The Texas Whistleblower Act (TWA), found in Texas Government Code Chapter 554, enables public employees to sue the government. However, the TWA also establishes strict limitations. Unless all procedural requirements are met, courts are likely to dismiss an employee’s whistleblower case for lack of jurisdiction. Past cases offer insight to those considering whether to assert their whistleblower rights.

Can Employees Sue the Government in Texas?

The Texas Whistleblower Act (TWA) grants courts jurisdiction over qualifying whistleblower claims. The TWA outlines the conditions an employee must meet for courts to have jurisdiction over their claim. If any conditions are not met, the defending public entity can challenge the claim with a plea to the jurisdiction. If the employer’s jurisdictional plea succeeds, the public entity maintains their immunity from suit, and the court will dismiss the whistleblower claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The Role of Case Law in Assessing Your Whistleblower Claim

Reviewing past cases is critical to understanding what a whistleblower claim needs to succeed in Texas. This is because the court will consider earlier interpretations and applications of the Texas Whistleblower Act when considering the claim.

Decisions issued by the higher courts create precedent, or “case law.” Case law guides lower courts’ interpretation, enforcement, and application of that law. This helps ensure fair and consistent application of law, rather than a piecemeal case-by-case approach which may result in unfair outcomes. It also helps would-be whistleblowers assess the strength of their own claim.

Before Filing a Whistleblower Claim Under Texas Law

The Texas Whistleblower Act stipulates procedural requirements that employees must satisfy to trigger its legal protections:

• Use of Grievance or Appeal Procedures (§554.006)
• Limitation Period (§554.005)

The following cases offer insight into how courts interpret and apply the Texas Whistleblower Act across a variety of whistleblower claims. Note: these cases cover far more information, but here we focus on a few key procedural issues and takeaways for whistleblower purposes.

Learn about the qualifications required for a valid whistleblower claim from our article: The Texas Whistleblower Act: A Basic Overview

Procedural Requirement 1: Use of Grievance or Appeal Procedures (§554.006)

An employee must first challenge the alleged retaliation through the employer’s formal grievance or appeal process before filing suit in court.

Case Study: City of Houston v. Garcia (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2023)

Issue: What if the employer has no formal grievance or appeal process available?

Context: In this Texas whistleblower case, Garcia was a probationary employee of the City of Houston. She filed a whistleblower claim alleging her employer fired her in retaliation for her protected whistleblower activity.

Employer’s Argument: The City of Houston made a plea to the jurisdiction by arguing that Garcia failed to meet the TWA’s requirement to first challenge her termination with the employer through an administrative process before filing suit in court.

Employee’s Argument: Garcia, as a probationary employee, was not entitled to review under the employer’s policies. Because the standard grievance procedure was not available to her, she could not meet the administrative requirement.

The Court’s Finding: Even without a formal procedure, the employee must still provide fair notice to the employer that she is seeking administrative review of her termination and intends to appeal.

Why This Whistleblower Claim Failed

The court followed its own precedent: The fact that an employer lacks a formal grievance procedure does not mean the employee need not alert the employer of their intent to challenge the adverse action, even if only informally.

Key Takeaway for Texas Whistleblowers

Before filing suit in court, whistleblowers must meet the TWA’s procedural requirement to notify their employer that they are seeking review of the adverse action taken against them. This requirement is not waived for employees of employers without a formal grievance or appeal process.

Case Study: City of Fort Worth v. Burke (Tex. App.—Dallas April 26, 2023)

Issue: To what extent must an employee engage the employer’s grievance or appeal process?

Context: Burke was an employee of the City of Fort Worth who reported multiple violations of law; he alleged five instances of retaliation.

Employer’s Argument: The employer argued that the employee refused to follow the employer’s whistleblower appeal process. Thus the employee failed to meet a statutory prerequisite of the TWA and his whistleblower claim should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Employee’s Argument: The employee claims he invoked the employer’s grievance procedures via his attorney’s letter. Per TWA requirements under §554.006, the employee terminated the grievance process after sixty-one days and filed suit after the employer failed to issue a final decision.

