Dallas County v. Logan
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 520
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Logan was a Dallas County deputy constable from July 2008 to September 2010 who reported alleged illegal activities by Dallas County officials to the County Judge and investigators hired by the Commissioners Court.
- Following Logan’s whistleblowing, he alleges reprimand, suspension, and termination in violation of the Texas Whistleblower Act, with a claim that immunity was waived under the Act.
- Dallas County answered, denying liability and asserting governmental immunity; it separately filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction focusing on the whistleblower claims and the status of the alleged appropriate law enforcement authority.
- Dallas County contends the investigators working for Defenbaugh and Associates were not part of a governmental entity and thus not an appropriate authority under § 554.002(b).
- Logan responded that he reported to an appropriate law enforcement authority (investigators and the County Judge), and that his good-faith belief and the surrounding training supported jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied the Plea to the Jurisdiction after reviewing evidentiary objections; the appeal concerns whether the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction under the Whistleblower Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea to the jurisdiction properly challenged waiver of immunity under the Whistleblower Act. | Logan maintained he reported in good faith to an appropriate authority, preserving jurisdiction. | Dallas County argued the investigators were not an appropriate authority and immunity remained intact, defeating jurisdiction. | Yes; the trial court correctly denied the plea, and the appellate court affirmed jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for determining subject-matter jurisdiction de novo)
- Tex. Natural Res. Conserv. Comm'n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (jurisdictional review parameters in administrative contexts)
- Estate of Arancibia v. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr., 244 S.W.3d 455 (Tex. 2010) (limits appellate review in 51.014(a)(8) interlocutory appeals)
- First Trade Union Sav. Bank v. City of Dallas, 133 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003) (limits on appellate review of pleas to jurisdiction)
- Needham v. Tex. Dep't of Transp., 82 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. 2002) (good-faith belief standard for appropriate authority under Whistleblower Act)