CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. Tennessee Claims Commission No. 200057; Appeal No. 01A01-9901-BC-00018
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1999

Sinclair v. State of TN

Daniel L. Sinclair, a former Associate Director for Facilities Maintenance at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU), appealed the dismissal of his whistleblower claim against the State of Tennessee. Sinclair alleged he was terminated in 1993 for reporting safety violations by his supervisor regarding asbestos removal, subsequently filing a claim under Tennessee's whistleblower statute (Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-1-304). The Tennessee Claims Commission initially dismissed the whistleblower claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, reasoning that the statute did not explicitly apply to the State and citing the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which protects the State from suit without express legislative authorization. Although the whistleblower statute was amended in 1997 to include state employees within its definition of 'employers,' both the Claims Commission and the Court of Appeals held that this amendment was not retroactive. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the whistleblower statute, as it existed at the time of Sinclair's termination, was not intended to apply to the State, and the subsequent 1997 amendment could not be applied retroactively as it would disturb vested rights, thereby upholding the lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Whistleblower protectionRetaliatory dischargeSubject matter jurisdictionSovereign immunityStatutory constructionRetroactive application of lawState employer liabilityTennessee Court of AppealsAsbestos safety violationsClaims Commission
References
6
Case No. 3-93-358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1994

Wichita County v. Hart

Appellees Allen Hart and Ernie Williams sued Wichita County for wrongful termination under the Texas Whistleblower Act after being fired from the Sheriff's Department for reporting alleged illegal activities. The County appealed various trial court decisions, including the denial of its motion to transfer venue and challenges to jury findings on good faith, violation of law, appropriate authority, and damages for lost wages and mental anguish. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, affirmed the trial court's judgment, confirming that the Whistleblower Act's special venue provision is mandatory and that the jury's findings were supported by sufficient evidence. The court also held the County liable for the sheriff's actions and deemed the Whistleblower Act constitutional, overruling all points of error raised by the County. The case clarifies aspects of governmental liability and whistleblower protection in Texas.

Whistleblower ActWrongful TerminationGovernmental ImmunityVenue DisputeJury VerdictPublic EmployeesLaw EnforcementMental Anguish DamagesLost WagesMalice
References
52
Case No. 03-25-00061-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2025

Purnell Williams v. Yaghi's Pizzeria; DR&F Enterprises LLC; And Rodney Scott Labrie

Purnell Williams appealed the dismissal of his whistleblower lawsuit against Yaghi’s Pizzeria and DR&F Enterprises LLC. Williams, a cook, alleged he was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for reporting unsafe working conditions and safety violations to his supervisors. The trial court had granted motions to dismiss his claims for negligence, emotional distress, and later his whistleblower cause of action. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Texas is an at-will employment state, and the Texas Whistleblower Act protects only governmental employees, not private employees like Williams. Furthermore, his claims did not fall under the Sabine Pilot exception as he was not discharged for refusing to perform an illegal act.

Whistleblower ProtectionWrongful TerminationAt-Will EmploymentRule 91a Motion to DismissAppellate ReviewPrivate EmployeePublic Policy ExceptionRetaliatory DischargeWorkplace SafetyLabor Law
References
9
Case No. 09-01-496 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2002

the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston v. Terry Savoy

Terry Savoy sued her employer, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB), for wrongful termination, alleging violations of the anti-retaliation provision in the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and the Texas Whistleblowers' Act. The trial court initially denied UTMB's plea to the jurisdiction on the workers' compensation claim but granted it for the whistleblower claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that sovereign immunity was not waived for claims under Labor Code § 411.083 against the University of Texas System, reversing the trial court's decision on that claim. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the whistleblower claim, finding that Savoy failed to exhaust the mandatory administrative appeal procedures. Consequently, the entire cause was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityWrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation ActWhistleblowers' ActAnti-retaliationJurisdictionAdministrative ExhaustionAppellate ProcedureLabor LawGovernmental Immunity
References
6
Case No. W2013-00535-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Charles Haynes v. Formac Stables, Inc.

The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Charles Haynes' retaliatory discharge claims against Formac Stables, Inc. Haynes alleged he was fired for complaining to the owner about a forced, improper medical treatment involving horse sutures for a head injury. The central issue was whether an employee must report illegal activity to someone other than the wrongdoer to qualify as a whistleblower, even if the wrongdoer is the manager or owner. The Court held that to qualify as a whistleblower, an employee must report illegal activity to an entity other than the wrongdoer, which may necessitate reporting to an outside agency in situations where the wrongdoer holds the highest authority within the company. Consequently, as Haynes reported solely to Formac's owner, he did not satisfy the reporting requirement for a whistleblower claim. The Court overruled prior conflicting precedents.

