Texas State University and Texas State University System v. Stuart Patrick Wilkinson
15-25-00028-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Stuart Patrick Wilkinson sued Texas State University and the Texas State University System under the Texas Whistleblower Act (TWA) and for alleged constitutional violations.
- Wilkinson claimed he faced retaliation after reporting alleged wrongdoing by his employer, invoking university grievance procedures.
- Defendants moved for dismissal on the grounds of sovereign immunity, arguing no valid waiver due to the inadequacy of Wilkinson’s pleadings.
- After the trial court denied the defendants’ plea to the jurisdiction, defendants appealed, asserting multiple jurisdictional defects in Wilkinson’s claims.
- The reply brief primarily focused on defects in exhaustion of remedies, timeliness, adequacy of alleged adverse employment actions, sovereign immunity for constitutional claims, and whether the pleadings could be cured by amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| TWA Claim Barred by Sovereign Immunity | Wilkinson claims conclusory allegations suffice for a TWA waiver of sovereign immunity. | Defendants argue conclusory allegations are insufficient to waive sovereign immunity under TWA. | To be determined on appeal; Defendants seek dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies | Wilkinson asserts he properly invoked the grievance process in time. | Defendants argue Wilkinson failed to plead specific dates or details of exhaustion, which is jurisdictionally required. | Defendants argue this warrants dismissal; court decision pending. |
| Statute of Limitations under TWA | Wilkinson argues no need to plead every date or fact countering limitations defense. | Defendants contend suit is time-barred without pleaded dates showing timely filing. | Defendants contend this mandates dismissal; court decision pending. |
| Sovereign Immunity on Constitutional Claims | Wilkinson asserts immunity is categorically waived to vindicate constitutional rights. | Defendants emphasize only ultra vires claims against state officials (not agencies) may proceed, and no waiver is supported here. | Defendants argue for dismissal based on immunity; court to rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas A&M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2007) (sovereign immunity from suit is jurisdictional and dismissal with prejudice is appropriate for nonviable claims)
- State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. 2009) (conclusory allegations are insufficient to defeat plea to jurisdiction in whistleblower claims)
- Texas Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for assessing jurisdictional challenges on pleadings)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra vires claims against state officials, not agencies, are allowed for alleged constitutional violations)
- Harris Cnty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. 2004) (dismissal with prejudice is proper where incurable jurisdictional defects exist)
- Prairie View A&M Univ. v. Chatha, 381 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. 2012) (plaintiff bears burden to allege facts supporting waiver of sovereign immunity)