The Ninth District Court of Appeals in Texas has ruled in favor of the City of Montgomery, overturning a lower court’s decision and dismissing a lawsuit brought by David McCorquodale, the city’s former Assistant City Administrator and Planning/Development Director. The case centered around McCorquodale’s claim that he was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for reporting alleged misconduct by the police chief. The appeals court found that McCorquodale failed to meet a crucial procedural requirement under the Texas Whistleblower Act: initiating the city’s grievance process before filing a lawsuit.
The Heart of the Matter: The Whistleblower Act and Grievance Procedures
The Texas Whistleblower Act protects public employees who report violations of law by their government employers. However, the Act also sets specific requirements for employees seeking to sue under its protections. One of the most important is found in Section 554.006, which states that an employee “must initiate action under the grievance or appeal procedures” of their employing entity before filing a lawsuit. This means, before taking the city to court, McCorquodale was required to use the city’s internal process for addressing employee complaints.
The City’s Argument: No Grievance Filed
The City of Montgomery argued that McCorquodale had not followed the proper grievance procedures. The city’s policy manual, which McCorquodale acknowledged receiving and reading, outlined a process for employees to appeal disciplinary actions, including termination. The city presented evidence, including documents and testimony from the City Secretary, showing that McCorquodale did not submit a written grievance related to his termination. The city contended that this failure to initiate the grievance process deprived the court of jurisdiction over the case.
McCorquodale’s Response: Attempts Frustrated
McCorquodale argued that he had attempted to file a grievance, but the city had frustrated his efforts. He claimed that he was told by city officials that the grievance policy did not apply to him, and that he was not required to follow it. He also argued that he did not know where to file the grievance, as the person he would have filed the grievance with, the City Administrator, was also terminated.
The Court’s Decision: No Evidence of Grievance Initiation
The appeals court sided with the City of Montgomery, finding that McCorquodale had not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he had initiated the city’s grievance process. The court carefully reviewed the evidence presented, including McCorquodale’s affidavit, in which he stated that he had asked the City Administrator about filing a grievance against Mayor Countryman before his termination. The court pointed out that this conversation occurred before McCorquodale’s termination and related to an entirely separate matter. The court found no evidence that McCorquodale had attempted to file a grievance regarding his termination itself.
The court also rejected McCorquodale’s arguments that the city had frustrated his efforts. The court noted that McCorquodale had not provided evidence to support this claim. Also, the court stated that McCorquodale’s argument that he had “no one to appeal to” failed because the city’s grievance procedure included other parties to whom he could have provided notice of his grievance.
The court emphasized that the purpose of the Whistleblower Act’s grievance requirement is to give the government entity a chance to investigate and resolve disputes before going to court. Since McCorquodale did not follow the required procedures, the court determined it did not have the authority to hear his case.
The Ruling: Case Dismissed
The appeals court concluded that the trial court had erred in denying the City of Montgomery’s plea to the jurisdiction. The court reversed the lower court’s order and dismissed McCorquodale’s claims against the city for lack of jurisdiction.