Shamar D. Bradley v. Texas Office of the Attorney General and Texas Department of Information Resources

Opinion

ACCEPTED 15-25-00138-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/17/2025 2:50 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE No. 15-25-00138-cv CLERK _____________________________ FILED IN In the Court of Appeals 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS for the Fifteenth Judicial District 11/17/2025 2:50:12 PM Austin, Texas CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE ______________________________ Clerk

SHAMAR D. BRADLEY, Appellant, v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION RESOURCES, Appellees.

______________________________

On Appeal from the 261st Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas Honorable Sherine Thomas, Judge Presiding

______________________________

BRIEF OF APPELLEE

______________________________

KEN PAXTON Denver Burris Attorney General Texas Bar No. 24138940 Assistant Attorneys General Brent Webster General Litigation Division First Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Austin Kinghorn Phone (512) 463-2120 Deputy Attorney General for Fax (512) 320-0667 Civil Litigation

Kimberly Gdula Division Chief, General Litigation Division

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

-i-

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Pursuant to Rule 38.1(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellees herein provide this Court with the following list of parties and the names and addresses of all trial and appellate counsel:

Shamar D. Bradley Plaintiff-Appellant

Texas Department of Information Resources Defendant-Appellee

- ii -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Identity Of Parties And Counsel ..................................................................................................... ii

Table Of Contents .......................................................................................................................... iii

Index Of Authorities ...................................................................................................................... iv

Statement Of The Case .................................................................................................................. vi

Statement Regarding Oral Argument............................................................................................ vii

Issues Presented ........................................................................................................................... viii

Statement Of Facts .......................................................................................................................... 1

Summary Of Argument................................................................................................................... 3

Standard Of Review ........................................................................................................................ 3

Argument ........................................................................................................................................ 4

A. Appellant does not have a probable right to the relief sought. ........................................... 4

1. None of Appellant’s claims against Appellee are viable. ........................................... 5

a. Whistleblower claim .................................................................................................. 5

b. Criminal claims .......................................................................................................... 6

c. Claims outside the scope of this appeal ..................................................................... 7

2. Sovereign immunity deprives this Court of jurisdiction. ............................................ 7

B. Plaintiff is not in danger of suffering a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury. ......... 8

Prayer ............................................................................................................................................ 11

Certificate Of Compliance ............................................................................................................ 13

Certificate Of Service ................................................................................................................... 13

- iii -

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Aguilar v. Chastain, 923 S.W.2d 740 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1996, writ denied) ............................................................. 6

Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) ........................................................................................................... 8

Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) ..................................................................................................... 3, 8

Canteen Corp. v. Republic of Tex. Props., Inc., 773 S.W.2d 398 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989, no writ) .................................................................. 4

Cardinal Health Staffing Network v. Bowen, 106 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. App.—Houston 2003)........................................................................... 10

Devon Energy Prod. Co., L.P. v. McCarver, No. 10-15-00002-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8241 (Tex. App. Aug. 6, 2015) ........................ 9

Gracia v. RC Cola-7-Up Bottling Co., 667 S.W.2d 517 (Tex. 1984) ....................................................................................................... 5

Mossler v. Shields, 818 S.W.2d 752 (Tex. 1991) ....................................................................................................... 5

Tex. Dep’t. of Transp. v. Miller, 8 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. 1999) .......................................................................................................... 8

Tex. Dept. of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) ....................................................................................................... 7

Texas Nat. Res. Conservation Comm’n. v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) ......................................................................................................... 8

Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56 (Tex. 1993) ......................................................................................................... 3

Williams v. TDCJ-Inst. Div., 176 S.W.3d 590 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2005, pet. denied) ............................................................. 5

- iv -

Wyly v. Preservation Dallas, 165 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.) .................................................................. 9

Statutes

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 101.057 (2) ................................................................................. 8

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 65.011(3) .................................................................................... 9

-v-

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the Case: This lawsuit centers around Appellant’s belief that Appellee committed numerous criminal acts against him. Appellant brings all of his claims under criminal statutes.

Trial Court: The trial court is the 261st District Court in Travis County, Texas.

Trial Court Disposition: The order to be appealed is the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s Motion for Injunctive Relief.

- vi -

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Appellees respectfully submit that oral argument is not necessary. The single

issue at hand in this appeal is whether the trial court was correct in denying

Appellant’s Motion for Injunctive Relief. Since the issue is straightforward and

concerns well-settled law, Appellees do not believe oral argument will aid the

Court’s decision-making process. However, if the Court determines oral argument

is warranted, Appellees respectfully request the opportunity to participate.

- vii -

ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Did the trial court correctly deny Appellant’s Motion for Injunctive Relief when Appellant pleaded to no viable claim and did not present evidence of irreparable harm?

- viii -

No. 15-25-00138-cv

In the Court of Appeals for the Fifteenth Judicial District Austin, Texas

SHAMAR D. BRADLEY, Appellant, v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION RESOURCES, Appellees.

On Appeal from the 261st Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas Honorable Sherine Thomas, Judge Presiding

BRIEF OF APPELLEE

Texas Department of Information Resources (“Appellee”) files this

Brief requesting this Court affirm the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s

Motion for Injunctive Relief and would show as follows:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On February 24, 2025, Appellant Shamar Bradley (“Appellant”) filed

his Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Travis County District Court.

C.R. 3. Appellant’s Petition brought 53 “counts” against various Defendants,

some of whom are not parties to this lawsuit. C.R. 64—80. Against Appellee,

2

Appellant brings criminal claims for: abuse of official capacity (C.R. 74);

copyright infringement (C.R. 75); abuse of official capacity (C.R. 75); official

oppression (C.R. 75); tampering with physical evidence (C.R. 76); tampering

with governmental record (C.R. 76); obstruction and retaliation (C.R. 76);

obstruction and retaliation (C.R. 77); abuse of official capacity (C.R. 77—79).

Appellant brings a single tort claim for theft against Appellee. (C.R. 77)

Appellant also brings causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Texas Civil

Practice and Remedies Code § 104.002(a)(2) in his Amended Petition, but

those claims were not present in his Original Petition, the live petition at the

time this appeal was initiated. (C.R. 882).

Appellant filed his Motion for Injunctive Relief on June 26, 2025, the

denial of which being the catalyst for this appeal. Plaintiff’s Motion does not

appear in the record and is attached to this Brief as an Appendix. In his

Motion, Appellant argued that he is entitled to injunctive relief in the form of

a temporary injunction because he is in danger of Appellee causing him to be

arrested for not returning his work laptop to Appellee following the

termination of his employment. (Appellant’s Motion for Injunctive Relief at

p. 45—46). Appellant’s whistleblower claim against Appellee in his previous

lawsuit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction at the trial court level.

3

Appellant did not present a whistleblower claim in his Original Petition,

which was the live petition at the time of this appeal.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Appellant is not entitled to a temporary injunction and the trial court’s

order should be affirmed. Appellant does not have a probable right to the relief

he seeks because he either does not have standing to bring his claims, or his

claims are barred by Appellee’s sovereign immunity. Appellant is not in

danger of suffering a probable, imminent, or irreparable injury without a

temporary injunction. For those reasons, the trial court’s order should be

affirmed and Appellant’s appeal dismissed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Appellate courts review the grant or denial of a temporary injunction by

an abuse of discretion standard. Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex.

1993). "A temporary injunction's purpose is to preserve the status quo of the

litigation's subject matter pending a trial on the merits." Butnaru v. Ford

Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). A temporary injunction is an

extraordinary remedy and does not issue as a matter of right. Id. To obtain a

temporary injunction, the applicant must plead and prove three specific

4

elements: (1) a cause of action against the defendant; (2) a probable right to

the relief sought; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the

interim. Id. “An injury is irreparable if the injured party cannot be adequately

compensated in damages or if the damages cannot be measured by any certain

pecuniary standard.” Id. (citing Canteen Corp. v. Republic of Tex. Props., Inc.,

773 S.W.2d 398, 401 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989, no writ).

ARGUMENT

Appellant fails to show his entitlement to such an extraordinary remedy

as a temporary injunction. He is unable to show that he has a probable right to

the relief sought, or that he is in danger of suffering a probable, imminent, and

irreparable injury without such extraordinary relief. For that reason, his appeal

should fail.

