Tarrant County, Texas v. Deborah L. McQuary ( 2010 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-09-306-CV
TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS APPELLANT
V.
DEBORAH L. MCQUARY APPELLEE
------------
FROM THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
OPINION
------------
I. Introduction
In one issue, Appellant Tarrant County, Texas, brings this interlocutory
appeal, asserting that the trial court erred by denying its plea to the jurisdiction.
See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8) (Vernon 2008). We
reverse and render.
II. Background
Appellee Deborah L. McQuary sued Tarrant County, alleging that it had
terminated her employment in violation of the Texas Whistleblower Act. See
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 554.001–.010 (Vernon 2004). In its plea to the
jurisdiction, Tarrant County argued that McQuary failed to satisfy government
code section 554.006’s jurisdictional prerequisites when she failed to provide
any notice that she was alleging retaliation for whistleblowing during the
administrative appeal of her termination. The trial court denied Tarrant
County’s plea to the jurisdiction, and this interlocutory appeal followed.
III. Plea to the Jurisdiction
A. Standard of Review
A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea used to defeat a cause of action
without regard to whether the claims asserted have merit. Bland Indep. Sch.
Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000); City of Fort Worth v. Shilling,
266 S.W.3d 97, 101 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, pet. denied). The plea
challenges the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Bland, 34 S.W.3d at
554. Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law
that we review de novo. Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT-Davy,
74 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex. 2002).
2
The plaintiff has the burden of alleging facts that affirmatively establish
the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air
Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993); Shilling, 266 S.W.3d at 101.
We construe the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiff, look to the pleader’s
intent, and accept the pleadings’ factual allegations as true. Tex. Dep’t of
Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). If a plea to
the jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, as in this case,
we consider relevant evidence submitted by the parties that is necessary to
resolve the jurisdictional issues. Id. at 227; Bland, 34 S.W.3d at 555. The
pleadings relevant to a review of a plea to the jurisdiction include amended
petitions, the plea to the jurisdiction, and responses filed in connection with a
defendant’s plea to the jurisdiction. City of Austin v. Ender, 30 S.W.3d 590,
593 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.).
A trial court’s review of a plea to the jurisdiction challenging the existence
of jurisdictional facts mirrors that of a traditional motion for summary judgment.
Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228; Shilling, 266 S.W.3d at 101; see also Tex. R.
Civ. P. 166a(c). The governmental unit is required to meet the summary
judgment standard of proof for its assertion that the trial court lacks jurisdiction.
Shilling, 266 S.W.3d at 101 (citing Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228). The plaintiff
is then required to show that there is a disputed material fact regarding the
3
jurisdictional issue. Id. If the evidence creates a fact question regarding
jurisdiction, the trial court must deny the plea to the jurisdiction and leave its
resolution to the fact finder. Id. But if the evidence is undisputed or fails to
raise a fact question on the jurisdictional issue, the trial court rules on the plea
to the jurisdiction as a matter of law. Id.
B. Statutory Scheme
The Whistleblower Act has a twofold purpose: (1) protecting a public
employee from retaliation by her employer when, in good faith, the employee
reports a violation of law, and (2) securing lawful conduct on the part of those
who direct and conduct the affairs of public bodies. Ender, 30 S.W.3d at 594;
see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 554.002(a) (“A state or local governmental
entity may not suspend or terminate the employment of, or take other 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.”).
The applicable portion of the government code states, “A public employee
must initiate action under the grievance or appeal procedures of the employing
state or local governmental entity relating to suspension or termination of
employment or adverse personnel action before suing under this chapter.” Tex.
Gov’t Code Ann. § 554.006(a) (emphasis added). “Section 554.006 does not
4
require that grievance or appeal procedures be exhausted before suit can be
filed; rather, it requires that such procedures be timely initiated and that the
grievance or appeal authority have 60 days in which to render a final decision.”
Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Barrett, 159 S.W.3d 631, 632 (Tex.
