 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Patton v. Harris County Community Supervision and Corrections Dep't11/23/2005
This appeal arises from a final judgment dismissing Shawn Patton's Texas Whistleblower Act claims against Harris County Community Supervision and Corrections Department ("HCCSCD"). The final judgment is based on HCCSCD's plea to the jurisdiction and motions for summary judgment. We reverse and remand.
HCCSCD provides supervision for Harris County probationers pursuant to Chapter 76 of the Texas Government Code. It is managed by a board of judges trying criminal cases in Harris County. HCCSCD's chief executive officer at the relevant time was Nancy Platt, and Mike Enax was its deputy director. Patton managed ten community supervision officers ("CSOs") in HCCSCD's south region and reported to his branch director, Rogelio Perez. In November of 2001, HCCSCD reorganized, requiring Patton to review his CSOs' cases. Patton discovered and subsequently sent approximately thirty problematic cases to one district court. The judge of that court subsequently contacted Platt and asked for an independent audit of cases supervised by the south region. Another district court made a similar request. These audits revealed additional noncompliance issues and indicated that Patton had neglected his supervisory duties. In early March of 2002, Perez spoke with Patton about his performance issues, and Patton accepted responsibility for failing to monitor his CSOs. Perez recommended, and Enax approved, a Level II disciplinary action plan designed to address Patton's work deficiencies. A date was set in June to review Patton's compliance with this plan. Patton does not challenge the propriety of Perez's disciplinary action.
Per the requirements of his disciplinary plan, Patton audited his CSOs' caseloads again, and again discovered problems. One CSO in particular failed to meet with two probationers for four months, and then falsely reported those cases as being "directly" supervised. Patton reported the problems to Perez and was advised he should inform the court with jurisdiction over the cases. On April 3, 2002, Patton informed the court's liaison officer and assistant district attorneys of the problems. Within a few days, the judge of that court asked Platt to remove Patton and the CSO from her court team. On April 25th, the board of judges met with Platt and discussed their dissatisfaction with the level of supervision at HCCSCD. Platt held a meeting in the south region on May 1st to discuss problems with casework performance, wherein Platt generally stated that people would be held accountable. Patton was terminated immediately after the meeting. The decision to fire Patton was made by Platt and carried out by Enax. Perez, Patton's immediate supervisor, was not a party to the decision and knew of no circumstances justifying termination: Patton was in compliance with his supervisory duties and disciplinary plan when he was fired. Four months later, the board of judges entered a "no confidence" vote in Platt's performance, and she resigned.
Patton filed suit against HCCSCD asserting a violation of the Texas Whistleblower Act. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. ยงยง 554.001-010 (Vernon 2004). Specifically, Patton alleged Platt was already facing criticism about HCCSCD's generally poor level of supervision when Patton made his report, which increased the amount of scrutiny Platt faced as HCCSCD's chief executive officer. Patton alleges his termination was a ploy by Platt to reassure the judges of her performance and thereby avoid her own termination. Patton argues that, in his twenty-two years at HCCSCD, no supervisor has ever been fired because of CSO performance problems. HCCSCD filed a plea to the jurisdiction, a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, and a supplemental motion for summary judgment in response
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Texas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|