Dr. William Allan Kritsonis


General public School Regulation & Instructional Legislation and Guidelines

Scenario Five

Court docket of Appeals of Texas,


Nora Kathryn CONROY, Appellant


NACOGDOCHES Unbiased School DISTRICT, Appellee.

No. 09-05-362 CV.


Plaintiffs-Appellant: Nora Kathryn CONROY

Defendants-Appellee:  NACOGDOCHES Unbiased School DISTRICT


            At the time Conroy filed her petition, she experienced been used as a special training diagnostician by NISD for 3 yrs. In November 2002, Conroy and sixteen other special training personnel users at NISD filed and signed a criticism with the TEA reporting violations of condition and federal regulation in the NISD special training application. The TEA conducted an initial investigation of the special training application. In January 2003, the TEA sent NISD Superintendent Dr. Tony Riehl a letter advising him of the allegations contained in the criticism and directing the district to choose corrective action. In March 2003, in a letter to the United States Office of Education’s Business of Civil Rights, Conroy once more complained of violations of condition and federal laws in the special training application. Twelve of the unique sixteen signatories to the TEA criticism also signed this letter.

            In August 2003, NISD’s Unique Education and learning Director Debbie Walker educated Conroy she would be transferred from the elementary university to the superior university for the 2003-2004 university yr. Conroy experienced beforehand told Walker that Conroy did not want to go to the superior university and Conroy’s specialization was in functioning with quite younger young children. In Oct 2003, though functioning at the superior university, Conroy acquired a directive from Higher School Principal Elizabeth Ballenger instructing her to adhere to the admission, evaluate, and dismissal treatments. Conroy brought go well with versus NISD below the Texas Whistleblower Act alleging her transfer to the superior university and the Oct 2003 directive had been retaliation for her experiences to the TEA and U.S. Office of Education and learning.


            Appellant Nora Kathryn Conroy, a diagnostician used in the Nacogdoches Unbiased School District’s special training office, filed go well with versus the university district below the Whistleblower Act. Conroy appeals the demo court’s last get granting NISD’s no-evidence movement for summary judgment. NISD cross-appeals the demo court’s get denying NISD’S movement to transfer location. We affirm the demo court’s judgment as modified.


                        For Conroy to prevail on her claim, she must establish (1) she is a general public worker (2) she acted in very good religion in producing her report (3) the report concerned a violation of regulation (4) the report was made to an suitable regulation enforcement authority and (five) she suffered retaliation as a result of producing the report. Workforce submitting a whistleblower action must demonstrate all things of their claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Conroy argues the demo court erred in granting NISD’s no-evidence movement for summary judgment since far more than a scintilla of evidence recognized “causation” involving Conroy’s report of violations and her transfer and the Oct 2003 directive. To clearly show causation, a general public worker must exhibit that immediately after he or she claimed a violation of the regulation in very good religion to an suitable regulation enforcement authority, the worker suffered discriminatory conduct by his or her employer that would not have happened when it did if the worker experienced not claimed the illegal conduct.


            The Court docket of Appeals, Beaumont, Judge David V. Wilson dominated that Conroy unsuccessful to present far more than a scintilla of evidence to assist the causation element to her claim and we affirm the demo court’s judgment as modified. We have to have not deal with NISD’s cross attractiveness.


            A whistleblower is a person who publicly alleges concealed misconduct on the part of an business or overall body of individuals, ordinarily from in just that identical business. This misconduct might be categorised in a lot of means for illustration, a violation of a regulation, rule, or regulation. The Appellant was not productive in her go well with since of deficiency of evidence relating to motives for her termination and dismissal.

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. More information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.