2005); see also Shilling, 266 S.W.3d at 102 (“The requirement that an
employee ‘initiate’ grievance procedures before filing suit is to afford the
employer an opportunity to correct its errors by resolving disputes before
litigation.”). Compare Aguilar v. Socorro Indep. Sch. Dist., 296 S.W.3d 785,
789 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.) (stating that, in light of section
554.006(d), the change in statutory language from “exhaust” to “initiate” in
section 554.006(a) has no effect on the implementation of the statute), with
Med. Arts Hosp. v. Robison, 216 S.W.3d 38, 43–44 (Tex. App.—Eastland
2006, no pet.) (stating that the change from “exhaust” to “initiate” promotes
a more liberal construction of the act by focusing less on whether the employee
has complied with all of the procedural requirements of a grievance and asking
instead if the governmental entity received the required notice).
As presented both in briefing and oral argument before this court, the
questions in this appeal are: (1) Was McQuary required, in initiating action
under the grievance procedure, to put Tarrant County on notice that she was
asserting a Whistleblower Act claim? (2) If she was so required, did she give
5
such notice? (3) And if she was so required and no such notice was given, was
she wrongfully prevented from providing such notice?
We answer the first question in the affirmative, holding that, as a
prerequisite to bringing a Whistleblower Act claim, a government employee
must provide reasonable notice that she is making a Whistleblower Act claim
in the initiation of the grievance or appeal procedures related to the suspension
or termination of employment or adverse personnel action. We answer the
second two questions in the negative.
C. Matters Considered
In December 2005, the Tarrant County Sheriff’s Office hired McQuary,
a registered nurse, as its first “Jail Medical Liaison.” Executive Chief Deputy
Bob Knowles was McQuary’s direct supervisor. In June 2006, at the end of
McQuary’s 180-day probationary period, Sheriff Dee Anderson terminated
McQuary’s employment.
McQuary filed suit against Tarrant County, alleging that she had been
terminated in retaliation for reporting violations of law. Specifically, McQuary
claimed:
Within one week of employment, [she] began being subjected
to a hostile environment anytime she expressed or voiced any
concerns regarding patient rights, health concerns regarding the
inmates, or the failure to follow state or federal law. On or about
December 29, 2005, [she] approached her supervisor regarding [a]
6
letter she wanted to send to the Sheriff. The letters were a
summary of her visits with staff regarding policy and procedures for
the medical records (including HIPPA violations) and recommended
training for staff regarding same. On December 30, 2005, [she]
again spoke with her supervisor about corresponding with [the]
Sheriff about other legal violations regarding TB testing and reading
and the Standing Order and Protocols for treating inmates. Her
supervisor’s response was to tell her she was “making Dr. Byrd
mad” and deny her access to JPS Policies and Procedures and her
own job description. He also stated, “We must be careful what we
write and how we write it and what goes to the Sheriff.” These
actions began a pattern of [McQuary] disclosing problem areas and
violations of law, as well as recommendations for resolutions, only
to be . . . treated poorly by Dr. Byrd and ordered by her supervisor
to ignore legal violations and problem areas.
In good faith, [she] reported violations of federal and state
law by JPS and the Sheriff’s Office regarding medical treatment,
services and practices to Executive Chief Deputy Sheriff Bob
Knowles. . . . In good faith, [she] believed that Deputy Knowles,
as a member of the Sheriff’s Office, had the authority to regulate
under or enforce the laws alleged to have been violated, or to
investigate or prosecute a violation of criminal law. [She] was led
to believe that her concerns regarding illegal activities were being
forwarded to the Sheriff. [Her] supervisor was deliberately
indifferent to [her] disclosures of these legal violations and made a
conscious choice not to act or investigate the violations, and
prevented [her] from taking any actions on her own to resolve the
violations of law, or [to] inform and seek assistance [from] anyone
else. With regard to [her] disclosure about the inadequacy of the
TB testing of the JPS staff itself, his response was he “hoped they
all died from TB.”
Because of [her] good faith disclosures and reports of
violations of laws, she was threatened, harassed, and ultimately
fired . . . .