A. Appellant does not have a probable right to the relief sought.

Appellant does not have a probable right to the relief sought because

Appellant’s claims should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. Appellant

does not provide a waiver of sovereign immunity that would abrogate

Appellee’s sovereign immunity.

5

1. None of Appellant’s claims against Appellee are viable.

a. Whistleblower claim

As a threshold matter, Appellant does not present a whistleblower claim

in his Original Petition, and any argument he makes in support of receiving

injunctive relief for such a claim is outside the scope of this appeal.

Res judicata, or claims preclusion, prevents the re-litigation of a claim

or cause of action that has been finally adjudicated, as well as related matters

that, with the use of diligence, should have been litigated in the prior suit.

Gracia v. RC Cola-7-Up Bottling Co., 667 S.W.2d 517, 519 (Tex. 1984).

When a plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice, the doctrine of res

judicata prohibits the plaintiff from reasserting his claims against that

defendant in a later suit. see Mossler v. Shields, 818 S.W.2d 752, 754 (Tex.

1991) (holding that dismissal with prejudice functions as final determination

on merits); see also Williams v. TDCJ-Inst. Div., 176 S.W.3d 590, 594 (Tex.

App.—Tyler 2005, pet. denied) (holding that dismissal with prejudice has full

res judicata and collateral estoppel effect).

Appellant seeks reversal of an order denying his Motion for Injunctive

Relief. In his Motion, Appellant seeks injunctive relief on a whistleblower

claim that was dismissed with prejudice in a previous lawsuit against

6

Appellee. (Appellant’s Motion at p. 23). Even if Appellant had presented a

whistleblower claim in his Original Petition, that claim would be barred by

res judicata because the claim was fully adjudicated in a prior suit. Appellant’s

request should be denied and the trial court’s order should be affirmed.

b. Criminal claims

Appellant’s Motion seemingly only seeks injunctive relief on his

previously dismissed whistleblower claim, which is not present in his Original

Petition, the live petition for purposes of this appeal. (Appellant’s Motion).

To the extent Appellant may seek injunctive relief for any criminal claims in

his petition, that attempt should fail and the trial court’s order should be

affirmed.

Texas does not recognize causes of action brought under the Penal

Code. Aguilar v. Chastain, 923 S.W.2d 740, 745 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1996, writ

denied). Because Texas does not recognize causes of action brought under the

Penal Code, Appellant does not have standing with respect to any of his claims

against Appellee. As such, Appellant may not receive injunctive relief with

respect to any of the criminal claims he brings against Appellee. Accordingly,

the trial court’s order should be affirmed.

7

c. Claims outside the scope of this appeal

Appellee’s Brief argues for injunctive relief under causes of action

absent in his Original Petition, which was the live petition when this appeal

was initiated. Appellant attempts to receive injunctive relief for a claim

brought under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (Appellant’s

Brief at p. 52), a tortious interference with a contract claim (Id.), a libel claim

(Id. at p. 54), a whistleblower claim (Id. at p. 58), a “free speech retaliation”

claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Id. at p. 72), and claims for violation and

deprivation of due process, due course of law, and equal protection under the

Texas Constitution (Id. at p. 77). These claims were not present in Appellant’s

live petition at the time of appeal, nor are they present in the Motion he is

asking this Court to grant. (C.R. 3—85); (Appellant’s Motion). Appellant

should not be awarded any relief based on claims that are outside the scope of

this appeal. The trial court’s order should be affirmed.

2. Sovereign immunity deprives this Court of jurisdiction.

A suit against the State or its agencies is barred by sovereign immunity

absent clear and unambiguous legislative consent, and sovereign immunity

deprives a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. Tex. Dept. of Parks and

Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224-225 (Tex. 2004); Tex. Dep’t. of

8

Transp. v. Miller, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex. 1999). Sovereign immunity bars a

suit against the State unless the legislature expressly consents to the suit.

Texas Nat. Res. Conservation Comm’n. v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 853 (Tex.

2002). Unless the plaintiff pleads a viable claim, sovereign immunity is

retained for government defendants. See Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345

S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex. 2011).

Appellant brings a theft claim against Appellee. (C.R. 77). Theft is an

intentional tort, and the Texas Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for

intentional torts. SEE TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 101.057 (2).

Accordingly, Appellee’s sovereign immunity bars this claim. Because

sovereign immunity bars this claim, Appellee is unable to show that he has a

probable right to the relief sought, and his request for a temporary injunction

should be denied. The trial court’s order should be affirmed.

B. Plaintiff is not in danger of suffering a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury.

For purposes of a temporary injunction, an injury is irreparable if the

injured party cannot be adequately compensated in monetary damages or if

the damages cannot be measured by any certain pecuniary standard. Butnaru,

84 S.W.3d at 204. The party applying for a temporary injunction has the

9

burden of production, which is the burden of offering some evidence that

establishes a probable right to recover and a probable interim injury. See Wyly

v. Preservation Dallas, 165 S.W.3d 460, 465 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no

pet.). If an applicant does not discharge his burden, he is not entitled to such

extraordinary relief. Id.

Appellant asks this Court to reverse the order by the trial court denying

Appellant injunctive relief in the form of reinstatement with Appellee.

(Appellant’s Brief at p. 98). Appellant claims his request is a “statutory

injunction” governed by Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 65.011.

(Id. at p. 40—41). Appellant did not argue for an injunction under this statute

in his Motion and only mentions it in passing once. (Appellant’s Motion at p.

47). Importantly, section 65.011(3) provides that an applicant may be entitled

to an injunction, if the applicant can show they would receive an injunction

“under the principles of equity”. SEE TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §

65.011(3). Texas Appellate Courts have held that section 65.011(3) “does not

supersede the common law’s irreparable harm or injury requirement”. Devon

Energy Prod. Co., L.P. v. McCarver, No. 10-15-00002-CV, 2015 Tex. App.

LEXIS 8241, at *4 (Tex. App. Aug. 6, 2015). Indeed, the “default rule” is that

“the rules of equity control the granting of temporary-injunctive relief unless

10

a particular statute provides otherwise.” Cardinal Health Staffing Network v.

Bowen, 106 S.W.3d 220, 235 (Tex. App.—Houston 2003). Appellant’s

assertion that § 65.011(3) “does not include the equitable requirement of

irreparable injury and inadequate legal remedy” is incorrect. (Appellant’s

Brief at p. 41).

Appellant’s Brief does not argue he is in danger of an irreparable,

imminent harm because it falsely assumes that is not a requirement for

injunctive relief. Even if Appellant correctly applied the law in his Brief, he

would be unable to obtain injunctive relief because he has not indicated the

irreparable injury he is in danger of suffering without preservation of the status

quo. Appellant is currently not employed by Appellee; the injunction

Appellant seeks does nothing to preserve this status quo and would actually

change the current position of the parties. Simply put, no equitable or legal

justifications exist for this Court to overturn the trial court’s correct decision.

Further, Appellant’s Motion for Injunctive Relief argues that he “fears

for his safety” after Appellee asked Appellant to return the work computer

that was provided to him when Appellee hired Appellant. (Appellant’s Motion

at p. 46). Appellant also claimed in his Motion, in a paragraph under the

heading “STATEMENT OF IMMEDIATE AND IRREPARABLE HARM,”

11

that he has a protected interest in “his good name, honor, integrity, reputation,

and employment which will be irreparably harmed” without the Court’s

intervention. (Id.) (emphasis added). Appellant’s clear recitation of an

element of injunctive relief, and his lackluster attempt to argue such a point,

conflict with his claim in his Brief that § 65.011(3) “does not include the

equitable requirement of irreparable injury”. (Appellant’s Brief at p. 41).

