Office of the Attorney General of Texas v. Laura G. Rodriguez
535 S.W.3d 54
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Laura Rodriguez, longtime regional administrator (RA) at the OAG Child Support Division (Region 8), reported suspected insurance fraud by her executive assistant, Debbie Galindo, in December 2008 under the agency Fraud, Waste and Abuse Prevention Program (FWAPP).
- CID investigated; findings were mixed (investigator concluded Galindo made a false statement but De La Garza thought evidence was inconclusive as to fraud). Galindo received a five-day suspension in mid-2009.
- After the report, Rodriguez was subject to complaints about management style. In September 2009 she accepted a "voluntary" demotion to Office 807 manager; she was later terminated from that position on April 8, 2010 for alleged poor performance (backlog, missed meetings, insubordination).
- Rodriguez filed a Whistleblower Act suit alleging her report was the but-for cause of adverse actions; the demotion claim was dismissed as time-barred. After an eight-day jury trial, the jury found Rodriguez proved good-faith reporting and causation, awarding back pay, $100,000 compensatory damages, and $275,000 front pay.
- On appeal the OAG challenged (1) legal and factual sufficiency of causation (but-for link) and (2) the front-pay award on mitigation grounds. The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of causation under Texas Whistleblower Act (but-for cause) | Rodriguez argued her report prompted adverse treatment by supervisors and influenced final decisionmakers; circumstantial evidence (knowledge, negative attitude, false reasons, disparate treatment) supports causation. | OAG argued evidence was legally and factually insufficient — alternative reasons (performance issues, backlogs, anonymous complaints) were the real cause; some actors lacked retaliatory motive. | Affirmed: jury could find but-for causation; four of five Zimlich factors supported inference of retaliation (knowledge, negative attitude, disparate treatment, false reasons). |
| Relevance of attitudes of non-final vs. final decisionmakers | Rodriguez: both Smith and Key were final decisionmakers (both approved termination) so Smith's negative attitude is relevant. | OAG: only Key was final decisionmaker; Smith's attitude should be disregarded. | Affirmed: Both Smith and Key were treated as final decisionmakers; Smith's negative attitude was properly considered. |
| Pretext / falsity of stated reasons for termination | Rodriguez pointed to false/misleading allegations in termination paperwork (excused missed meetings, mischaracterization of role, timing) and evidence she was making progress on backlog. | OAG: primary reason was poor performance; any inaccuracies were not dispositive. | Held: Sufficient evidence that some stated reasons were false or misleading; supports inference of pretext. |
| Front-pay award and mitigation of damages | Rodriguez: conducted an 18‑month job search for comparable state work, then took lower-paying Texas Tech position when search proved futile; ceased searching thereafter — reasonable under circumstances. | OAG: after taking lower-paying job Rodriguez stopped searching for comparable work, so she failed to mitigate and is not entitled to front pay. | Held: OAG failed to prove Rodriguez failed to mitigate; no evidence OAG produced showing comparable positions were available after she accepted Texas Tech role; front-pay award upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal‑sufficiency review framework and crediting favorable evidence)
- Tex. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1995) (but‑for causation standard in whistleblower context)
- City of Fort Worth v. Zimlich, 29 S.W.3d 62 (Tex. 2000) (five-factor circumstantial‑evidence framework for retaliation causation)
- Kia Motors Corp. v. Ruiz, 432 S.W.3d 865 (Tex. 2014) (appellate standard reviewing jury fact findings)
- Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez, 977 S.W.2d 328 (Tex. 1998) (grounds for legal‑sufficiency reversal)
- City of El Paso v. Parsons, 353 S.W.3d 215 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2011) (causation inference and evidence review in retaliation cases)