Archive for the ‘video’ tag
Attorney Educational Law
Attorney Educational Law
Public School Law & Educational Law & Policies, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis
Professor
Public School Law & Educational Law & Policies
Case Five
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
CITY OF HOUSTON, et al., Plantiffs-Appellants,
v.
GERALD KALLINA, Defendant-Appellee
No. 98-15946
LITIGANTS
Plantiffs-Appellants: CITY of HOUSTON. et. al
Defendant-Appellee: GERALD KALLINA
BACKGROUND
Kallina worked as division manager in the fixed-asset department of the City of Houston. In the course of his duties, he conducted an inventory audit at a City warehouse where both abandoned and City-owned assets were stored. It was his opinion that 800 items worth at least $400,000 were missing, and he concluded they must have been stolen.
According to Kallina, he initially made an oral report of his findings to his supervisor, Lathenia Harris. He believed City policy required missing assets to be reported as stolen if not located after a thirty-day search, and eventually reported to the Mayor, the Controller, and perhaps City Council. Shortly after Kallina put his final report on Harris=s desk, she abruptly informed him he had two days to resign or he would be fired. He complied, but later sued.
FACTS
The City of Houston appeals from a judgment awarding $250,000 plus attorney=s fees to its former employee, Gerald Kallina, under the Texas Whistleblower Act. On February 14, 2002, a panel of this Court modified the judgment by adding to it $65,000 in back pay, and otherwise affirmed.
On May 9, 2002, the Supreme Court of Texas issued its opinion in Texas Department of Transportation v. Needham, 82 S.W.3d 314, (Tex. 2002), addressing for the first time the 1995 amendments defining Aan appropriate law enforcement authority@ under the Act. See Act of May 25, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S. ch. 721, ” 1-12, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 3812 (current version at Tex. Gov=t Code ‘ 554.002(b)). We granted the City=s motion for rehearing en banc to consider the effect of the latter opinion on the former. Finding that this new authority requires a different result, we withdraw the panel=s opinion and issue this en banc opinion.
DECISION
As an initial matter, the City argues the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Kallina did not initiate a grievance with the City as required. See Tex. Gov=t Code ‘ 554.006(a). Assuming this requirement is jurisdictional, we hold it does not bar Kallina=s suit.
On January 19, 1998, Kallina sent a letter to Mayor Lee Brown claiming wrongful dismissal and requesting a hearing. The City’s response on February 16, 1998 stated Kallina “had no civil service protection or other internal review procedure,” pointing to a city document in which he acknowledged that he was an executive level employee and therefore exempt from all civil service protections and procedures.
A governmental entity may not frustrate an employee=s efforts to initiate a grievance and then challenge subject-matter jurisdiction on that basis. Kallina’s letter to the City stating his claim was sufficient to initiate a grievance in light of the City=s response that no other procedures applied to him. The City=s first point is overruled.
IMPLICATIONS
The evidence strongly supports the jury=s finding that Kallina believed in good faith that Harris was an appropriate law enforcement authority as to the fixed-asset policies. As the majority correctly states, the evidence showed that Harris had administrative responsibility for the assets in the Broad Street Warehouse and that she regulated and enforced departmental rules for protecting those assets. Harris testified that she enforces the rules regarding inventory and that if somebody has a problem with these rules he can come to her about it. Kallina and Harris both testified that Harris had the authority to enforce these policies regarding the inventory at the Broad Street Warehouse. Considering the evidence in a light that tends to support the jury=s findings and disregarding all evidence and inferences to the contrary, there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury=s finding that Kallina believed in good faith Harris was authorized to regulate under or enforce the fixed-asset policies and that this belief was reasonable in light of Kallina=s training and experience.
About the Author
Dr. Kritsonis Recognized as Distinguished Alumnus
In 2004, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis was recognized as the Central Washington University Alumni Association Distinguished Alumnus for the College of Education and Professional Studies. Dr. Kritsonis was nominated by alumni, former students, friends, faculty, and staff. Final selection was made by the Alumni Association Board of Directors. Recipients are CWU graduates of 20 years or more and are recognized for achievement in their professional field and have made a positive contribution to society. For the second consecutive year, U.S. News and World Report placed Central Washington University among the top elite public institutions in the west. CWU was 12th on the list in the 2006 On-Line Education of “America’s Best Colleges.”
Lawyer interview project?
I have to interview a lawyer for a project in my business law class.
Here are the questions I need answered:
1. Educational background of the lawyer and year admitted to the bar.
2. Types of business legal matters handled by the attorney.
3. Most interesting business case handled by the attorney and its resolution.
4. Legal fees charged by the attorney to business clients.
5. Advice as to when a business person should seek the help of an attorney.
Thanks for everyone’s help in advance!!!
I am an Advocate and i will send the answers by Email.
2008 Educational Law and Social Justice Forum, PT 1 – ACLU Staff Attorney Aaron Caplan