the City of Lubbock, Texas v. Lazaro Walck, 07-15-00078-CV

Plaintiff Lazaro Walck, a city peace officer, challenged actions by the City of Lubbock related to his outside work permit and a reprimand.
Walck pursued two grievances under the city’s grievance procedures: one seeking reinstatement of his outside work permit (granted August 29, 2013), and a second seeking rescission of a reprimand (granted October 23, 2013).
Walck filed the original petition January 18, 2014 and the City filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction October 15, 2014; the trial court denied the plea February 18, 2015, leading to the appeal.
Walck’s suit seeks monetary damages (lost wages, attorneys’ fees, mental anguish) and a $15,000 civil penalty under the Whistleblower Act, though none of these damages were requested or denied in the grievance proceedings.
Issues center on (1) jurisdiction under Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.006(a) requiring grievance-initiated claims, (2) 90-day statute of limitations for whistleblower claims not timely filed post-grievances, (3) whistleblower notice during grievance process, and (4) private right to civil penalty under § 554.008.
The court affirmatively held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over damages not raised in the grievance process, awarded no relief on the whistleblower damages, and dismissed the suit in its entirety.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction under § 554.006(a)	Walck asserted he complied by initiating a claim via the grievance process	City contends damages not raised in grievances are outside § 554.006(a) jurisdiction	No jurisdiction; damages not requested in grievances; suit dismissed
Whether Walck’s outside-work-permit damages were timely	Walck argues continuing violation tolls the period	Damages arise from discrete acts; continuing-violation doctrine inapplicable	Timeliness deficient; 90-day period not tolled; claims barred
Whether Walck gave notice of a whistleblower claim in the grievance process	Walck alleges retaliation for whistleblowing	No notice of whistleblower claim in grievances	No whistleblower notice; claims barred under § 554.006(a)
Whether Walck may seek a private $15,000 civil penalty	Walck seeks civil-penalty relief under § 554.008	Private right to civil penalty does not exist; only AG or prosecuting attorney may seek it	No private right of action; dismissal of this claim

Aguilar v. Socorro Indep. Sch. Dist., 296 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009) (grievance process required to pursue whistleblower claims)
Alejandro v. Robstown Indep. Sch. Dist., 131 S.W.3d 663 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2004) (necessity of proper grievance initiation)
Dallas County v. Gonzales, 183 S.W.3d 94 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (distinguishes when relief is or isn’t fully granted in grievance)
Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Gayle, 371 S.W.3d 391 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (grievance-initiation essential; fosters judicial economy)
Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rivera, 93 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (administrative opportunity to correct errors prior to suit)
Gregg County v. Farrar, 933 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996) (policy of providing opportunity to correct errors; autonomy of agency)
Santi v. Univ. of Texas Health Sci. Ctr. at Houston, 312 S.W.3d 800 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (discrete acts vs. continuing violation framework)
Univ. of Houston v. Barth, 178 S.W.3d 157 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (grievance initiation required for whistleblower claims)
Van Indep. Sch. Dist. v. McCarty, 165 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2005) (state supreme court on grievance prerequisites)