7
Tarrant County filed a plea to the jurisdiction, attaching to it Sheriff
Anderson’s affidavit; a copy of the notice of termination from Sheriff Anderson
to McQuary, dated June 9, 2006, which set out her termination date as June
16, 2006, and informed her that rule 8.08 of the Sheriff’s Department Civil
Service Rules allowed her five working days to appeal to the sheriff; a copy of
rule 8.08 of the Sheriff’s Department Civil Service Rules; 1 a copy of McQuary’s
June 12, 2006 letter to Sheriff Anderson; a copy of an undated letter from
McQuary to Sheriff Anderson; and a copy of a letter dated June 16, 2006, from
Sheriff Anderson to McQuary, stating that the termination would stand and that
she had exhausted her administrative appeals process. In its plea to the
jurisdiction, Tarrant County argued that McQuary never mentioned anything
related to whistleblowing activities, reports of misconduct, or opposition to
anything illegal or allegedly illegal when appealing her termination to the sheriff.
1
 Civil Service Rule 8.08 states, in pertinent part,
(1) The employee on probation who receives . . . a notice of
termination, may appeal to the Sheriff within five (5) working days.
(2) The Sheriff shall have ten (10) working days to review the
appeal.
(3) The decision of the Sheriff shall be final in cases of original . . .
probation.
8
In Sheriff Anderson’s affidavit, he discussed McQuary’s termination and
the subsequent correspondence between himself and McQuary attached to the
affidavit and the plea to the jurisdiction. In her June 12, 2006 letter, McQuary
stated the following:
I am aware newly hired employees of the Tarrant County Sheriff’s
Office serve a probationary period of one hundred and eighty (180)
days. Chapter 8 of the Tarrant County Sheriff’s Department Civil
Service Rules regarding probation 8.06 reads: EVALUATION OF
PROBATIONARY PERIOD. The probationer shall be evaluated at
least twice during the probationary period by their immediate
supervisor. One evaluation must be at the midpoint of the
probationary period and a second evaluation must be not less than
(10) days prior to the end of the probationary period.
As of this day, June 12, 2006, I have not received any evaluations;
written or oral. Pursuant to Chapter 8 of the Tarrant County
Sheriff’s Department Civil Service Rules my first evaluation should
have been March 20, 2006 and the second evaluation should have
been somewhere between June 9-19, 2006. My first day of
employment is December 21, 2005. I received the termination of
probationary employment on June 9, 2006. On January 25, 2006,
Chief Knowles told me to disregard my job description. Within the
next few days, I discussed this with Chief Key and he advised me
to keep a record.
The information included proves the non-compliance with Tarrant
County Sheriff’s Department Civil Service Rules.
In the second, undated letter to Sheriff Anderson, McQuary stated:
It appears the probationary period was completed successfully and
there is no documentation that exists showing otherwise. Medical
liaison for the entire Sheriff’s Department rather than just jail liaison
will broaden the scope and duties of the position. I am happy to
work with Chief Knowles and have no hard feelings. Considering
9
the recent progression, I request to continue employment with [the]
Tarrant County Sheriff’s Department as the medical liaison with
your immediate supervision. With this arrangement, I will receive
direction and communication and a revised job description.
With regard to McQuary’s letters, Sheriff Anderson stated in his affidavit
that he
understood the two documents to comprise a request for continued
employment, but nothing in the documents suggested that she felt
that she was being retaliated against on any basis whatsoever.
Neither document made any reference to any reports of any law
violations or reports of misconduct which she was claiming to have
made prior to [his] issuance of the June 9, 2006 letter stating [his]
intention to terminate her employment. She said nothing to [him]
which gave [him] any reason to suspect that she was or had been
claiming to be a whistleblower and [he] was not aware of her
making claims of this nature to anyone else.
He also stated that at the end of McQuary’s probationary period,
[he] concluded, based upon [his] personal observations and reports
from other people who worked with her or observed her work in
the jail, that [] McQuary was not the right fit for the new position
and [he] made the decision to terminate her employment at the end
of that probationary period.