Appellant’s Motion for Injunctive Relief, the denial of which is the

issue on appeal, and his appellate Brief, ostensibly in support of said Motion,

contradict each other on whether Appellant is supposed to prove irreparable

harm at all. Appellant’s Brief does not even attempt to argue that he needs

protection from an irreparable harm. Accordingly, the decision of the trial

court should be affirmed.

PRAYER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should dismiss Appellant’s appeal

and affirm the trial court’s order. Appellant does not attempt to argue for the

granting of his Motion for Injunctive Relief and instead argues for claims

outside the scope of this appeal. Appellant has not established his entitlement

12

to such extraordinary relief as a temporary injunction, and the trial court’s

order should be affirmed.

KEN PAXTON Attorney General

BRENT WEBSTER First Assistant Attorney General

AUSTIN KINGHORN Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation

KIMBERLY GDULA Division Chief, General Litigation Division

/s/ Denver Burris DENVER BURRIS Assistant Attorney General Texas Bar No. 24138940 Office of the Attorney General General Litigation Division P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 (512) 475-4105 | FAX: (512) 320-0667 Denver.Burris@oag.texas.gov

13

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE This document complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(2)(B). This document contains 2,123 words and was prepared using Microsoft Word as part of the Microsoft Office program. This certificate complies with the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3).

/s/Denver Burris Attorney for Appellee

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that that on November 17, 2025, this document was filed electronically via the Court’s CM/ECF system, causing electronic service upon all counsel of record.

Shamar Bradley CM/RRR#: 7020 1290 0000 7441 8641 10109 Lake Creek Pkwy #170682 Austin, Texas 78117 210-425-5464 Shamar.d.bradley@gmail.com PLAINTIFF PRO SE

/s/ Denver Burris DENVER BURRIS Assistant Attorney General

No. 15-25-00138-cv

_____________________________

In the Court of Appeals for the Fifteenth Judicial District Austin, Texas

______________________________

SHAMAR D. BRADLEY, Appellant, v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION RESOURCES, Appellees.

______________________________

On Appeal from the 261st Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas Honorable Sherine Thomas, Judge Presiding

______________________________

APPENDIX OF APPELLEE

______________________________

KEN PAXTON Denver Burris Attorney General Texas Bar No. 24138940 Assistant Attorneys General Brent Webster General Litigation Division First Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Austin Kinghorn Phone (512) 463-2120 Deputy Attorney General for Fax (512) 320-0667 Civil Litigation

Kimberly Gdula Division Chief, General Litigation Division ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………………….. ii

Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief; June 26, 2025 ……………………………………000001

ii

6/26/2025 2:59 PM Velva L. Price District Clerk Travis County D-1-GN-25-001373 Max Hernandez

Cause No. D-1-GN-25-001373

SHAMAR D. BRADLEY § IN THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff § v. § TRAVIS COUNTY TEXAS OFFICE OF THE § ATTORNEY GENERAL, § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF § INFORMATION RESOURCES, § WRIT OF MANDAMUS REQUESTED and all other Defendants § similarly situated §

App. 000001

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Plaintiff Shamar D. Bradley Pro Se shamar.d.bradley@gmail.com 10109 Lake Creek Parkway, #170682 Austin, TX 78717 Telephone: (210) 425-5464

Defendants The Texas Department of Information Resources (“DIR”)

Trial and Appellate Counsel for Defendants Denver Burris Assistant Attorney General denver.burris@oag.texas.gov Texas Bar No. 24138940 Office of the Attorney General General Litigation Division P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Telephone: (512) 475-4105 Facsimile: (512) 320-0667

GENERAL COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT Josh Godbey General Counsel josh.godbey@dir.texas.gov Texas Bar No. 24049996 300 W. 15th Street, Suite 1300 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 475-4550

1 of 159 App. 000002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL .................................................................................. 1 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... 3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................... 9 ISSUES PRESENTED.................................................................................................................... 9 STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................ 10 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 13 I. Standard of Review ..........................................................................................................13 II. The Texas Whistleblower Act ..........................................................................................15 III. DIR’s missing and misleading instructions are due process violations ...........................15 a. DIR refused or failed to inform the plaintiff of his whistleblower rights ................... 17 b. DIR claimed there was no appeal procedure and ignored its invocation .................... 18 c. The prescribed content of the Whistleblower Poster is deficient................................ 18 IV. Doctrines of Stare Decisis, Res Judicata, and Collateral Estoppel do not apply .............19 a. DIR failed to give notice on their Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction.......................... 22 b. The plaintiff filed this case prior to the dismissal of the other case............................ 22 c. The trial court ignored the plaintiff's motion to dismiss for want of prosecution....... 23 d. The trial court erred in dismissing the other case with prejudice ............................... 23 V. Plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits of whistleblower retaliation ...........................23 a. The plaintiff’s report of a violation of law was a protected disclosure....................... 23 i. DIR’s acts and omissions are official acts ............................................................ 23 ii. Plaintiff reported a violation of a law by another public employee ...................... 24 iii. The violation had occurred and was not speculative ............................................ 25 b. DIR is not entitled to sovereign immunity for whistleblower retaliation ................... 25 c. The Whistleblower Act is a remedial statute and thus should be construed liberally . 26 d. Sovereign immunity does not bar suits against a State official’s unlawful acts ......... 26 e. A constitutional challenge to a state official’s action is not a suit against the State ... 28 f. No Permission required to sue the State for a state official’s violations of state law . 29 g. The trial court wrongly pursued a narrow construction of the Act ............................. 30 h. Okoli is flawed and cannot be applied to the facts of this case .................................. 31 i. The trial court disregarded the unlawful employment practice claim ........................ 36 j. “Regulate Under the Law” Is Unconstitutionally Vague ............................................ 37 VI. DIR has investigative, regulatory, and enforcement powers ...........................................38 a. DIR is a regulatory agency that makes rules governing other Agencies .................... 38 b. DIR has investigatory authority .................................................................................. 39 c. DIR has enforcement authority ................................................................................... 40 d. DIR otherwise regulates conduct outside the Agency ................................................ 40 STATEMENT OF IMMEDIATE AND IRREPARABLE HARM................................................ 45 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ................................................................................................... 47 AFFIDAVIT .................................................................................................................................. 48 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................................................................................... 48 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 49

2 of 159 App. 000003

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES:

Page(s)

Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 544 S.W.3d 755, 770-71 (Tex. 2018) .................................................................................13 Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Tex.1992) .................................................................................19, 20 Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 572, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) ................................................16 Bonniwell v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 663 S.W.2d 816, 818 (Tex.1984) .......................................................................................20 Bradley v. Department of Information Resources, D-1-GN-24-009408.................................................................................................. 102-137 Brandt v. Hickel, 427 F.2d 53, 56 (9th Cir. 1970) ..........................................................................................22 Brickman v. Office of the Attorney General, D-1-GN-20-006861.................................................................................................. 138-141 In re Bridgestone Ams. Tire Operations, LLC, 459 S.W.3d 565, 572 (Tex. 2015) .................................................................................37,38 Brody v. Vill. of Port Chester, 434 F.3d 121, 129–30 (2d Cir. 2005) .................................................................................22 Burch v. City of San Antonio, 518 S.W.2d 540, 544 (Tex. 1975) ......................................................................................26 Camacho v. Samaniego, 954 S.W.2d 811, 818 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, writ denied)..........................................24 City of Cockrell Hill v. Johnson, 48 S.W.3d 887, 896-97 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied) .................................24 City of Dallas v. VSC, LLC, 347 S.W.3d 231, 238–39 (Tex. 2011) (same).....................................................................25 City of Fort Worth v. Pridgen, 653 S.W.3d 176, 182, 184 (Tex. 2022) ..............................................................................25 City of Mason v. West Tex. Utils. Co., 237 S.W.2d 273, 280 (Tex. 1951) ......................................................................................26 City of San Antonio v. Maspero, 640 S.W.3d 523, 528 (Tex. 2022) ......................................................................................13 City of Waco v. Lopez, 259 S.W.3d 147, 154 (Tex. 2008) ......................................................................................30 City of West Covina v. Perkins, 525 U.S. 234, 241, 119 S.Ct. 678, 142 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999) ..............................................16 Connally v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 506 S.W.3d 767, 788 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, no pet.) ................................................25 Engelman Irrigation Dist. v. Shields Bros., Inc., 960 S.W.2d 343 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997, pet. denied) .......................................22

