Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Rosaena Resendez
450 S.W.3d 520
| Tex. | 2014Background
- Rosaena Resendez, a 34-year TCEQ employee, investigated possible fraud in the TERP vehicle-rebate program and reported that undocumented individuals were receiving funds.
- She informed supervisors Steve Dayton and Joe Walton; supervisors allegedly failed to act and disciplined her for being "argumentative" and "disrespectful," placing her on probation.
- Resendez later spoke with TCEQ director David Brymer and then reported the matter to Senator Juan Hinojosa’s office; she was terminated days later.
- Resendez sued under the Texas Whistleblower Act, claiming retaliatory discharge after she reported supervisors’ failures to report suspected fraud as required by Gov’t Code §321.
- TCEQ moved to dismiss (plea to the jurisdiction), arguing her reports were internal and not made to an "appropriate law-enforcement authority" as required by the Act; the trial court granted dismissal.
- The court of appeals reversed, but the Texas Supreme Court granted review and ultimately reversed the court of appeals and dismissed the suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reports to supervisors/internal officials satisfy the Whistleblower Act’s "appropriate law-enforcement authority" requirement | Resendez: reports up the chain (to Brymer) were good-faith reports of supervisors’ violations and thus protected | TCEQ: internal reports do not qualify; law requires reporting to an external law-enforcement authority | Held: Internal reports to supervisors or directors (like Brymer) are insufficient under the Act (Okoli controls) |
| Whether a good-faith belief that the reported-to person can enforce criminal or fraud-reporting laws was objectively reasonable | Resendez: she reasonably believed Brymer or the senator could investigate/enforce fraud reporting requirements | TCEQ: any belief that internal supervisors or a state senator had prosecutorial/enforcement power is not objectively reasonable | Held: Belief must be subjective and objectively reasonable; Resendez failed the objective prong for Brymer and the senator |
| Whether TCEQ’s internal fraud-investigation program or cooperation with the DA made internal reports sufficient | Resendez: TCEQ policy and program that cooperates with DA supports reasonable belief supervisors could escalate/enforce | TCEQ: the program does not give internal actors enforcement power and investigated grantee fraud, not employee omissions | Held: Existence of internal program does not convert supervisors into law-enforcement authorities; Okoli rejects forwarding-policy argument |
| Whether reporting to a state senator’s office satisfies the Act’s requirement | Resendez: a senator can investigate agency activity; thus reporting to his office should be protected | TCEQ: legislators lack prosecutorial/enforcement authority; investigatory power is legislative, not criminal enforcement | Held: A state senator is not an appropriate law-enforcement authority; reporting to a senator’s office is not protected |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Okoli, 440 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. 2014) (internal reports up chain are insufficient even if policy forwards them to an enforcement office)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Gentilello, 398 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. 2013) (definition of "law-enforcement authority" limited; internal-compliance supervisors are not objectively reasonable choices)
- State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. 2009) (division heads lacking regulatory/enforcement power are not appropriate authorities)
- Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Needham, 82 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. 2002) (good-faith belief requires subjective belief plus objective reasonableness)
- Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality v. Resendez, 391 S.W.3d 312 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012) (court of appeals decision reversing dismissal; later reversed by the Texas Supreme Court)