Billy D. Burleson, Jon J. Mark, and Craig A. Bennight v. Collin County Community College District, 05-15-01361-CV

Background

Three Collin College police officers (Burleson, Mark, Bennight) reported suspected crimes (bookstore thefts, corruption, alleged illegal incarceration) to internal superiors and outside law enforcement in 2014.
After reporting, each alleges retaliatory actions by the College: written "coaching" reprimand and shift reassignment for Mark; schedule change and campus transfer for Bennight; schedule change and loss of "flex time" for Burleson. Grievances were filed and denied.
The College filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting sovereign immunity, arguing (a) no adverse personnel actions occurred under the Texas Whistleblower Act and (b) Mark and Burleson failed to satisfy grievance prerequisites. The trial court granted the plea.
The College later attempted to unilaterally supplement the appellate record with an addendum (materials purportedly admitted at the plea hearing); the Court of Appeals refused to consider that unilateral supplementation.
On appeal the Fifth District reviewed de novo whether the College’s evidence conclusively negated the Officers’ allegations that they suffered adverse personnel actions and whether Mark satisfied the grievance prerequisite.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court had jurisdiction because adverse personnel actions occurred	Officers: written reprimand, shift changes, loss of flex time, and transfers were materially adverse and would deter reporting	College: coaching/reprimands and scheduling matters are not adverse actions as a matter of law; evidence shows changes weren’t finalized	Reversed: disputed facts exist about materiality/context; College did not conclusively negate adverse actions — fact issues for trial
Whether Mark exhausted administrative grievance prerequisite	Mark: filed grievance complaining of being ordered to lock intoxicated person, subsequent write-up and shift change — grievance matches suit allegations	College: Mark’s grievance didn’t match the lawsuit’s claims (focused on bookstore theft) so jurisdictional prerequisite unmet	Held: Mark’s grievance gave notice of the same allegations in the suit; exhaustion requirement met
Whether the College’s post-judgment unilateral supplement to the record may be considered on appeal	Officers: unilateral supplementation is improper; record may not be supplemented without court approval	College: asked the court to consider the late-submitted addendum to the clerk’s record to support its plea	Held: Court refused to consider the unilateral supplemental clerk’s record; Rule 34.6(e) does not allow unilateral additions and corrections require agreement or trial-court resolution
Whether trial court erred by not issuing requested findings of fact and conclusions of law	Officers: timely requested findings and conclusions	College: (did not prevail on this point)	Court did not reach merits of this issue because it resolved the jurisdictional question in favor of Officers

Key Cases Cited

Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (standards for plea to the jurisdiction and scope of judicial review)
Miranda v. Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (when evidence is submitted on jurisdictional facts, court considers it and must resolve factual disputes in nonmovant’s favor)
Montgomery Cnty. v. Park, 246 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. 2007) (adopted materiality test for adverse personnel action under Texas Whistleblower Act)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation standard: adverse action must be material and likely to deter reasonable employee)
Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. 2012) (sovereign immunity deprives court of subject-matter jurisdiction)
Lueck v. State, 290 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. 2009) (Whistleblower Act waiver requires properly alleged violations)