3 of 159 App. 000004

CASES:

Page(s)

Familias Unidas v. Briscoe, 619 F.2d 391, 403 (5th Cir. 1980) .....................................................................................24 Foster v. Wells, 4 Tex. 101,104 (1849) ........................................................................................................21 Getty Oil Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 845 S.W.2d 794, 800 (Tex.1992) .......................................................................................19 Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1203 (9th Cir. 1990) ..................................................................................22 Gracia v. RC Cola-7-Up Bottling Co., 667 S.W.2d 517, 519 (Tex.1984) ........................................................................................19 Harris Cty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. 2004) ..............................................................................................22 Hosner v. DeYoung, 1 Tex. 764, 769 (1847) .......................................................................................................13 Housing Auth. of City of El Paso v. Rangel, 131 S.W.3d 542, 547-48 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, pet. granted by agr., judgm’t vacated w.r.m.)......................................................................................................24 Jeanes v. Henderson, 688 S.W.2d 100, 103 (Tex.1985) .......................................................................................21 Martinez v. Tex. State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 476 S.W.2d 400, 405 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.) ....................17 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) ....................................................16 Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 642 S.W.3d 551, 557 (Tex. 2022) ......................................................................................38 Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629, 635-36 (Tex. 2012) .................................................................................14 Mosley v. Tex. Health & Human Servs. Comm’n, 593 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. 2019) ..............................................................................................16 Mosser v. Plano Three Venture, 893 S.W.2d 8, 12 (Tex. App.— Dallas 1994, no writ) .......................................................22 Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) ........................................................16, 22 Nelson v. Williams, 135 S.W.3d 202, 206 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, pet. denied) .............................................20 Nu-Way Energy Corp. v. Delp, 205 S.W.3d 667, 675-76 (Tex. App.— Waco 2006, pet. denied) .......................................20 Osherow v. Ernst & Young, LLP (In re Intelogic Trace, Inc.), 200 F.3d 382, 386 (5th Cir. 2000) ......................................................................................20 Puga v. Donna Fruit Co., 634 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tex.1982) .......................................................................................19

4 of 159 App. 000005

CASES:

Page(s)

Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371, 374-75 (Tex. 2006) .................................................................................26 In re Smith, 333 S.W.3d 52, 587 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding). .........................................................26 State & County Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Miller, 52 S.W.3d 693, 696 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam) ...................................................................20 SMI/USA, Inc. v. Profile Techs., Inc., 38 S.W.3d 205, 211 (Tex. App. Waco 2001, no pet.) .........................................................20 Spradlin v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 34 S.W.3d 578, 581 (Tex. 2000) ........................................................................................32 State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639, 642 (Tex. 2007) ......................................................................................13 State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 880 (Tex.2009) .......................................................................................13 Steakley, 28 Sw.L.J. 355 ....................................................................................................................21 Steger v. Muenster Drilling Co., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 359, 368 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. denied).....................................20 Tarrant County v. Bivins, 936 S.W.2d 419, 422 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no writ) ...........................................24 Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217. 226-28 (Tex. 2004) .................................................................................13 Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. 1999) ..................................................................................................21 Tex. Dep’t. of Transp. v. Needham, 82 S.W.3d. 314, 318 (Tex. 2002) .................................................................................34, 35 Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles v. Feinblatt, 82 S.W.3d 513, 521 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. denied) .............................................30 Texas Dep’t of Crim. Just. v. McElyea, 239 S.W.3d 842, 849 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, pet. denied) ..................................... 25-26 Texas Dep’t of Hum. Servs. v. Okoli, 440 S.W.3d 611, 617 (Tex. 2014) ................................................................................ 31-35 Texas Health & Hum. Servs. Comm’n v. Pope, No. 03-19-00368-CV, 2020 WL 6750565, at *7 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 18, 2020, pet. filed) (mem. op.) ................................................25 Tex. Health & Hum. Servs. Comm’n v. Pope, 674 S.W.3d 273, 281 (Tex. 2023) ..........................................................................................

Traxler v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc., 376 S.W.3d 742, 744 -45 (Tex. 2012) ................................................................................26 Univ. of Tex. Med. Sch. at Hous. v. Than, 901 S.W.2d 926, 929 (Tex. 1995) at 930 .....................................................................16, 22

5 of 159 App. 000006

CASES:

Page(s)

Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Gentilello, 398 S.W.3d 680, 685 (Tex. 2013) ................................................................................34, 35 University of Houston v. Barth, 178 S.W.3d 157, 162 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) ..............................26 U.S. v. Henderson, 707 F.2d 853, 856–57 (5th Cir. 1983) ................................................................................22 Wichita County v. Hart, 892 S.W.2d 912, 929 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994) ...............................................................24

STATUTES AND RULES Page(s)

Texas Constitution: Art. I § 2....................................................................................................................................44 Art. I § 13..................................................................................................................................15 Art. I § 19..................................................................................................................................15 United States Code: 5 U.S.C. § 2302(f)(1)(A).................................................................................................... 14-15 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(B) ................................................................................................. 102-137 Texas Labor Code: § 21.055....................................................................................................................................36 Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: § 65.011 ....................................................................................................................................47 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure: § 2A..........................................................................................................................................38 § 2.14........................................................................................................................................38 § 2.15........................................................................................................................................38 § 59.01(5) .................................................................................................................................37 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure: 13....................................................................................................................................... 102-137 51(a),(b) ............................................................................................................................ 102-137 91a.3(b) ............................................................................................................................. 102-137 165a ................................................................................................................................... 102-137 176.8.................................................................................................................................. 102-137 190..................................................................................................................................... 102-137 305..................................................................................................................................... 102-137 306a ................................................................................................................................... 102-137

6 of 159 App. 000007

STATUTES Page(s)

Texas Government Code: § 311.016 ..................................................................................................................................17 § 311.023(5) .............................................................................................................................30 §§ 554.002(a), (b)(1)-(2) .....................................................................................14, 18, 31, 43, 47 § 554.003................................................................................................................13, 17, 26, 47 § 554.0035................................................................................................................................26 § 554.004............................................................................................................................36, 37 § 554.009(a),(b) .............................................................................................................9, 17, 18 §§ 2054.021(f), (g)(4) .................................................................................................................40 §§ 2054.0286(b)(3)-(4) ..............................................................................................................40 §§ 2054.036(a), (b)(1)-(6) ...........................................................................................................40 §§ 2054.037(a)(1), (b) ................................................................................................................39 § 2054.051(h) ...........................................................................................................................41 §§ 2054.052(a), (e)(1)(B) ..................................................................................................... 38-41 § 2054.0565(a) .........................................................................................................................41 § 2054.058................................................................................................................................42 § 2054.102(b) ...........................................................................................................................39 § 2054.1264(e) .........................................................................................................................39 § 2054.130(b) ...........................................................................................................................39 § 2054.2606(d) .........................................................................................................................39 § 2054.262................................................................................................................................39 § 2054.271(c) ...........................................................................................................................39 § 2054.379................................................................................................................................39 § 2054.452(b) ...........................................................................................................................39 § 2054.453(a)(1) ......................................................................................................................39 § 2054.458................................................................................................................................39 § 2054.459................................................................................................................................39 § 2054.52007............................................................................................................................39 § 2054.552(c) ...........................................................................................................................39 § 2054.554(c) ...........................................................................................................................39 § 2054.259................................................................................................................................40 § 2054.1181(a) .........................................................................................................................42 § 2261.256(b) ...........................................................................................................................41

7 of 159 App. 000008

OTHER AUTHORITIES Page(s)

Texas Attorney General Whistleblower Poster https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/files/divisions/generaloag /WhistleblowerPoster.pdf .....................................................................................................80