In her affidavit attached to her response to Tarrant County’s plea to the
jurisdiction, McQuary included the information stated in her pleadings and
added:
During my “appeal hearing” with Sheriff Dee Anderson, I attempted
to explain in detail to the Sheriff the problems and issues I was
having during my employment. Sheriff Anderson refused to listen
to any such statements and just walked out and said he “would
look into it” and that he was “late for a meeting.” Also at this
10
“hearing” I attempted to give Sheriff Anderson notes that detailed
issues with law violation at the jail in the past. I advised Sheriff
Anderson that “I had no hard feelings toward Chief Knowles and
that I was still willing to work with him.” However, I did not wish
to work directly under Chief Knowles and would prefer to be
directly under Sheriff Anderson. Any time I tried to explain the
particulars of my termination, including the retaliation for reports of
law violations, I was immediately cut-off by Sheriff Anderson and
told that he had to be somewhere else. My “appeal hearing” lasted
approximately one minute; therefore I was not allowed to detail any
of my complaints, including whistleblower complaints and
retaliation complaints, at that time. I was purposefully prevented
from voicing these issues and complaints by Sheriff Dee Anderson
and other members of the Sheriff’s Department, in an effort to
thwart my legal rights.
After taking the matter under consideration, the trial court denied Tarrant
County’s plea to the jurisdiction, setting out the following reasons in a letter to
the parties:
The County stated in its presentation that the Civil Service
Rules which govern appeals to the Sheriff do not require that the
employee make a written appeal. I agree. An employee may make
an oral appeal or supplement a written appeal orally.
The written notice of appeal does not use the words
retaliation, whistleblower[,] or state [McQuary] was fired because
she complained about illegal or inappropriate activities. However,
[McQuary’s] written notice does allege that Chief Knowles told her
to disregard her job description and that Chief Key, upon being told
of this action by Chief Knowles, advised her to keep a record. The
reason Chief Knowles allegedly told her to disregard her job
description and Chief Key allegedly advised her to keep a record is
not stated in the written notice of appeal. [] McQuary claims that
she was going to orally supplement the notice when she had her
appellate hearing with the Sheriff.
11
After [] McQuary filed her notice of appeal, she met with the
Sheriff for the purpose of presenting her appeal of her termination.
Based on the affidavits of Sheriff Anderson and [] McQuary, there
is a factual dispute as to whether [] McQuary tried to inform the
Sheriff of her alleged Whistleblower activities and the alleged
retaliation. [] McQuary states in her affidavit that any attempt to
discuss these topics was rebuffed and that the appeal hearing
lasted less than a minute.
The clear tenor of the Sheriff’s affidavit denies any such
attempt when he states that “She said nothing to me which gave
me any reason to suspect that she was or had been claiming to be
a Whistleblower, and I was not aware of her making claims of this
nature to anyone else.”
I am of the opinion that the written allegations concerning
Chief Knowles and Chief Key, plus the affidavits of [] McQuary and
Sheriff Anderson, raise a fact issue as to whether or not []
McQuary was prevented from exhausting her administrative
remedies.
D. Analysis
1. Notice Requirement
We hold that McQuary was required to give reasonable notice to Tarrant
County that she was asserting a Whistleblower Act claim. See Robison, 216
S.W.3d at 43; Montgomery County Hosp. v. Smith, 181 S.W.3d 844, 850
(Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.).
“Notice” means “fair notice”—that is, notice of the employee’s intent to
appeal a disciplinary decision and notice of which decision or decisions the
employee intends to appeal. Smith, 181 S.W.3d at 850 (holding that, in the
12
absence of a statutory standard or a standard created by an employee manual
detailing the required contents of a public employee’s notice of appeal, an
employee must give fair notice of her decision to appeal and of the decision
appealed from). In Smith, the employee alleged in her pleadings that she had
been fired for reporting to a board member that the hospital district’s CEO
entered into a contract to sell a building owned by the hospital district. Id. at
845–46. The hospital district argued that her termination was based on her
poor job performance and conduct unrelated to her retaliation claim. Id. at 846.
