Office of the Attorney General v. Ginger Weatherspoon

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas held that reports made to supervisors who lacked outward-looking authority to regulate, enforce, investigate, or prosecute violations of law were not reports to an appropriate law-enforcement authority under the Texas Whistleblower Act. Applying its prior decision in Texas Department of Human Services v. Okoli, the court concluded that internal OAG reporting procedures did not satisfy the Act's requirements and that the Office of the Attorney General remained immune from suit. The court reversed the court of appeals and dismissed the case.

Holdings

1. A report is not made to an appropriate law-enforcement authority when it is made to an internal supervisor who lacks outward-looking authority to regulate, enforce, investigate, or prosecute the alleged violation, even if the supervisor must forward the report to another department that possesses such authority.
2. An entire agency does not become an appropriate law-enforcement authority merely because some of its divisions have authority to investigate or prosecute crimes.
3. Weatherspoon's reports did not satisfy the Whistleblower Act, so the OAG remained immune from suit.

Questions Presented

1. Whether reports of alleged legal violations made to internal supervisors who lacked outward-looking law-enforcement authority, but who were required to forward the reports to another OAG department, were reports to an appropriate law-enforcement authority under the Texas Whistleblower Act.
2. Whether the OAG's authority to investigate or prosecute some criminal matters, or the authority of particular OAG divisions, made the entire OAG an appropriate law-enforcement authority for purposes of the Act.
3. Whether the OAG remained immune from suit because Weatherspoon could not establish that her reports satisfied the Act's requirements.

Disposition

other