DIR Contract Management Handbook https://dir.texas.gov/sites/default/files/DIR%20Contract%20Management%20Guide%20and%2 0Handbook.pdf .................................................................................................................... 81-93

DIR RFO #DIR-CPO-TMP-550, 04DEC2020 https://cf-store.widencdn.net/txdir/d/0/c/d0c35072-bba8-4258-8600- dee18ca9a883.pdf?response-content-disposition=attachment%3B%20filename%3D%22DIR- CPO-4893%20RFO%20DIR-CPO-TMP-550.pdf ................................................................ 94-97

State of Utah Cooperative Contract with Tyler Technologies https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.comPDF1650563051_Tyler Technologies - Master Agreement.pdf ...................................................................................................................... 98-99

DIR-CPO-5274 Tyler Technologies Appendix C Pricing Index https://txdir.widen.net/view/pdf/dmotcjew5u/DIR-CPO-5274-Appendix-C-Pricing- Index.pdf?t.download=true&u=tmwul0 ........................................................................... 100-101

Public Law 95-454, Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg1111.pdf .......... 52-57

House Bill 1075, Texas Whistleblower Act (TWA) of 1983 https://lrl.texas.gov/LASDOCS/68R/HB1075/HB1075_68R.pdf#page=1 ...................................58

Public Law 101-12, Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) of 1989 https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-103/STATUTE-103-Pg16.pdf................ 59-61

Senate Bill 248, Protections for Reporting Violations of Law, 1989 https://lrl.texas.gov/LASDOCS/73R/SB248/SB248_73R.pdf#page=1 ................................ 62-64

House Bill 175, Amendment to Texas Whistleblower Act of 1994 https://lrl.texas.gov/LASDOCS/74R/HB175/HB175_74R.pdf ............................................ 65-71

Public Law 112-199, Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) of 2012 https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/306/WPEA-2012-PL-112-199.pdf .......................... 71-73

House Bill 3893, Whistleblower Protection and Accountability Act of Texas https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/HB03893I.pdf ......................................... 74-79

8 of 159 App. 000009

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

A public employee of a state governmental entity may sue under this chapter in a district

court of the county in which the cause of action arises or in a district court of Travis County. See

Tex Gov’t Code § 554.007(a).

ISSUES PRESENTED

DIR willfully refused or negligently failed to comply with a mandatory requirement to

inform the plaintiff of his whistleblower rights by posting a sign in the workplace in accordance

with Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.009(a). Nevertheless, the content prescribed by the attorney general

to be included in the whistleblower rights sign is unconstitutionally vague and insufficient to

accomplish the Act’s purpose. This was disregarded by the trial court when it refused to consider

the plaintiff’s good faith belief that DIR was a qualified governmental entity authorized to regulate

the law violations and coworker sleeping at his desk was reasonable in light of his training and

experience. The government’s missing and misleading instructions are due process violations.

Assuming arguendo that the whistleblower sign had actually been posted in the workplace

and its prescribed content was adequate, DIR’s defense still fails on the merits. Despite the

contention that DIR does not have the authority to regulate, enforce, or investigate violations of

copyright law, DIR’s statutory authority clearly establishes that DIR does, in fact, qualify as a “law

enforcement authority” under the Act. The plaintiff reported the violation of a law to his supervisor

and coworkers, all of which had the statutory authority to regulate under, enforce, and investigate

the misconduct and type of law that was violated.

9 of 159 App. 000010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Between November 13th, 2023 and August 21st, 2024, the plaintiff was employed as a

Database Administrator at DIR; his duties in that capacity required him to coordinate the planning,

development, maintenance, and monitoring of integrated database systems; evaluate and review

database architecture; and maintain data integrity.

The original work location was 300 West 15th Street in Austin (WPC). On December 8th,

the plaintiff and some coworkers were relocated to an alternate work site at the Austin Data Center

(ADC). Neither location had a required Whistleblower Rights Sign posted wheresoever and the

plaintiff was never informed of his whistleblower rights or received any training on them. On May

29th and August 14th, the plaintiff observed his coworker sleeping at his desk. On August 7th,

plaintiff became aware of his coworker’s criminal copyright infringement which he reported to his

coworkers and supervisor on August 9th, 16th, and 20th. On August 20th, the plaintiff complained

about his coworker repeatedly sleeping at work and for attempting to blame him for the four-month

delay of a trivial task that should have taken only 2 hours. On August 21st, the plaintiff was

terminated for “misconduct” and repeated attempts to elicit an explanation of the alleged

“misconduct” were refused. He stated that he was being retaliated against for reporting criminal

activity and requested the appeal process, but was told that “there is no appeal process.”

The plaintiff attempted to initiate appeal and grievance procedures on August 21st,

September 11th, 20th, and 23rd, and October 12th and all were disregarded. The plaintiff specifically

stated on September 23rd in his letter to the defendants that DIR failed to inform the plaintiff of his

whistleblower rights, and by extension, the reporting requirements under the act.

The plaintiff had no choice but to file a lawsuit as a surrogate for the defendants refusal to

comply with Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.006. The defendants illegally failed to comply with the

10 of 159 App. 000011

plaintiff’s duly issued subpoenas so he had no choice but to file a Public Records Request to

establish the fact that the defendants failed or refused to post the whistleblower sign or train its

employees on how to report illegal activity by another public employee. The trial court disregarded

this jurisdictional fact when evaluating whether or not a jury could find that the plaintiff made

what he in good-faith believed to be a valid report to an “appropriate law enforcement authority”

under the Act.

The plaintiff filed a whistleblower retaliation case on November 20th, again alleging that

the defendants failed to inform the plaintiff of the whistleblower reporting requirements in his

original petition. He resubmitted the evidence and argument that DIR failed to inform him of the

whistleblower Act Reporting requirements on November 27th in the evidence in support of the

motion for injunctive relief. The defendants claimed that they were entitled to sovereign immunity

because the plaintiff only made the report to his supervisor, when in reality, he also reported it to

his coworkers. The stated for the third time in his amended complaint on December 23rd, that the

failed to inform him of the whistleblower Act Reporting requirements.

Notwithstanding these reiterated jurisdictional facts, the trial court granted the defendant’s

plea to the jurisdiction. The trial court overlooked the hypocritical nature of the defendants’ claim

that the plaintiff’s report of malfeasance was procedurally deficient and instead elected to

participate in the defendants’ deprivation of the plaintiff’s due process by falsely claiming a

dismissal hearing had occurred, when in reality, it did not.

In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, by order of court, or

by any applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default after which the designated period of

time begins to run is not to be included. See Rule 4, Tex. R. Civ. P. Plaintiff was illegally terminated

in retaliation for reporting criminal activity on August 21st, 2024; 90 days from the termination

11 of 159 App. 000012

date (excluding the day of the act) is November 20th, 2024. A public employee must initiate action

under the grievance or appeal procedures of the employing state governmental entity relating to

termination of employment before suing under this chapter. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.006(a).

The employee must invoke the applicable grievance or appeal procedures not later than the 90th

day after the date on which the alleged violation occurred. 90 days from the termination date

(excluding the day of the act) is November 20th, 2024. Plaintiff invoked appeal procedures via

lawsuit on November 20th, 2024. Therefore, the appeal procedure was timely invoked. See Tex.

Gov’t Code § 554.006(b)(1).

Time used by the employee in acting under the grievance or appeal procedures is excluded.

See Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.006(c). Plaintiff received notice from DIR via Public Records request

that DIR had “no responsive records” relating “to the DIR employee responsible for handling the

internal DIR whistleblower grievance relating to the illegal retaliatory termination of Shamar

Bradley in accordance with Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.006(b)”.

If a final decision is not rendered before the 61st day after the date procedure is initiated,

the employee may elect to exhaust the applicable procedures, in which event the employee must

sue not later than the 30th day after the date those procedures are exhausted to obtain relief under

this chapter. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.006(a)(1). Plaintiff invoked appeal procedures on

November 20th, 2024. The 61st day after procedures are initiated (not including the date of the act

(November 20th, 2024)) is January 22nd, 2025; 30 days after the date of exhaustion of appeal

procedures (not including the date of the act) is February 22nd, 2025. If the last day is a Saturday,

Sunday, or legal holiday, the time period is extended to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday,

or legal holiday. See Tex. R. Civ. P. Rule 4. February 22nd, 2025 is a Saturday; the next day that is

not a Saturday or Sunday or legal holiday is February 24th, 2025. Thus, this appeal is timely filed.