After her termination, Smith sent the CEO an email requesting that he
reconsider the amount of severance offered in exchange for a release of her
claims. 2 Id. But she contended on appeal that the email constituted an appeal
2
 The email stated:
I hope that you had a good holiday with your family. I have spoken
to Stacy regarding the release of claims document. She told me
that you were standing by the number of 4,200 for my release. I
am sincerely asking you to please reconsider. I know that you have
a good heart and that is why I am even asking again. It would help
my family out tremendously with the upcoming holidays and such
to have the extra monies to keep us afloat for a little while. Again,
I am sincerely asking to please, please reconsider. When I spoke
to Greg he said that you were able to, but had to make the
decision. I enjoyed working with you and the organization and am
truly sorry for the way things worked out.
Please let me know so I may come to the District to finalize
ever[y]thing.
13
of the decision to terminate her employment. Id. Upon reviewing the email,
the court concluded that Smith failed to initiate the appeal process required for
a Whistleblower Act claim because “no reasonably prudent employer could have
been subjectively aware that Smith, by virtue of [her] e-mail, desired to invoke
the [hospital district’s] disciplinary appeal process with respect to her
termination.” Id. at 850; cf. Gregg County v. Farrar, 933 S.W.2d 769, 773–74
(Tex. App. —Austin 1996, writ denied) (holding that Farrar sufficiently
presented notice of his Whistleblower Act claim during his grievance committee
hearing). 3
Simply asking the employer to reconsider termination by making
alternative suggestions is insufficient to provide notice. See Robison, 216
S.W.3d at 44. In Robison, a nurse at a local state prison unit failed to give any
Smith, 181 S.W.3d at 846. She ultimately rejected the severance offer. Id.
3
 During the hearing, Farrar told the committee:
[O]n April 16th, Monday morning Commissioner said that if I find
out who is doing this [reporting the commissioner’s orders to dump
barrels containing unknown substances] I will fire [th]em and then
he retracted his statement and I will get [th]em fired . . . . And
also on . . . July 16 it was repeated and I would like to know why
and his statement “lack of loyalty to employees” that’s here in the
manual in a threatening way.
Farrar, 933 S.W.2d at 771, 774. Farrar’s claim was ultimately dismissed for
failure to comply with the then-existing exhaustion requirement under the
statute. Id. at 776–77.
14
written notice of her intent to pursue a Whistleblower Act claim and failed to
point to any evidence that she, at any time prior to filing suit, otherwise notified
her employer that she believed her termination was in retaliation for reporting
illegal activities at the unit to the Texas Labor Board. Id. at 39, 43. That is,
[s]he unquestionably informed the hospital that she disagreed with
their decision to eliminate her position, and she provided an
alternative method for satisfying the budget cut [to which her
employer had attributed her termination]. However, Robison’s
communications would not have provided any reasonable employer
with notice that a potential whistleblower claim existed.
Id. at 43.
The legislature intended that the governmental entity—in this case,
Tarrant County—be given an opportunity to correct its mistakes by resolving
claims before the expense and effort of litigation ensue. See Shilling, 266
S.W.3d at 102; Farrar, 933 S.W.2d at 775. But to be able to do this, the
governmental entity must be given reasonable notice that it has, in fact, made
a mistake that can be resolved before a lawsuit is filed. See Robison, 216
S.W.3d at 43–44; Smith, 181 S.W.3d at 850. This goes hand-in-glove with
the reasoning behind the exhaustion previously required under government code
section 554.006(a):
An eminently practical reason for requiring exhaustion of remedies
is that the complaining party may be successful in vindicating his
rights in the administrative process and never have to resort to
court. Notions of administrative autonomy require further that the
15
agency be given first opportunity to discover and correct its own
errors.
Ender, 30 S.W.3d at 594 (holding that employee satisfied statutory exhaustion
requirement based on the description in his handwritten grievance, the relief he
requested, and his “numerous reports [to various supervisors inside and outside
his department] of the illegality” being applied to him, even though his
grievance did not include the words “retaliation” or “discrimination”); see also
Robison, 216 S.W.3d at 43 (distinguishing Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist. v.
Rivera, 93 S.W.3d 315, 317–18 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no
pet.), Upton County v. Brown, 960 S.W.2d 808, 811–12 (Tex. App.—El Paso
1997, no pet.), and Beiser v. Tomball Hosp. Auth., 902 S.W.2d 721, 723 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied) (op. on reh’g), because in each
of those cases, the employer received actual notice that its employee believed
he or she had been fired in retaliation for reporting illegal activities). But cf.
