Rogers v. City of Fort Worth
89 S.W.3d 265, 19 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 311, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 7490 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Texas Whistleblower Act protects a public employee who in good faith reports a violation of law to an appropriate authority, even if the employee makes the report as part of their regular job duties or at the direction of a supervisor.
Facts:
- Fred Rogers worked as a temporary-duty deputy marshal for the City of Fort Worth's municipal court.
- On June 18, 1998, Rogers witnessed another deputy marshal, Gordon Burrell, bring an arrestee with ten outstanding warrants into a judge's courtroom and improperly ask the judge to "work with him" because he knew the arrestee's family.
- The judge, Newman-Stanfield, became angry at Burrell's conduct, which violated a City ordinance prohibiting employees from acting as a defense attorney for any individual in municipal court.
- Judge Newman-Stanfield later overheard Burrell and his supervisor, Sergeant Perez, making jokes about her anger over a radio.
- Upset by the incident and the radio chatter, Judge Newman-Stanfield instructed Rogers to write an Interoffice Correspondence (IOC) detailing Burrell's actions in the courtroom.
- Rogers's ultimate superior, City Marshal Jim Rutledge, also directed all involved parties, including Rogers, to submit IOCs about the incident.
- Rogers submitted his IOC, factually recounting Burrell's actions, which constituted a violation of the city ordinance.
- On July 8, 1998, nineteen days after Rogers submitted his IOC, Rutledge terminated Rogers's employment, officially for falsifying an unrelated, year-old customer complaint form against another officer.
Procedural Posture:
- Fred Rogers filed suit against the City of Fort Worth in a state trial court, alleging his termination violated the Texas Whistleblower Act.
- The trial court denied the City's motion for summary judgment, and the case proceeded to a bench trial.
- The trial court found as matters of fact that Rogers made a good faith report of a violation of law and was terminated because he made the report.
- However, the trial court concluded as a matter of law that Rogers's report was not the type of activity the legislature intended to protect under the Act.
- Based on its legal conclusion, the trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of the City.
- Rogers, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals, Second District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Texas Whistleblower Act protect a public employee who reports a violation of law at the direction of his supervisor rather than on the employee’s own initiative?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Anne Gardner
Yes, the Texas Whistleblower Act protects an employee who reports a violation of law at the direction of a supervisor. The Act is remedial in nature and must be liberally construed to protect public employees who inform proper authorities of legal violations. The court rejected the City's argument that an employee must act primarily as a 'citizen' rather than an 'employee,' holding that the statutory definition of 'law' is controlling and contains no such requirement. The court distinguished this case from federal precedent under the federal Whistleblower Protection Act, noting that the Texas Act's text and history do not exclude reports made as part of an employee's normal duties. Because Rogers reported an actual violation of a city ordinance to an appropriate authority (his superior, the City Marshal), his report is protected by the Act regardless of who initiated it.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and broadens the protections of the Texas Whistleblower Act by rejecting attempts to narrow its scope. It establishes that an employee's motivation or role (employee vs. citizen) is irrelevant, and that being directed to make a report does not disqualify an employee from protection. This holding prevents employers from creating a loophole where they could order an employee to report wrongdoing and then retaliate against them, claiming it was merely part of the job. The ruling solidifies a liberal construction of the Act, contrasting with more restrictive interpretations of its federal counterpart and strengthening safeguards for public employees in Texas.
Unlock the full brief for Rogers v. City of Fort Worth