12 of 159 App. 000013

ARGUMENT I. Standard of Review

The State and its agencies, including DIR, “are immune from suit and liability in Texas

unless the Legislature expressly waives sovereign immunity.” State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 880

(Tex. 2009). An agency may assert its immunity in a plea to the jurisdiction. Tex. Dep’t of Parks &

Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225-26 (Tex. 2004); see also Hosner v. DeYoung, 1 Tex. 764,

769 (1847). Although immunity from suit is a jurisdictional question generally distinct from

immunity from liability, the Supreme Court has held the two are interwoven in the context of the

Whistleblower Act, which requires plaintiffs to allege jurisdictional facts giving rise to an actual

violation of the Act to qualify for the statutory waiver of immunity. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d at 881; see

Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 554.003(a) (authorizing suit by public employee terminated in violation of

Act), .0035 (waiving immunity “to the extent of liability for the relief allowed under this chapter

for a violation of this chapter”).

A plea to the jurisdiction presents a question of law that is reviewed de novo on appeal,

State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639, 642 (Tex. 2007), mirroring the standard applied to a traditional

motion for summary judgment, City of San Antonio v. Maspero, 640 S.W.3d 523, 528 (Tex. 2022).

When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of alleged jurisdictional facts, such as

those necessary to establish a claim under the Whistleblower Act, “we must move beyond the

pleadings and consider evidence when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues, even if the

evidence implicates both subject-matter jurisdiction and the merits of a claim.” Alamo Heights

Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 544 S.W.3d 755, 770-71 (Tex. 2018). A defendant that files a plea to the

jurisdiction has the initial burden of meeting the summary judgment standard of proof for its

assertion that the courts lack jurisdiction; if it does so, the plaintiff must then “show that a disputed

13 of 159 App. 000014

material fact exists regarding the jurisdictional issue.” Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia,

372 S.W.3d 629, 635 (Tex. 2012).

When a fact issue exists, the plea to the jurisdiction should be denied. If the plaintiff fails

to raise a fact question on the jurisdictional issue or the relevant evidence supporting the

defendant’s assertion is undisputed, the plea to the jurisdiction must be granted as a matter of law.

“[I]n determining whether a material fact issue exists, we must take as true all evidence favorable

to the plaintiff, indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts in the plaintiff’s

favor.” Alamo Heights, 544 S.W.3d at 771. In doing so, “we cannot disregard evidence necessary

to show context, and we cannot disregard evidence and inferences unfavorable to the plaintiff if

reasonable jurors could not.” DIR has not disputed, but rather has confessed, that it failed or

refused to inform the plaintiff of the reporting requirements under the Act.

Accordingly, this court cannot disregard evidence demonstrating that DIR failed to inform

its employees of their whistleblower rights by posting a sign in the workplace or the inference that

this lack of information caused the plaintiff to report the violation of a law to his coworkers and

supervisor pursuant to 5 U.S.C § 2302(f)(1)(A) and not “an appropriate law enforcement authority”

pursuant to Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.002(b). Therefore, this court cannot grant a plea to the

jurisdiction in this case.

Regardless, DIR is authorized to regulate, enforce, and investigate in general, and is

specifically authorized to enforce and regulate copyright infringement of software licensed to it

perpetrated by one of its own employees.

14 of 159 App. 000015

II. The Texas Whistleblower Act

Congress established whistleblower protections for federal employees in the Civil Service

Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978. Texas enacted whistleblower protections in the Texas Whistleblower

Act (TWA, hereinafter, “the Act”) of 1983. Congress improved the CSRA 1989 and Texas followed

suit in 1989 and 1994. Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA)

of 2012, which protected the refusal to participate in criminal or unauthorized activity and added

5 U.S.C § 2302(f)(1)(A): ‘‘A disclosure shall not be excluded because the disclosure was made to

a supervisor.”

Absent the whistleblower rights sign, and as a former federal employee, the plaintiff made

what he in good faith believed to be valid report to an individual authorized to regulate the

misconduct by reporting a violation of a law to his supervisor.

III. DIR’s missing and misleading instructions are due process violations

All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his person or

reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. TEX. CONST. art. I § 13. No citizen of this

State shall be deprived of liberty, privileges, or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except

by the due course of the law of the land. TEX. CONST. art. I § 19. The defendants injured the

plaintiff’s good name, honor, reputation and liberty interest in his employment and deprived the

plaintiff of due process of internal appeal procedures and the trial court deprived him of remedy

by due course of law.

The Supreme Court of Texas held that the government’s misleading instructions are

violations of due process rights under the Texas Constitution and held that Mosley had a protected

liberty interest in her employment and reputation, and the state’s actions created a high risk of

erroneous deprivation by misrepresenting the steps needed to protect her interests. The remedy

15 of 159 App. 000016

was to reinstate her administrative case for a proper rehearing. Mosley v. Tex. Health & Human

Servs. Comm’n, 593 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. 2019). (We conclude that the misrepresentations in the letter,

largely due to the incorrect regulation included therein, effectively deprived Mosely of her right to

judicial review and violated her right to due process. Instead of directing her to file a motion for

rehearing, the letter misled Mosley to believe the order would become “final” and that her name

would be placed on the Registry “unless” she filed “a timely petition for judicial review” within

thirty days. This misdirection makes this case distinguishable from others in which the government

simply failed to inform a party about an available remedy.) Cf. City of West Covina v. Perkins, 525

U.S. 234, 241, 119 S.Ct. 678, 142 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999) (holding no due-process deprivation when

city notified citizen that it seized his property without telling him what he must do to recover the

property); City of Dallas v. VSC, LLC, 347 S.W.3d 231, 238–39 (Tex. 2011) (same).

A two-part test governs a due-process claim: this court must determine whether petitioners

“(1) ha[ve] a liberty or property interest that is entitled to procedural due process protection; and

(2) if so, we must determine what process is due.” Included among the protected liberty interests

is the right “to engage in any of the common occupations of life.” (quoting Bd. of Regents of State

Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 572, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). Due process must also

be satisfied “where a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of

what the government is doing to him.” Univ. of Tex. Med. Sch. at Hous. v. Than, 901 S.W.2d 926,

929 (Tex. 1995) at 930.

“Due process at a minimum requires notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful

time and in a meaningful manner.” (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S.Ct. 893,

47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94

L.Ed. 865 (1950) ). The Supreme Court measures what process is due under a “flexible standard”

16 of 159 App. 000017

that depends on “the practical requirements of the circumstances.” This standard includes three

factors: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an

erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any,

of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest, including the

function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute

procedural requirement would entail. (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335, 96 S.Ct. 893). In the

context of an administrative hearing, “[t]he ultimate test of due process of law ․ is the presence or

absence of rudiments of fair play long known to our law.” Martinez v. Tex. State Bd. of Med.

Exam’rs, 476 S.W.2d 400, 405 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

Posting a whistleblower sign in the workplace would have imposed a microscopic fiscal

and administrative burden on the defendants, but doing so would have minimized their ability to

engage in corrupt malfeasance by informing their workers of their rights.

a. DIR refused or failed to inform the plaintiff of his whistleblower rights

A state entity shall inform its employees of their rights under this chapter by posting a sign

in a prominent location in the workplace. Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.009(a). The following

constructions apply unless the context in which the word or phrase appears necessarily requires a

different construction or unless a different construction is expressly provided by statute: “Shall”

imposes a duty; “May not” imposes a prohibition and is synonymous with “shall not.” Tex. Gov’t

Code §§ 311.016(2), (5).