The Court’s Finding: The TWA requires employees to “initiate” but not “exhaust” the employer’s grievance procedures. The underlying purpose of Section 554.006 is to give the employer a chance to investigate and correct the issue themselves, thereby potentially avoiding costly litigation. The employee is not required to follow the employer’s particular procedures to their full extent, so long as they provide the employer adequate time to address the matter (i.e. at least 60 days).

Why This Whistleblower Claim Succeeded

The grievance process was “timely initiated.” The employer had at least 60 days to make a final decision before the employee filed suit.

Key Takeaway

Employees must begin the employer’s administrative grievance or appeal process in order to provide the employer with an adequate chance to investigate, review, and correct the issue themselves (i.e. 60 days). However, the employee is not required to exhaust the process.

Procedural Requirement 2: Limitation Period (§554.005)

The Texas Whistleblower Act provides employees with 90 days to file a whistleblower claim, starting from when the employee experiences or discovers the unlawful retaliation.

Case Study: City of Madisonville, et al., v Sims (Tex. April 17, 2020)

Issue: Is the 90-day deadline to file suit jurisdictional?

Context: Sims was a Madisonville City police officer who sued the City under the Texas Whistleblower Act after the 90-day deadline. The City’s jurisdictional plea succeeded in trial court, but failed in the court of appeals, which found that the 90-day deadline was not jurisdictional.

Employer’s Argument: The 90-day deadline to file a report is a procedural requirement of the act and is jurisdictional. Unless the employee files a claim within 90 days, the government does not waive its immunity to suit.

Employee’s Argument: The employee claims he did not miss the deadline because he filed his claim within 90 days of learning about the authority behind the internal investigation that led to his unlawful termination.

The Court’s Finding: The TWA’s 90-day time limit is a jurisdictional prerequisite. The Texas Whistleblower Act permits individuals to file suit against the government only in limited circumstances. If the individual attempting to sue the government fails to meet the law’s procedural requirements, then the individual cannot file suit because the courts lack jurisdiction. The employee failed to meet the deadline in this case.

Why This Whistleblower Claim Failed

Individuals must file their reports within the Texas Whistleblower Act’s 90-day deadline in order to qualify for its legal protections. If a report is filed after the 90-day deadline, the defending governmental entity may rightly file a jurisdictional plea, and the suit will be dismissed.

Key Takeaway for Texas Whistleblowers

The statutory procedural requirements outlined in the TWA, including the 90-day statute of limitations, are not flexible. If a claim fails to meet one of these requirements, it will likely be dismissed.

Before Asserting Your Rights as a Public Employee

Texas whistleblower claims frequently hinge on the question of jurisdiction. It is common for cases to be dismissed because the employee’s claim failed to meet one or more procedural requirements of the Texas Whistleblower Act.

Missed deadlines are a common point of failure, but rushing to action may be just as costly. It is critical, therefore, to seek counsel and support as early in the process as possible. Discussing your options with an attorney is highly advised: especially for Texas Whistleblower matters.

Texas employment is subject to laws and regulations that differ significantly from those in other states. Consulting with a Texas employment lawyer can make all the difference. Tully Rinckey’s team of dedicated employment attorneys is available to assist you today. Please call 8885294543 to schedule a consultation, or schedule a consultation online.

Michael C. Fallings focuses his practice on federal sector labor and employment law, and has extensive experience litigating cases on behalf of employees at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and in both state and federal courts. Mike also serves employees in Texas private employment matters, including claims of discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, FMLA violations, severance agreement negotiations, and breach of employment contract matters. He has received numerous awards, including the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America, LawDragon 500 the Next Generation (2024-25), Lawdragon 500 Leading Civil Rights & Plaintiff Employment Lawyers (2025), National Black Lawyers Top 40 under 40, and Super Lawyers Rising Star (2023).

This article is for informational purposes only. Its content is not intended to constitute endorsement or legal advice, nor does it establish a client-lawyer relationship with Tully Rinckey PLLC or any of its affiliates.