reasoning that "Because [Whistleblower plaintiff] alleged a violation and sought relief allowed by the Act, sovereign immunity was waived."
How later courts described this case
- reasoning that "Because [Whistleblower plaintiff] alleged a violation and sought relief allowed by the Act, sovereign immunity was waived."
- stating that in construing a statute, courts may consider other statutes on the same or similar subject
- examining the language of section 554.006(a), which states an employee "must initiate action,” and disapproving of previous cases finding noncompliance with the provision as jurisdictional
- noting that purpose is to encourage parties to resolve disputes without litigation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LESLIE BROCK YATES, Justice,
dissenting on Rehearing En Banc.
For the reasons expressed in Texas Southern University v. Carter, 84 S.W.3d 787 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) and in City of San Antonio v. Marin, 19 S.W.3d 438 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000, no pet.), I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the statutory prerequisites for filing suit under the Whistleblower Act are not jurisdictional.