DIR willfully refused or negligently failed to perform a mandatory duty imposed on it by

state law requiring it to inform its employees, including the plaintiff, of the rights of whistleblowers

as set forth in § 554.009(a); this deprived the plaintiff of his due process right to seek remedy under

§ 554.003.

17 of 159 App. 000018

b. DIR claimed there was no appeal procedure and ignored its invocation

A public employee must initiate action under the grievance or appeal procedures of the

employing state entity relating to termination of employment before suing under this chapter. Tex.

Gov’t Code § 554.006(a).

While being terminated, the plaintiff informed the defendants that he was being retaliated

against for reporting misconduct and requested to appeal, but was told that there was “no appeal

procedure.” The plaintiff’s repeated invocations of appeal procedures after the retaliatory

termination fell upon deaf ears and blind eyes. The defendants’ mistaken understanding of law and

resultant misrepresentation of the law and appeal procedures erroneously deprived the plaintiff of

due process; it also illuminates the double-standard used to obtain its plea to the jurisdiction on the

dubious claim that the plaintiff did not follow proper reporting procedures.

c. The prescribed content of the Whistleblower Poster is deficient

The attorney general shall prescribe the design and content of the sign required by this

section. Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.009(b).

The “Whistleblower Poster” published on the Attorney General website states: “The Texas

Whistleblower Act protects public employees who make good faith reports of violations of law by

their employer to an appropriate law enforcement authority. An employer may not suspend or

terminate the employment of, or take other adverse personnel action against, a public employee

who makes a report under the Act.”

The text of the poster substitutes “good faith believes is authorized to” with “make good

faith reports” and omits “another public employee” as a subject of a report of a violation and omits

the legislature’s definition of “law enforcement authority” in § 554.002(b) (“regulate under,

enforce, investigate, or prosecute.”) The Attorney general, in the content it prescribed in its poster,

18 of 159 App. 000019

demonstrates a tenuous grasp of the Act, or alternatively, is actively attempting to misinform public

employees of the Act in an attempt to discourage reports of government malfeasance by

misrepresenting the Act.

The notice does not reasonably convey the required information and is sufficiently

misleading that it violates the due process rights of all public employees.

IV. Doctrines of Stare Decisis, Res Judicata, and Collateral Estoppel do not apply

Much difficulty is associated with the doctrine of res judicata is due to the confusion of

several related theories. Broadly speaking, res judicata is the generic term for a group of related

concepts concerning the conclusive effects given final judgments. Puga v. Donna Fruit Co., 634

S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tex.1982). Within this general doctrine, there are two principal categories: (1)

claim preclusion (also known as res judicata); and (2) issue preclusion (also known as collateral

estoppel). Res judicata, or claims preclusion, prevents the re-litigation of a claim or cause of action

that has been finally adjudicated, as well as related matters that, with the use of diligence, should

have been litigated in the prior suit. Gracia v. RC Cola-7-Up Bottling Co., 667 S.W.2d 517, 519

(Tex.1984).

Res judicata prevents the re-litigation of a finally-adjudicated claim and related matters

that should have been litigated in a prior suit. Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627,

628 (Tex.1992). Texas follows the transactional approach to res judicata. Id. at 630. This

approach mandates that a defendant bring as a counterclaim any claim arising out of the transaction

or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's suit. Id. But when the parties are

co-parties rather than opposing parties, the compulsory counterclaim rule and res judicata only act

as a bar to a co-party's claim in a subsequent action if the co-parties had “issues drawn between

them” in the first action. Getty Oil Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 845 S.W.2d 794, 800 (Tex.1992).

19 of 159 App. 000020

Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, prevents re-litigation of particular issues already

resolved in a prior suit. Bonniwell, 663 *629 S.W.2d at 818. Bonniwell v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 663

S.W.2d 816, 818 (Tex.1984).

A claim of res judicata under Texas law consists of three elements: (1) a final judgment on

the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) identity of parties or those in privity with them;

and (3) a second suit based on claims actually litigated in the first suit or claims which should have

been litigated in the first suit. Nu-Way Energy Corp. v. Delp, 205 S.W.3d 667, 675-76 (Tex. App.—

Waco 2006, pet. denied) (citing State & County Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Miller, 52 S.W.3d 693, 696

(Tex. 2001) (per curiam)); Nelson v. Williams, 135 S.W.3d 202, 206 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, pet.

denied); Steger v. Muenster Drilling Co., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 359, 368 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003,

pet. denied).

Under federal law, the doctrine of res judicata applies if: (1) the parties in both suits are

identical; (2) the prior judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) there is a

final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same cause of action is involved in both suits. Id. A

dismissal with prejudice in a federal suit is considered a judgment on the merits for res judicata

purposes. Epps v. Fowler, 351 S.W.3d 862, 868–69 (Tex. 2011) (citing Dean v. Riser, 240 F.3d 505,

509 (5th Cir. 2001)). Even if these four elements are present however, res judicata will not bar a

subsequent action unless the plaintiff could and should have brought its . . . claims in the former

proceedings. Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Tex.1992); Osherow v. Ernst &

Young, LLP (In re Intelogic Trace, Inc.), 200 F.3d 382, 386 (5th Cir. 2000) at 388; also, SMI/USA,

Inc. v. Profile Techs., Inc., 38 S.W.3d 205, 211 (Tex. App. Waco 2001, no pet.).

Claim preclusion prevents splitting a cause of action. Jeanes v. Henderson, 688 S.W.2d 100,

103 (Tex.1985). The policies behind the doctrine reflect the need to bring all litigation to an end,

20 of 159 App. 000021

prevent vexatious litigation, maintain stability of court decisions, promote judicial economy, and

prevent double recovery. Zollie Steakley & Weldon U. Howell, Jr., Ruminations on Res Judicata,

28 Sw.L.J. 355, 358-59 (1974).

The question that has given courts the most difficulty is determining what claims should

have been litigated in the prior suit. Early on, the Supreme Court held that res judicata “is not only

final as to the matter actually determined, but as to every other matter which the parties might

litigate in the cause, and which they might have decided.” Foster v. Wells, 4 Tex. 101,104 (1849).

The Supreme court has never repudiated this definition of claim preclusion, and it appears in some

form in most definitions of res judicata. See, e.g., Jeanes v. Henderson, 688 S.W.2d 100, 103

(Tex.1985) (res judicata bars not only what was actually litigated but also claims that could have

been litigated in the original cause of action). If taken literally, this definition of the rule would

require that all disputes existing between parties be joined, regardless of whether the disputes have

anything in common. The Supreme Court has resorted to a wide variety of theories and tests to

give res judicata a more restrictive application. See generally William V. Dorsaneo III, Texas

Litigation Guide § 131.06[4][b][ii] (1991); Steakley, 28 Sw.L.J. 355.

According to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following are not

claim preclusive and are not considered an adjudication "on the merits": (1) a lack of jurisdiction;

(2) improper venue; (3) failure to join a party when required to do so under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 19 (aka " Mandatory Joinder "); (4) voluntary dismissals.

Pleas to the jurisdiction are limited to challenges to the court’s authority, not merits-based

defenses like res judicata. Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. 1999). Res judicata

is generally not a jurisdictional issue unless it involves a court lacking authority to hear the case

(e.g., exclusive jurisdiction of another tribunal). The Texas Supreme Court held that a prior

21 of 159 App. 000022

dismissal for lack of jurisdiction (e.g., due to immunity) does not trigger res judicata for claim

preclusion because it is not a judgment on the merits. Harris Cty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 (Tex.

2004).

The Supreme Court held that res judicata did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction but

was instead an affirmative defense to be raised via summary judgment or trial, not a plea to the

jurisdiction. The plea was denied because res judicata did not negate the court’s subject-matter

jurisdiction. Engelman Irrigation Dist. v. Shields Bros., Inc., 960 S.W.2d 343 (Tex. App.—Corpus

Christi 1997, pet. denied).

a. DIR failed to give notice on their Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction

It is well-established that “[t]he failure to give adequate notice violates the most

rudimentary demands of due process of law.” Mosser v. Plano Three Venture, 893 S.W.2d 8, 12

(Tex. App.— Dallas 1994, no writ); Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314, 70 S.Ct. 652 (“The notice must be

of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information.”). Thus, several federal courts

hold that a “sufficiently misleading” notice may violate a claimant’s right to due process. Gonzalez

v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1203 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Brody v. Vill. of Port Chester, 434 F.3d

121, 129–30 (2d Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Henderson, 707 F.2d 853, 856–57 (5th Cir. 1983); Brandt v.

