School truancy officer files complaint against senior police officer

A truancy officer in a school district police department filed a complaint against a senior police officer, alleging she mistreated and belittled him. The truancy officer claimed in a later complaint that the officer's conduct constituted the criminal offense of "official oppression" under Texas law and filed a claim for whistleblower protection. A jury ruled in favor of the truancy officer and the school district appealed.

The court of appeals began its analysis by reviewing the facts that led to the lawsuit. The truancy officer sent a letter to the school district chief of police. The letter contained complaints about his supervisor, a licensed senior police officer in the department. 

The letter outlined several incidents that had occurred, including the following: 

1. the senior police officer instructed fellow officers to take pictures of an employee engaged in any wrongdoing allegedly to get him fired,
2. the senior police officer told the school district police chief that the truancy officer was doing his own thing for parking and doing whatever he wanted, which caused the school police chief to become upset with the truancy officer. 

Then, on two separate occasions, the senior police officer commented to coworkers that the truancy officer “was a nobody in the department." 

The letter then stated that the senior police officer was continuing to badger and harass him and "look for any reason to get [him] in trouble" and concluded that the truancy officer could "no longer tolerate" or "allow" the "hostile work environment" created by the senior police officer.

Approximately a week after the truancy officer submitted his letter, he was terminated from his employment with the district after an investigation revealed possible misconduct by him. 

The district alleged that the truancy officer was terminated because of a history of disobeying orders from the senior police officer, making another female employee uncomfortable, and generally doing tasks that were not assigned to him. 

Evidence alleged that the truancy officer had brought a handgun onto school property, which had not been authorized by the school district and violated school policy. The school district police chief testified that he recommended termination because of "insubordination," "gender discrimination," and "mental anguish."

On appeal, the district argued that the lawsuit should have been dismissed before going to a jury because the truancy officer failed to prove that he had a good-faith belief that the senior police officer’s actions, as reported,  were a violation of law when he submitted his letter to the school district police chief.

The Texas Whistleblower Act prohibits a state or local government entity from taking adverse 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." 

"Good faith" means that 

1. the employee believed that the conduct reported was a violation of law and
2. the employee's belief was reasonable in light of the employee's training and experience. 

In this case, the district argued that in the truancy officer’s whistleblower complaint, he stated that he believed the actions complained of his letter constituted official oppression. 

At trial, the truancy officer maintained that the senior police officer mistreated him by abusing her position as a police officer or using her badge over him, and he in good faith believed that her mistreatment of him constituted official oppression. However, he could not explain how the officer's conduct was unlawful or criminal, as required or official oppression.

The court of appeals noted that none of the conduct described in the truancy officer’s letter to the district was illegal. 

Although the truancy officer had never been employed as a police officer, he has similar training and experience. Prior to his employment with the district, the truancy officer worked for three and a half years as a licensed security officer at a state prison, spent 12 years working as a security officer at a hospital, and had years of experience as a volunteer firefighter. He referred to himself as an "expert" in rendering his legal opinions in the trial court. The Court of Appeals therefore concluded that, with his training and experience, the truancy officer should have been able to distinguish that the senior police officer’s conduct was not unlawful, and thus, did not constitute official oppression or a violation of law.