We previously denied the petition for review in this case. 1 In its motion for rehearing, petitioner urges us to resolve the conflict in the courts of appeals over the single issue here presented. We agree that the conflict should be resolved and grant the motion for rehearing to do so.
Before suing under the Texas Whistle-blower Act, 2 a public employee must timely initiate his employer’s grievance or appeal procedures relating to employee discipline. 3 Then, as section 554.006(d) states:
If a final decision is not rendered before the 61st day after the date [such] procedures are initiated ..., the employee may elect to:
(1) exhaust the applicable procedures ..., in which event the employee must sue not later than the 30th day after the date those procedures are exhausted to obtain relief under this chapter; or
(2) terminate procedures ..., in which event the employee must sue within the time remaining under Section 554.005 to obtain relief under this chapter.
Dr. Kevin Barrett sued his former employer, the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, only 27 days after initiating grievance procedures complaining of the termination of his employment. UTMB filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that Barrett’s failure to wait 60 days before suing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction over his action. The trial court denied the plea, and a divided court of appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed. 4 We agree that the plea was properly denied.
Section 554.006 does not require that grievance or appeal procedures be exhausted before suit can be filed; rather, it requires that such procedures be timely initiated and that the grievance or appeal authority have 60 days in which to render a final decision. We need not decide here whether the failure to meet these requirements deprives the court of jurisdiction over the action. Whether the purpose of the requirements is, as the court of appeals concluded, to allow an opportunity *633 for resolution of disputes before going to court, or instead, as UTMB argues, to deny a court jurisdiction over an action unless the requirements have been satisfied, the purpose is adequately protected by abating a prematurely filed action until the end of the 60-day period, provided that the procedures have been timely initiated and can continue for the required 60 days or until a final decision is rendered, whichever occurs first. 5 To the extent other cases have suggested 6 or held 7 to the contrary, we disapprove them.
Accordingly, we grant petitioner’s motion for reheating, grant the petition for review, 8 and without hearing oral argument, 9 affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Notes
. 47 Tex. Sup.Ct. J. 1188 (Sept. 10, 2004).
. Tex. Gov't Code §§ 554.001-.010.
. Id. § 554.006(a)-(c):
"(a) A public employee must initiate action under the grievance or appeal procedures of the employing state or local governmental entity relating to suspension or termination of employment or adverse personnel action before suing under this chapter.
"(b) The employee must invoke the applicable grievance or appeal procedures not later than the 90th day after the date on which the alleged violation of this chapter:
"(1) occurred; or
"(2) was discovered by the employee through reasonable diligence.
"(c) Time used by the employee in acting under the grievance or appeal procedures is excluded, except as provided by Subsection (d), from the period established by Section 554.005.”
.
.
Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co.,
.
Watson v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist.,
.
Bellows v. Hendrick,
No. 13-03-00445-CV,
.
See
Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.225(c) (regarding the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals);
Long v. Humble Oil & Ref. Co.,
. Tex.R.App. P. 59.1.
