Supervisors of city police department’s internal affairs and special investigations units brought action against city under Texas Whistleblower Act alleging that they were unlawfully disciplined for making good faith report of violation of law.
The District Court denied city’s motion for summary judgment, and it appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and city petitioned for review.
The Supreme Court held that supervisors’ statements regarding consequences they believed that officer should have faced for misconduct did not constitute “reports” protected by Whistleblower Act.
Statements by supervisors of city police department’s internal affairs and special investigations units to police chief regarding department’s internal policies and consequences they believed that officer should have faced for misconduct did not constitute “reports” protected by Whistleblower Act; supervisors did not supply chief with new information about officer’s conduct or corroborate facts that were unverified or subject to dispute, and their objective was not to unearth or prove unlawful conduct, but to persuade chief to classify officer’s known actions as criminal conduct and to terminate his employment.