Ysleta Independent School District v. Marcelino Franco, 394 S.W.3d 728

Franco, a principal, reported asbestos hazards at his school to District officials via two memorandums and a third with more documentation after insufficient action.
Two months after his reports, Franco was suspended and then sued the District under the Whistleblower Act, alleging a violation of the Asbestos Act and retaliation for a good faith report.
The District filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing sovereign immunity and that Franco failed to allege an appropriate law enforcement authority to which a report could be made.
The trial court denied the plea; the District appealed on interlocutory basis under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014.
The court analyzes whether the District could be an appropriate law enforcement authority and whether Franco’s belief was both subjective and objectively reasonable.
The court held Franco produced sufficient evidence of a good faith belief that the District’s superintendent and trustees were authorized to regulate/enforce the Asbestos Act, and that belief was reasonable given training, experience, and regulatory context, thus upholding the denial of the plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Franco’s report to the District a good faith report to an appropriate authority?	Franco believed the District (superintendent/trustees) could regulate/enforce the Act.	District was not an appropriate authority to enforce the Act and thus not a valid recipient.	Yes; Franco had a good faith belief the District could regulate/enforce the Act.
Was Franco’s belief objectively reasonable in light of training and experience?	Franco’s knowledge of reporting requirements and EPA regulations supports reasonableness.	District’s authority to regulate the Act is irrelevant if not reasonably believed.	Yes; belief reasonably supported by regulatory framework and Franco’s background.
Does the Whistleblower Act provide a jurisdictional basis despite sovereign immunity?	Act waives immunity for good faith reports and jurisdictional facts need not prove the merits.	Immunity remains unless jurisdictional facts show an appropriate authority.	Yes; jurisdictional facts established; trial court properly denied the plea.

Tex. Dept. of Transp. v. Needham, 82 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. 2002) (defines good faith and appropriate authority under Whistleblower Act)
State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. 2009) (assesses whether factual allegations constitute a violation under the Act)
Moreno v. Tex. A&M Univ.-Kingsville, 339 S.W.3d 902 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 2011) (holds that good faith reporting can be found through university/agency structure)