Background
Maria Socorro Gorjon, the former City Secretary for the City of Conroe, sued the City, Interim City Attorney Michael Garner, and City Council members Harry Hardman, Howard Wood, and Marsha Porter after her employment was terminated following a dispute over candidate applications for the May 2024 municipal election. Her live petition asserted claims against the City and alleged that the individual defendants violated the Texas Whistleblower Act and Texas Open Meetings Act.
The defendants moved to dismiss the claims against the individual defendants, arguing that the Whistleblower Act does not permit a private damages action against government employees individually and that the Open Meetings Act claim was subject to the Texas Tort Claims Act’s election-of-remedies provision. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the individuals were sued under statutes outside the Tort Claims Act. The defendants brought an interlocutory appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Court of Appeals held that Gorjon could not maintain her Whistleblower Act claim against the individual defendants in their individual capacities. The statute authorizes a public employee to sue the employing state or local governmental entity, while an individual’s personal liability is limited to a civil penalty that the attorney general or an appropriate prosecutor may seek. It does not give an employee a private cause of action against supervisors or other government employees individually.
The court also held that the Open Meetings Act claim against the individuals had to be dismissed under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 101.106(f). The alleged conduct—filing suit on the City’s behalf and modifying Gorjon’s employment—was connected to the defendants’ duties as interim city attorney and council members. Because Gorjon sought monetary damages based on allegations sounding in tort, and because the Open Meetings Act independently waives immunity only for relief the statute authorizes, such as mandamus and injunctive relief, the damages claim was one that could have been brought against the City under the Tort Claims Act.
The court reversed the order denying dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. Its ruling addressed only the claims against the individual defendants in their individual capacities; it expressed no opinion on Gorjon’s claims against the City or any asserted theory of the City’s vicarious liability.
Key Takeaways
- The Texas Whistleblower Act does not create a private cause of action against government employees in their individual capacities.
- A statutory claim may qualify as a tort claim under the Tort Claims Act’s election-of-remedies provision when its substance sounds in tort.
- The Texas Open Meetings Act’s waiver of immunity does not extend to monetary damages outside the forms of relief the statute expressly authorizes.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that plaintiffs cannot avoid the Tort Claims Act’s employee-dismissal mechanism merely by labeling tort-based allegations as statutory Open Meetings Act violations. Courts examine the substance of the alleged conduct and requested relief.
It also distinguishes claims against individual public employees from claims against their governmental employer. Although the individual-capacity claims were ordered dismissed, Gorjon’s claims against the City remained pending on remand.