Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Needham
Decision Date | 09 May 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 01-0383.,01-0383. |
Citation | 82 S.W.3d 314 |
Parties | TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner, v. Eddie William NEEDHAM, Respondent. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Julie Caruthers Parsley, Office of Solicitor Gen. of Texas, John Cornyn, Jeffrey S. Boyd, Philip A. Lionberger, Katherine E. Kasten, Cavitt Wendlandt, Danica Lynn Milios, Office of Attys Gen. of Texas, Howard G. Baldwin, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, for petitioner.
John Judge, Judge & Brim, Mark W. Robinett, Jefferson K. Brim, III, Brim Arnette & Robinett, Austin, for respondent.
In this Texas Whistleblower Act suit we determine whether the Texas Department of Transportation is an appropriate law enforcement authority to which a public employee may report an alleged driving while intoxicated incident. If TxDOT is not, we must determine whether the public employee had a good faith belief that it was an appropriate law enforcement authority. The trial court rendered judgment based on the jury's verdict for Eddie Needham, TxDOT's former employee who TxDOT allegedly retaliated against because he reported a co-worker's alleged unlawful conduct to TxDOT supervisors. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. 76 S.W.3d 15.
We conclude, under the circumstances in this case, that TxDOT was not an appropriate law enforcement authority as the Whistleblower Act defines that term. We also conclude that there is no evidence to support a finding that Needham had a good faith belief that TxDOT was an appropriate law enforcement authority. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals' judgment and render judgment that Needham take nothing.
By 1996, Eddie Needham had worked for TxDOT's information systems division for twenty-three years. Needham was a crew chief in TxDOT's Geodetic Control Section. He traveled around the state with other TxDOT employees to perform global positioning surveys. On January 10, 1996, Needham and a crew member were returning from Orange to Austin. The two stopped for the night at College Station. When they arrived at the motel, Needham encountered another TxDOT crew chief, Sam Garnett, and his two crew members. The two crews decided to eat dinner together. One of Garnett's crew members, who drove a separate vehicle to the restaurant, called Needham on the radio for directions. Needham testified at trial that the co-worker's voice was slurred and that he was weaving as he walked into the restaurant. Needham also said that during dinner the co-worker's breath smelled of alcohol. Because he concluded that the co-worker was too intoxicated to drive, Needham instructed another employee to drive the intoxicated employee's car back to the motel after dinner.
Needham testified that he did not immediately report the co-worker's conduct to TxDOT because he believed that the worker's crew chief, Garnett, should do so, and because Needham feared retaliation. Accordingly, Needham waited until February 23 to report the co-worker's conduct to Lewis Keller, a supervisor at the same level as Needham's immediate supervisor, Frank Howard. Needham met with Keller to discuss whether Needham could transfer to Keller's section. During the meeting, Needham also discussed the coworker's conduct in College Station and sought Keller's advice about what to do. Keller told Needham that TxDOT's Human Resources Manual required Needham to report the incident to Needham's immediate superior. That same day, Needham met with Howard and discussed the possible transfer to Keller's department as well as the drunk driving incident involving the co-worker.
On March 1, Needham talked to Leah Coffman, Howard's supervisor, about various work matters. Needham did not mention the co-worker's conduct in College Station to Coffman, because he had already told Keller and Howard about the incident. In fact, Needham saw Keller on that day to again bring up the drunk driving incident, because Needham thought nothing was being done about the situation. On this occasion, Keller told Needham to talk to Barry Six, a TxDOT employee who dealt with human resources issues.
Needham thus met with Six later that afternoon. When Needham started to tell Six about the drunk driving incident, Six said that he already knew about the incident, management was deciding what to do, and Needham had already done everything he needed to do.
From March 4 through March 6, Needham was out with flu. When he returned to work, he again spoke to Six about the co-worker's conduct. Then, Needham suffered a relapse from the flu and stayed home until March 11.
When Needham returned to work, Coffman escorted him into Six's office to discuss concerns about Needham's travel and work assignment practices. A week later, Howard and Needham met with the division head, Coffman, Six, and another TxDOT supervisor. At that time, Howard gave Needham a progressive disciplinary action document charging Needham with thirteen violations of TxDOT policies and procedures. The violations included a charge that Needham unnecessarily traveled to College Station with no TxDOT business to conduct, secured lodging in College Station rather than return to Austin headquarters, and encouraged other employees to do the same. Based on these allegations, Howard demoted Needham and placed him on probation for twelve months. Needham testified that he was shocked and devastated about these charges, because he had never received a reprimand during his twenty-three years with TxDOT.
In early April 1996, Needham initiated an administrative appeal of the adverse employment decision. Needham also left work on sick leave and eventually took early retirement on December 31, 1996. After abandoning his administrative appeal, Needham sued TxDOT and alleged, among other things, a Whistleblower Act claim. See TEX. GOV'T CODE §§ 554.001-010.
TxDOT moved for summary judgment on the Whistleblower Act claim. TxDOT asserted that Needham had not reported a violation of law to an appropriate law enforcement authority as the Whistleblower Act requires. However, the trial court denied TxDOT's motion. After a trial, the jury found in Needham's favor. Needham moved for judgment on the verdict, and TxDOT moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court entered judgment on the jury's verdict, and, in response to TxDOT's request, filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found and concluded that Needham reported a violation of law to an appropriate law enforcement authority, and that TxDOT took adverse personnel action against Needham in retaliation for the report.