Moore v. Univ. of Houston-Clear Lake, 165 S.W.3d 97, 102–03 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (noting in dicta that the
Whistleblower Act does not require that the employee use any particular words
when filing his grievance or state that his appeal is based on the Whistleblower
Act; however, the evidence relevant to jurisdiction suggested that UHCL had
actual notice of Moore’s whistleblower claims prior to his termination).
16
2. The Notice in Issue
We conclude from the evidence presented to the trial court that the
communications between McQuary and the sheriff in no way put the sheriff on
notice that a Whistleblower Act claim was being asserted. See Smith, 181
S.W.3d at 846, 850. In fact, the only complaints McQuary made in the
documents she submitted to the sheriff were that she had not received any
evaluations and that Chief Knowles had told her to disregard her job description.
The overall subject and tenor of the communications was that she would like
to continue her employment with the department, preferably directly under the
sheriff’s supervision, and that she had no hard feelings toward anyone. This
constitutes no notice of a Whistleblower Act claim. See Robison, 216 S.W.3d
at 44; Smith, 181 S.W.3d at 846, 850.
3. Prevention
McQuary complains that, if notice was required, she was excused from
that requirement because her efforts to give notice were thwarted. She refers
us to Rivera in support of this argument. Rivera states, in pertinent part,
If the attempts by an employee to comply with the entity’s
grievance procedures were effectively thwarted by the entity’s
refusal to meet, the purpose of the statute would be frustrated,
particularly if the entity was allowed to proclaim that the employee
did not exhaust her administrative remedies under the Act. Fort
Bend ISD cannot, on the one hand, refuse to meet with an
17
employee as required by the policy, and then, on the other hand,
complain that the employee failed to follow the policy.
93 S.W.3d at 320.
In Rivera, the Fort Bend ISD principal, the source of Rivera’s complaint
and Rivera’s direct supervisor, refused to meet with Rivera after Rivera reported
to her that the principal’s falsification of the enrollment documents for the
principal’s niece and another employee’s child violated the law. Id. at 317–18.
This meeting was required by the grievance procedure, and the procedure was
silent as to “what to do if one’s ‘Level One’ supervisor refuses to grant the
employee a meeting.” Id. at 317 & n.2, 320. Further, the human resources
department initially did not provide guidance and advised her to quit. 4 Id. at
318, 320. As noted by the court, “a terminated employee’s claims will not be
barred by the statutory requisites of the [W]histle-[B]lower [A]ct” if the
grievance policy is unclear. Id. at 320–21.
The facts in Rivera are not the facts before us. McQuary was required
to communicate her appeal to the sheriff and did so. Those communications
were not restricted in any way. That is, rule 8.08, under which McQuary could
4
 “[W]hen Human Resources finally did provide some guidance to
Rivera’s daughter, even that advice-to proceed to ‘Level Two’-Fort Bend ISD
admitted was incorrect, and thus, was entirely unclear.” Rivera, 93 S.W.3d at
320.
18
appeal the original termination decision, does not specify any particular form or
format for either her appeal or the sheriff’s decision, nor is there any mention
of whether any sort of hearing or face-to-face meeting should be held. All
means of communication, therefore, were available to McQuary to convey the
belief that her termination was related to her alleged reports of violations of the
law. Thus, when she felt that the sheriff did not effectively meet with her in
their face-to-face meeting after he reviewed her written communications,
nothing kept McQuary from requesting another face-to-face meeting or from
communicating further in writing. Under these circumstances, we cannot say
that she was thwarted in her efforts to follow the grievance procedure.
Accordingly, we sustain Tarrant County’s sole issue.
IV. Conclusion
Having determined that the trial court erred by denying the plea to the
jurisdiction, we reverse the trial court’s order and render judgment granting
Tarrant County’s plea to the jurisdiction.
BOB MCCOY
JUSTICE
PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
DELIVERED: April 1, 2010
19