Stephen Torres v. City of San Antonio, Christopher Casals
04-15-00664-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 7, 2016Background
- Stephen Torres, a long‑time San Antonio Fire Department employee, reported that two former Arson investigators (Rios and Villarreal) improperly retained Arson/peace‑officer credentials and filed an OMI complaint after internal reporting to supervisors produced no action.
- OMI’s investigation labeled Torres’s allegation “unfounded” but prompted procedural changes; Torres later requested transfer out of Arson.
- In 2012 Torres applied for an Arson lieutenant lateral transfer (higher pay and benefits); a three‑member interview panel recommended a candidate (Bennett) over Torres.
- Torres alleged the panel and Chief Hood considered his prior OMI complaint when deciding, and he claimed retaliation in violation of the Texas Whistleblower Act.
- The City moved for summary judgment arguing Torres failed to show (1) his OMI report was made in good faith and (2) but‑for causation between the report and the nonselection; the trial court granted summary judgment.
- The Fourth Court of Appeals reversed, holding genuine fact issues existed on both good faith and causation, so the City did not conclusively negate the whistleblower claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Good‑faith reporting under the Texas Whistleblower Act | Torres believed and reasonably believed the credentials misuse violated law and cited Penal/Code authority when reporting to OMI | City: Torres knew Chief Hood authorized the credentials (or should have known), OMI/others were already investigating, and Torres acted for improper motives | Fact issue exists; viewing evidence favorably to Torres, a reasonable juror could find his belief was subjectively held and objectively reasonable |
| Causation (but‑for standard) | Torres points to testimony that Chief Hood and Casals considered his OMI complaint in the selection process; panel discussion referenced the complaint | City: Provided multiple legitimate reasons for nonselection (performance, leadership, panel preference, misconduct); argued no nexus over two years | Fact issue exists; City failed to conclusively show the OMI report did not play any role in nonselection |
| Whether City met movant’s burden on traditional summary judgment | Torres: presented affidavits, depositions, and testimony creating disputed material facts on elements required | City: argued it negated essential elements (good faith and causation) as a matter of law | Court: City did not conclusively negate essential elements; summary judgment improper |
| Scope of protection — appropriate law‑enforcement authority | Torres: OMI is an appropriate law‑enforcement authority for reporting alleged violation | City: Implicitly contested appropriateness and timing of going to OMI vs. chain of command | Court did not resolve against Torres on summary judgment; factual disputes remain relevant to the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bexar County v. Lopez, 94 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002) (defines "good faith" elements under the Act)
- Wichita County v. Hart, 917 S.W.2d 779 (Tex. 1996) (good faith test components)
- Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler, 899 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. 1995) (summary‑judgment movant must negate at least one essential element)
- Lakey v. Taylor, 435 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014) (summary judgment standards in employment claims)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Gentilello, 398 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. 2013) (objective reasonableness component of good faith)
- Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1995) (establishes but‑for causation standard for whistleblower claims)
- City of Fort Worth v. Zimlich, 29 S.W.3d 62 (Tex. 2000) (discusses causation requirement under the Whistleblower Act)