TxDOT appealed and asserted that there was no evidence or insufficient evidence to show that TxDOT violated the Whistleblower Act. The court of appeals concluded that TxDOT's disciplinary action policy gives it the power to discipline an employee "on account of an alleged violation being reported." 76 S.W.3d at 23. Thus, the court of appeals held, TxDOT qualified as an appropriate law enforcement authority. 76 S.W.3d at 21. The court of appeals also held that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that "Needham's report of [the co-worker's] conduct constituted a good faith report of a violation of law to an appropriate law enforcement authority." 76 S.W.3d at 21. Finally, the court of appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that TxDOT retaliated against Needham because of his report. 76 S.W.3d at 21. We granted TxDOT's petition for review to determine if the court of appeals correctly applied the Whistleblower Act to conclude that Needham reported a violation of law to a government entity that he in good faith believed was an "appropriate law enforcement authority."
Texas's Whistleblower Act prohibits a state or local governmental entity from taking adverse personnel action against "a public employee who in good faith reports a violation of law by the employing governmental entity or another public employee to an appropriate law enforcement authority." TEX. GOV'T CODE § 554.002(a). Before 1995, the Whistleblower Act did not define the term "appropriate law enforcement authority." However, the Legislature's 1995 amendments to the statute added a provision to do so. See Act of May 25, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S. ch. 721, §§ 1-12, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 3812 . Thus, section 554.002 of the Whistleblower Act provides:
(b) In this section, a report is made to an appropriate law enforcement authority if the authority is part of a state or local governmental entity or the federal government that the employee in good faith believes is authorized to:
(1) regulate under or enforce the law alleged to be violated in the report; or
(2) investigate or prosecute a violation of criminal law.
In construing a statute, "our objective is to determine and give effect to the Legislature's intent." Nat'l Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v. Allen, 15 S.W.3d 525, 527 (Tex.2000); see Albertson's, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958, 960 (Tex.1999). Ordinarily, we first look at the statute's plain and common meaning. Allen, 15 S.W.3d at 527; Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc., 996 S.W.2d 864, 865 (Tex.1999). But if a statute defines a term, a court is bound to construe that term by its statutory definition only. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 311.011(b); Transp. Ins. Co. v. Faircloth, 898 S.W.2d 269, 274 (Tex. 1995); Tijerina v. City of Tyler, 846 S.W.2d 825, 827 (Tex.1992).
Further, courts should not give an undefined statutory term a meaning out of harmony or inconsistent with other provisions, although it might be susceptible of such a construction if standing alone. See Barr v. Bernhard, 562 S.W.2d 844, 849 (Tex.1978); Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Finlan, 27 S.W.3d 220,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Acad., Ltd.
...a particular meaning or assigned a particular meaning to a term, we are bound by the statutory usage." (citing Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Needham , 82 S.W.3d 314, 318 (Tex. 2002) )). In construing and applying the PLCAA, we are bound by the PLCAA's definition, the Texas common-law understandi......
-
Dallas County Community College v. Bolton
... ... No. 02-1110 ... Supreme Court of Texas ... Argued January 7, 2004 ... Decided December 2, 2005 ... Ramirez, 109 S.W.3d 741, 745 (Tex.2003) (citing Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Needham, 82 S.W.3d 314, 318 ... Page 873 ... (Tex.2002)). We must ... ...
-
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
...accordingly."). 84. Tijerina v. City of Tyler, 846 S.W.2d 825, 827 (Tex. 1992). 85. See supra note 20. 86. Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Needham, 82 S.W.3d 314, 318 (Tex.2002); see also Transp. Ins. Co. v. Faircloth, 898 S.W.2d 269, 274 (Tex. 1995) ("[w]e are bound to construe these terms in acc......
-
Williams v. City of Port Arthur, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-823
...of law, and (2) the employee's belief was reasonable in light of the employee's training and experience." Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Needham, 82 S.W.3d 314, 320 (Tex. 2002) (citing Wichita Cnty. v. Hart, 917 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. 1996)). "The test's first element—the 'honesty in fact' element......
-
Texas Whistleblower Act
...satisfy the standard under the Act for what constitutes an “appropriate law enforcement authority.” Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Needham , 82 S.W.3d 314, 319-20 (Tex. 2002). In Needham , the Texas Supreme Court concluded that a law enforcement agency must have the authority to “regulate under,......
-
Table of cases
...filed), §34:2.B Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda , 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004), §34:1.A.2 Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Needham, 82 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. 2002), §34:2.B Texas Disposal Systems v. Perez , 80 S.W.3d 593 (Tex. 2002), §32:2.D.5 Texas Division-Tranter, Inc. v. Carrozza , 876 S.W.......
-
Texas whistleblower Act
...satisfy the standard under the Act for what constitutes an “appropriate law enforcement authority.” Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Needham , 82 S.W.3d 314, 319-20 (Tex. 2002). In Needham , the Texas Supreme Court concluded that a law enforcement agency must have the authority to “regulate under,......
-
Texas Whistleblower Act
...satisfy the standard under the Act for what constitutes an “appropriate law enforcement authority.” Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Needham , 82 S.W.3d 314, 319-20 (Tex. 2002). In Needham , the Texas Supreme Court concluded that a law enforcement agency must have the authority to “regulate under,......