the City of Madisonville and the Madisonville Police Department v. David Sims, 620 S.W.3d 375

David Sims, a Madisonville police officer, reported that Sergeant Jeffrey Covington planned to plant drugs on his ex-wife; Chief Charles May dismissed the report.
Sims accessed departmental files via an administrative-share account and was fired on July 27, 2012 for violating the computer-use policy; a grand-jury indictment was later dismissed.
Sims appealed the discharge; at an administrative hearing on April 17, 2014, the hearing examiner reclassified his discharge as "honorable." May testified he authorized Covington’s internal investigation.
Sims filed a Whistleblower Act suit against the City and the Police Department on July 16, 2014 (90 days after the hearing but nearly two years after his discharge), alleging retaliation for reporting Covington.
The City pleaded lack of jurisdiction, arguing Sims failed to sue within the Whistleblower Act’s 90-day deadline and thus sovereign immunity was not waived; the trial court granted the plea, the court of appeals reversed, and the Texas Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court held the Act’s 90-day filing requirement is a statutory prerequisite to suit and therefore jurisdictional for claims against governmental entities, reversed the court of appeals, and dismissed Sims’s claim for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Whistleblower Act’s 90-day filing deadline is jurisdictional for suits against governmental entities	Sims: The 90-day deadline is a statute-of-limitations defense, not jurisdictional; it may be raised as an affirmative defense	City: The 90-day deadline is a mandatory statutory prerequisite to suit; under Tex. Gov't Code §311.034 it is jurisdictional and preserves sovereign immunity unless timely met	The Court held the 90-day deadline is a jurisdictional statutory prerequisite; failure to comply bars suit and supports a plea to the jurisdiction
Whether State v. Lueck bars jurisdictional pleas that challenge timeliness rather than "jurisdictional facts" pleaded under the Whistleblower Act	Sims: Lueck means only a challenge to lack of pleaded jurisdictional facts can be raised in a jurisdictional plea	City: Lueck does not preclude jurisdictional pleas based on statutory prerequisites; Chatha and §311.034 permit dismissal for procedural prerequisites	The Court found the court of appeals misapplied Lueck; Lueck does not preclude jurisdictional challenges to statutory prerequisites like the filing deadline

Prairie View A&M Univ. v. Chatha, 381 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. 2012) (statutory prerequisites to suit against governmental entities—administrative or procedural—are jurisdictional)
State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. 2009) (elements of the Whistleblower Act are jurisdictional facts but do not foreclose other jurisdictional challenges)
Centex Corp. v. Dalton, 840 S.W.2d 952 (Tex. 1992) (definition and treatment of a condition precedent)
Sims v. City of Madisonville, 584 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018) (court of appeals held the 90-day deadline was not jurisdictional; reversed by the Texas Supreme Court)