WhistleblowerRetaliatory DischargeEmployment-at-WillInternal ReportingPublic PolicyWrongdoerTennessee LawStatutory InterpretationPublic Protection ActEmployee Rights
References
20
Case No. 3-93-358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1994

Wichita County, Texas v. Allen Hart and Ernie Williams

Allen Hart and Ernie Williams, former law enforcement officers in the Wichita County Sheriff's Department, sued Wichita County for wrongful termination under the Whistleblower Act after reporting questionable activities within the department. The County appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to transfer venue and the jury's verdict in favor of Hart and Williams. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the Whistleblower Act's special venue provision is mandatory and overrides the general county provision, making Travis County a proper venue. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on good faith, violation of law, appropriate law enforcement authority, future wages, mental anguish, and malice. Furthermore, it ruled that the County is liable for the sheriff's actions under the Whistleblower Act and that the Act is constitutional.

Whistleblower ActWrongful TerminationVenue DisputeGovernmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityPublic Employee ProtectionGood Faith ReportingMaliceExemplary DamagesMental Anguish Damages
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gray v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc.

Eddie Gray sued Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc., and three individual defendants for employment discrimination under Title VII, New York Executive Law, and New York City Human Rights Law, along with unlawful termination under New York's whistleblower statute. Defendants moved to dismiss various claims. The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing portions of the Title VII claims as time-barred, all Title VII claims against individual defendants, and the claims under the whistleblower statute and New York City Human Rights Law entirely. The court found that Gray's 1987 and 1989 Title VII claims were time-barred, not falling under the 'continuing violation' exception. It also ruled that individual defendants cannot be held personally liable under Title VII and dismissed those claims. Finally, Gray's whistleblower claim was dismissed as time-barred, and his New York City Human Rights Law claim was dismissed due to non-compliance with statutory prerequisites.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIITime-Barred ClaimsWhistleblower StatuteNew York City Human Rights LawIndividual LiabilityContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of LimitationsRetaliatory TerminationRacial Discrimination
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. the City of Dublin

This case involves an appeal by John David Johnson, the former police chief of the City of Dublin, who was terminated after 19 years of service. Johnson sued the City alleging claims under the Texas Whistleblower Act, breach of contract, and wrongful termination. The trial court initially granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction on the Whistleblower claim, citing Johnson's failure to comply with grievance procedures, and also granted summary judgment on his breach of contract and wrongful termination claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the Whistleblower Act claim, ruling that Johnson failed to initiate the mandatory grievance procedures, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the wrongful termination claim. The court held that the City Council's "no confidence" vote to terminate Johnson did not comply with TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.077(b), which requires a two-thirds vote of "elected" aldermen, clarifying that "elected" denotes an irreducible number including a disqualified member's seat. The case was remanded for a trial on the merits for the wrongful termination claim.

Whistleblower ActWrongful TerminationMunicipal LawPublic EmployeeCity CouncilVote RequirementsNepotismGrievance ProceduresStatutory ConstructionJurisdictional Plea
References
15
Case No. 2-06-024-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2008

Raul Duran v. Fort Worth Independent School District

Raul Duran appealed a summary judgment granted to Fort Worth Independent School District (FWISD) on his Whistleblower Act claim. Duran alleged FWISD retaliated against him by reassigning him to a less desirable position after he reported violations. FWISD argued the reassignment was a lateral transfer and not an 'adverse personnel action' under the Whistleblower Act. The Court of Appeals agreed with FWISD, finding Duran's subjective beliefs about the position's prestige were insufficient to prove an adverse personnel action. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of FWISD.

Whistleblower ActSummary JudgmentAdverse Personnel ActionLateral TransferRetaliationPublic EmployeeTexas LawGovernment EntityEmployment LawAppeal
References
18
Case No. 01-16-00026-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2017

Michael Barnett v. City of Southside Place

Michael Barnett appealed the trial court's decision to grant the City of Southside Place's plea to the jurisdiction in his whistleblower suit. Barnett alleged he suffered adverse employment actions, including termination and a dishonorable discharge report to TCOLE, in retaliation for reporting an illegal ticket quota practice. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, finding that Barnett failed to raise a fact issue regarding adverse employment action because he had voluntarily resigned before the alleged termination. The court also held that the Texas Whistleblower Act does not apply to post-employment actions for former employees based on the statutory definition of 'public employee'.

Whistleblower ActGovernmental ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionAdverse Employment ActionRetaliation ClaimPublic Employee DefinitionPost-Employment ActionsVoluntary ResignationTexas Whistleblower ActPolice Misconduct
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 123 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational