City of Abilene v. Carter, 530 S.W.3d 268

Carter, a former City of Abilene engineer, sued the City under the Texas Whistleblower Act after his termination, alleging he reported the City’s unlicensed practice of engineering and violations of the Texas Engineering Practice Act and city ordinances.
Carter alleged he reported internally (city attorney and city manager) and submitted a written 100+ page report to the Texas Board of Professional Engineers (the Board); he pleaded termination within 90 days of reporting to the Board.
The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing Carter failed to plead a report to an "appropriate law enforcement authority" and (initially) that Carter had not pursued grievance procedures (the grievance claim was later dropped).
Carter’s amended petition cited relevant Occupational Code provisions and attached five exhibits, including Board letters acknowledging receipt and describing a Board inquiry and a compliance agreement with the City.
The trial court heard oral argument but admitted no evidence, then denied the City’s plea to the jurisdiction; the City appealed, challenging (1) sufficiency of pleadings on the appropriateness of the Board and (2) the trial court’s failure to rule on its evidentiary objections to exhibits and statutory excerpts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Carter pleaded that he reported violations to an appropriate law enforcement authority under the Whistleblower Act	Carter pleaded he reported unlicensed engineering and violations of the Engineering Practice Act and Board rules to the Texas Board of Professional Engineers and alleged the Board initiated an inquiry and entered a compliance agreement	City argued Carter failed to plead the specific law violations reported, so it was unclear whether the Board, city attorney, or city manager were appropriate authorities	Court held Carter sufficiently pleaded reporting to the Board as an appropriate law enforcement authority and overruled the City’s jurisdictional challenge
Whether the trial court erred by not sustaining the City’s evidentiary objections to exhibits and statutory excerpts	Carter argued his pleadings alone (without relying on exhibits) sufficiently alleged jurisdictional facts; exhibits were attached and referenced in the petition	City argued exhibits were hearsay, not authenticated, and not properly incorporated; also argued excerpts were untimely	Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in treating statutory excerpts as public law; any error in failing to sustain objections to attached exhibits was harmless because the pleading itself alleged the same facts; City’s evidentiary challenge was overruled

Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (purpose and nature of plea to the jurisdiction)
Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for reviewing pleas to the jurisdiction)
Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 253 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2008) (sovereign immunity principles)
Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2006) (governmental immunity as to subdivisions)
Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. 2003) (immunity from suit deprives courts of jurisdiction)
City of Dallas v. Albert, 354 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. 2011) (immunity from liability vs. immunity from suit)
Univ. of Houston v. Barth, 403 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. 2013) (Whistleblower Act waiver of immunity)
Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Okoli, 440 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. 2014) (good-faith belief and appropriate authority under the Whistleblower Act)
Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Needham, 82 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. 2002) (importance of identifying the law allegedly violated when assessing appropriate authority)
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1998) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)