed two complaints with the Texas Education Agency (TEA) alleging that one of her coworkers had remained clocked in outside her working hours and had unauthorized edits to her timesheet, which according to Plaintiff constituted time theft and fraud. After her employment contract was not renewed at the end of the school year, Plaintiff sued CCISD under the Texas Whistleblower Act (“Act”), alleging that she was retaliated against for her complaints to the TEA. Our firm defended CCISD.

The Act requires that a government employee make a report of a violation of “law” in good faith to an “appropriate law enforcement agency,” as those terms are defined in the Act. On behalf of CCISD, we challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s lawsuit, arguing that Plaintiff’s claims fell outside of the Act because her report to the TEA alleging time theft and fraud did not involve a violation of “law,” was not made in good faith based on Plaintiff’ experience and training, and because the TEA was not an “appropriate law enforcement agency” under the Act. The trial court denied the challenge.

The District appealed to the 8th Court of Appeals. The 8th Court of Appeals agreed with the District’s arguments, holding that Plaintiff, based on her experience, knew or should have known that the reported acts did not constitute time theft or fraud; that the reports were not reports of violations of “law”’ and that the TEA was not an appropriate law enforcement agency under the Act. The trial court’s judgment was reversed and the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

We expect the case will have positive implications for all governmental entities in the state, in general, and our school district clients, specifically, as the precedent established will allow school districts to more readily seek dismissal of weak, meritless, or unfounded claims under the Act.

Our success in this case was due to the incredible appellate briefing work by Attorney Mario Perez.  Way to go Mario!