The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News, your source for engaging and informative Texas news. Our publication focuses on delivering accurate and impactful stories that matter to you, with a primary emphasis on South Texas, including Hays, Bexar, Nueces, Webb, Cameron, and Hidalgo counties. Stay informed about pressing issues and gain a deeper understanding of your government. With a commitment to transparency and accountability, trust us to provide reliable information that holds those in power accountable.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a decision holding the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) liable in a case brought by five troopers. The troopers alleged violations of the First Amendment and retaliation, leading to a jury finding DPS liable. The court affirmed some decisions, vacated equitable relief, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Texas DPS Liable in Trooper Complaint Case – 5th Circuit Affirms
On March 21, 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, with Chief Judge Richman, Circuit Judge Stewart, and District Judge Scholer presiding, issued a decision on the case involving the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) and five troopers from the Texas Highway Patrol division.
The troopers, namely Justin Sikes, Rodney Mahan, Joel Barton, John Riggins, and non-party John Henley, brought forward claims against DPS, alleging violations of the First Amendment and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Texas Whistleblower Act. The district court dismissed Sikes’s and Henley’s claims through summary judgment, along with all claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983. However, the claims of Mahan, Barton, and Riggins proceeded to trial, resulting in the jury finding DPS liable. The district court subsequently entered judgment for the troopers, including equitable relief.
On appeal, Sikes contested the district court’s dismissal of his claims under the Texas Whistleblower Act, while DPS challenged the denial of its Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and the Amended Final Judgment.
The Fifth Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment regarding Sikes’s claims under the Act. Additionally, after establishing jurisdiction to consider DPS’s cross-appeal, the Court affirmed the denial of DPS’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. However, the entry of equitable relief in the Amended Final Judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion.
Background of Texas DPS Case
The factual background of the case began on September 21, 2018, when Riggins submitted a Chain-of-Command Review Request Form to Major Terry Truett, alleging various misconduct by his supervisor, Sergeant Robert Shugart. The alleged misconduct included the enforcement of an unlawful quota system for arrests and traffic stops, purchasing awards for troopers with the most traffic stops, and creating a hostile work environment at the Center, Texas, duty station. This prompted an investigation by DPS Lieutenant Carl Currie, who interviewed several troopers, including Mahan, Barton, Riggins, and Henley.
Following the investigation, Lieutenant James Brazil recommended attendance at mediation for Shugart, Mahan, Henley, and Riggins, with Chief Dispute Resolution Officer Kevin Meade serving as the mediator. However, the situation escalated when DPS allegedly began retaliating against the troopers. This retaliation included incidents such as an email exchange regarding Barton’s application for a Crisis Negotiation Unit position and a letter from attorney Paul A. Robbins, representing the troopers, raising concerns about the alleged bullying and retaliation.
The retaliation continued, leading to further investigations and internal reports by OIG Lieutenant Riccardo Lopez. The investigation lasting approximately twelve months included over thirty witness interviews, including Sikes and the Trial Plaintiffs. The outcome of the investigation sustained allegations of Shugart purchasing awards for the troopers with the most traffic stops and creating a hostile work environment at the Center duty station.
Throughout this period, incidents of perceived retaliation, such as transfers and denial of requests, were reported, and Sikes also alleged stalking by DPS supervisors. Ultimately, these events led to legal action, with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals later delivering its decision on the case.
Procedural History in Texas DPS Case
The case’s procedural history is extensive and involves multiple legal actions and decisions. It commenced on May 26, 2020, when Riggins, Mahan, Barton, and Henley initially filed suit against the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Their claims encompassed violations of their First Amendment rights as well as retaliation claims under the Texas Whistleblower Act.
Following the filing, a series of legal motions and decisions occurred. Notably, on May 26, 2021, DPS, along with Director Steven McCraw and Chairman Steven Mach, jointly moved for summary judgment on all claims, to which the district court granted in part and denied in part.
The claims proceeded to trial on June 21, 2022. After various legal motions and proceedings, on June 28, 2022, the jury ruled in favor of the Trial Plaintiffs, finding in their favor and awarding each Trial Plaintiff $500,000 in compensatory damages. However, this amount was subsequently reduced to $250,000 per plaintiff based on a statutory damages cap.
Subsequent legal actions followed, including Trial Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Court’s Final Judgment to Include Equitable Relief and DPS’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. These culminated in the district court’s Amended Final Judgment on December 1, 2022, which ordered specific equitable relief against DPS.
Furthermore, on December 5, 2022, DPS filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, seeking to stay the Amended Final Judgment, which was granted by the district court the following day. Finally, on January 24, 2023, DPS filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Formal Notice of Appeal, which was partially granted by the district court.
5th Circuit’s Review of Texas DPS Case
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed four issues on appeal, each requiring careful consideration and analysis. The first issue concerned the grant of summary judgment regarding Sikes’s retaliation claim under the Texas Whistleblower Act. The court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the procedural limitations set forth in the Act to obtain relief and ultimately concluded that Sikes did not initiate action under DPS grievance procedures related to his retaliation claims, as required by the Act. Therefore, the district court’s dismissal of Sikes’s claims under the Act on summary judgment was deemed appropriate.
The second issue revolved around the court’s jurisdiction over DPS’s cross-appeal. The court found that DPS’s Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Appeal provided timely and sufficient notice of the cross-appeal under the applicable rules, thereby establishing the court’s jurisdiction.
The third issue tackled the district court’s denial of DPS’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. The court carefully reviewed the evidence and concluded that Trial Plaintiffs had indeed satisfied the Act’s prerequisite to suit, thus upholding the jury’s findings in their favor.
The final issue pertained to the district court’s imposition of equitable relief in its Amended Final Judgment. The court scrutinized the application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) and determined that the correction in the Amended Final Judgment was substantive and affected DPS’s substantial rights, rendering it an abuse of discretion.
In light of these thorough analyses, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld certain decisions while carefully scrutinizing others, ensuring a balanced and just outcome for all parties involved in the case.
Disclaimer
The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented.
Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.
A Couple of Our Other Reads
You may be interested in our publishing on two State Board of Pharmacy officers resigning to avoid termination.
Or you may find our publishing about a TABC officer resigning to avoid termination, of interest.
Follow Us on Social Media
If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.
FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News