Fort Worth Independent School District v. Joseph Palazzolo, 02-13-00006-CV

FWISD employed Palazzolo as an assistant principal at AHHS; Palazzolo reported misconduct by FWISD employees (attendance falsifications, misused booster funds, discriminatory discipline, inappropriate relationships) to FWISD officials and others.
Palazzolo was reassigned from AHHS to INA for the 2010–2011 school year at a lower pay rate following a negative appraisal.
Palazzolo filed Level I grievance alleging retaliation and sought reinstatement, salary equivalence, voided appraisal, and other relief.
Level II and III grievances followed; the Board heard Palazzolo state he was fine with either AHHS or WHHS and with the amended appraisal, effectively addressing the two complained actions.
Palazzolo then sued FWISD for violations of the Whistleblower Act; FWISD moved for summary judgment on the transfer and appraisal-report claims and on the trespass-warning claim, which the trial court denied, prompting this appeal.
The court ultimately reverses and renders, holding (a) initiation under the Whistleblower Act is a jurisdictional prerequisite not satisfied here, and (b) the trespass-warning claim is not an adverse employment action, thus FWISD is entitled to judgment on all whistleblower claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Palazzolo properly initiated the Whistleblower Act grievance process.	Palazzolo timely invoked FWISD’s grievance procedures.	Palazzolo circumvented initiation by signaling no dispute at Level III.	Yes; initiation not satisfied; immunity bars these claims.
Whether lifting the trespass warning constitutes an adverse employment action.	Lifting the warning was retaliation for protected activity.	Not an adverse action after reassignment and decision to remove daughter from AHHS.	Yes; lifting the warning after reassignment was not adverse; FWISD entitled to judgment on trespass claim.

Bland ISD v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (initiation/subject-matter jurisdiction for Whistleblower Act suits)
Aguilar v. Socorro Independent School District, 296 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009) (initiation must not be circumvented; timely grievance initiation required)
Gayle v. Fort Bend ISD, 371 S.W.3d 391 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (filing a grievance satisfies initiation if properly filed; active circumvention defeats purpose)
McQuary v. Tarrant County, 310 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010) (initiation as a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit)
Univ. of Houston v. Barth, 178 S.W.3d 157 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (initiation requirements and waivers of immunity)
Prairie View A&M Univ. v. Chatha, 381 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. 2012) (statutory prerequisites treated as jurisdictional for governmental entities)
State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. 2009) (context on determining jurisdiction and liability together)