Town of Flower Mound v. Teague
2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 5451, 2003 WL 21475644, 111 S.W.3d 742 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Texas Whistleblower Act, a public employee's report of a violation of law is made in good faith if the employee subjectively believed the conduct was illegal and that belief was objectively reasonable given the employee's training and experience, even if the report ultimately proves to be incorrect.
Facts:
- Patrol officers for the Town of Flower Mound attempted to serve a subpoena on Mary Womack. Her father-in-law, Ernest Womack, Sr., reported she had taken a car he owned without permission and wished to file theft charges.
- An officer prepared a police report for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (UUMV), but a patrol sergeant instructed him to retitle it as a non-prosecutable 'missing persons' report.
- Another patrol officer, Wess Jones, needed Mary Womack as a witness in a separate case. He learned of the report and, after speaking with several officers, changed the title back to UUMV.
- Wess Jones then prepared a probable cause affidavit using the altered report and obtained a warrant for Mary Womack's arrest for UUMV.
- Police officers Tom Teague and David Burkett discovered that Wess Jones had altered the report and secured the arrest warrant. They believed Jones may have committed a felony by fabricating a crime as a pretext to get Womack into court.
- Teague and Burkett consulted with an assistant district attorney, Kevin Henry, who confirmed that Jones's actions were consistent with several criminal violations.
- Teague, with authorization from Police Chief David Brungardt, placed Wess Jones on administrative leave and initiated both an internal affairs investigation (led by Teague) and a criminal investigation (led by Burkett).
- Shortly thereafter, Chief Brungardt ordered Teague and Burkett to halt all investigations into Wess Jones. Both Teague and Burkett were later transferred, placed on administrative leave, and ultimately terminated from their employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Tom Teague and David Burkett sued the Town of Flower Mound in Texas state trial court for wrongful termination in violation of the Texas Whistleblower Act.
- Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Teague and Burkett.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict, awarding damages to the plaintiffs.
- The Town of Flower Mound, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Texas, 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 sufficient evidence support a jury's finding that a public employer violated the Texas Whistleblower Act by terminating employees who reported what they believed in good faith to be another employee's illegal conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice John Cayce
Yes. Sufficient evidence supports the jury's finding that the Town violated the Texas Whistleblower Act. To establish that a report was made in 'good faith,' an employee must show both a subjective belief that the conduct was illegal and that this belief was objectively reasonable for a person with their training and experience. Teague and Burkett met this test because they honestly believed Wess Jones had violated the law, and this belief was reasonable, as confirmed by an assistant district attorney and initially by their own police chief. The fact that an outside investigation later concluded no crime was committed does not negate the officers' good faith at the time they made the report. Furthermore, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of causation—including the decision-makers' knowledge of the report, their negative attitude toward the investigation, departures from standard procedure, and evidence that the stated reasons for termination were pretextual—to establish that the officers would not have been fired but for their protected report.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strength of the Texas Whistleblower Act's protections by clarifying the 'good faith' standard. The ruling establishes that an employee's report does not need to be factually correct to be protected; it only needs to be subjectively honest and objectively reasonable at the time it was made. The court's detailed analysis of circumstantial evidence for causation provides a clear framework for future plaintiffs to prove retaliatory motive, even absent direct evidence. This precedent makes it more difficult for public employers to defeat whistleblower claims by using pretextual reasons for termination or by commissioning post-hoc investigations that exonerate the reported employee.