Hickel, 427 F.2d 53, 56 (9th Cir. 1970). Because of the similarities between the due-process

language of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Texas Constitution, the Supreme Court considers

federal due-process jurisprudence “to be persuasive authority in applying our due course of law

guarantee.” Than, 901 S.W.2d at 929.

b. The plaintiff filed this case prior to the dismissal of the other case

This cause, incorporating the whistleblower retaliation complaint along with other causes

of action culminating in the plaintiff’s decision to report the violation of a law to his supervisor,

22 of 159 App. 000023

was filed on February 24th, 2025. The order dismissing the whistleblower retaliation complaint for

lack of jurisdiction was entered on February 28th, 2025.

c. The trial court ignored the plaintiff's motion to dismiss for want of prosecution

The plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution in the whistleblower

retaliation complaint on February 5th, 2025, well before the case was dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. The trial court deprived the plaintiff of due process by ignoring his motion for

voluntary dismissal and granting the defendant’s plea to the jurisdiction.

d. The trial court erred in dismissing the other case with prejudice

Trial courts are not required to dismiss whistleblower retaliation complaints for lack of

jurisdiction “with prejudice. Newth V. Adjutant General’s Department, 883 S.W.2d 356.

The trial court did not enter findings of fact or law after the dismissal of the whistleblower

retaliation complaint. Therefore, the trial court did not rule on the merits of the whistleblower

retaliation complaint. The defendant may not bring a res judicata defense in a plea to the

jurisdiction and as such, the plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief.

V. Plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits of whistleblower retaliation

a. The plaintiff’s report of a violation of law was a protected disclosure

i. DIR’s acts and omissions are official acts

Governmental agencies act by way of the people who run or are employed by the agencies.

“An employee’s actions taken pursuant to his duties and authorized by state law are considered

actions taken by the State,” and courts have held that for whistleblower purposes, the acts of an

appointed officer that fall within the authority of his office, even if he misuses that authority,

“should be construed as acts of the employing governmental entity.” Housing Auth. of City of El

23 of 159 App. 000024

Paso v. Rangel, 131 S.W.3d 542, 547-48 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, pet. granted by agr., judgm’t

vacated w.r.m.); Familias Unidas v. Briscoe, 619 F.2d 391, 403 (5th Cir. 1980) (“Actions for

damages against a party in his official capacity are, in essence, actions against the governmental

entity of which the officer is an agent.”); Camacho v. Samaniego, 954 S.W.2d 811, 818 (Tex. App.—

El Paso 1997, writ denied) (“A county employee’s actions taken pursuant to his duties and

authorized by State law are considered actions taken by the State of Texas.”); Tarrant County v.

Bivins, 936 S.W.2d 419, 422 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no writ) (“Sheriff Williams is a part of

the County’s government when he is acting in his official capacity.”); Wichita County v. Hart, 892

S.W.2d 912, 929 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994) (“We hold that the sheriff is a part of the County’s

government when he is acting in his official capacity, and consequently the County is liable for his

misdeeds.”), rev’d on other grounds, 917 S.W.2d 779 (Tex. 1996); cf. City of Cockrell Hill v.

Johnson, 48 S.W.3d 887, 896-97 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied) (because alderman’s

alleged illegal conduct was not undertaken in his official capacity, “he was not part of the City’s

government when he committed the alleged legal violations,” and thus Act did not apply). The

refusal or failure to post the whistleblower sign, to investigate the plaintiffs complaint, the

coworker’s criminal copyright infringement, the retaliatory termination, and the refusal to initiate

appeal/grievance procedures are all official acts of DIR.

ii. Plaintiff reported a violation of a law by another public employee

The plaintiff reported criminal copyright infringement by a public employee of DIR; that

action was an official act by the department itself, meaning that the plaintiff reported violations of

the law by his employing governmental entity and may therefore avail himself of the protections

of the Act. Texas Health & Hum. Servs. Comm’n v. Pope, No. 03-19-00368-CV, 2020 WL 6750565,

at *7 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 18, 2020, pet. filed) (mem. op.) (whistleblowers fell within Act

24 of 159 App. 000025

because they reported that company with which HHSC had contracted was violating legal

requirements for transporting minors to medical appointments). The Supreme court clarified that

Act may be “aimed at ferreting out government mismanagement to protect the public” because of

concerns “that employees who disclose mismanagement deserve legal protection.” City of Fort

Worth v. Pridgen, 653 S.W.3d 176, 182, 184 (Tex. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).

iii. The violation had occurred and was not speculative

The plaintiff has sufficiently alleged and substantiated facts that he had reported—based

on his good-faith beliefs, observations, and understanding of the law—violations of the law that

had occurred and were continuing to occur, not merely speculative, possible future violations of

the law. McElyea, 239 S.W.3d at 850 (Act does not require employee to “identify a specific law”

or “establish an actual violation of law”); Connally v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 506 S.W.3d 767,

788 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, no pet.) (“in most cases involving a charge of Tampering with a

Governmental Record, there will be no ‘direct evidence’ of a defendant’s mental state,” meaning

that proof of culpable mental state almost invariably depends on circumstantial evidence;

“knowledge and intent may be inferred from the facts surrounding a defendant’s presentation of

falsified information on a document submitted for filing as a governmental record”; and report is

sufficient under Act if report can support inference that subject of report was “acting with the

requisite knowledge and intent when they presented allegedly falsified documents.”

b. DIR is not entitled to sovereign immunity for whistleblower retaliation

A public employee who is subjected to adverse personnel action in violation of the Act may

sue the employing governmental entity, the sovereign immunity of which is “waived and abolished

to the extent of liability for the relief allowed” under the Act, § 554.0035, and may seek injunctive

relief, actual damages, attorney’s fees, reinstatement, and lost compensation, § 554.003(a), (b).

25 of 159 App. 000026

Sovereign immunity protects the State and its political subdivisions from being sued unless

the State has waived immunity or otherwise consented. Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia,

253 S.W.3d 653, 655 (Tex. 2008); Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371, 374-75

(Tex. 2006). The general rule is that “a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity must be construed

narrowly,” and the statutory language waiving immunity must be clear and unambiguous. In re

Smith, 333 S.W.3d 582, 587 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding).

c. The Whistleblower Act is a remedial statute and thus should be construed liberally

However, “[i]f a statute is curative or remedial in its nature the rule is generally applied

that it be given the most comprehensive and liberal construction possible.” Burch v. City of San

Antonio, 518 S.W.2d 540, 544 (Tex. 1975); Traxler v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc., 376 S.W.3d 742,

744 -45 (Tex. 2012) (remedial and curative statute should generally be construed so it is “given the

most comprehensive and liberal construction possible” and “certainly should not be given a

narrow, technical construction” (quoting City of Mason v. West Tex. Utils. Co., 237 S.W.2d 273,

280 (Tex. 1951))).

The 3rd and other appellate courts have observed that the Act is a remedial statute and thus

should be construed liberally. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Just. v. McElyea, 239 S.W.3d 842, 849 (Tex.

App.—Austin 2007, pet. denied); University of Houston v. Barth, 178 S.W.3d 157, 162 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.). Therefore, DIR is not entitled to sovereign immunity for its

whistleblower retaliation in the instant case.

d. Sovereign immunity does not bar suits against a State official’s unlawful acts

The Texas Supreme Court observed that the purpose of sovereign immunity is to “protect[]

the State from lawsuits for money damages,” City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 368

(Tex. 2009). The Court acknowledged that “an action to determine or protect a private party’s rights

26 of 159 App. 000027

against a state official who has acted without legal or statutory authority is not a suit against the

State that sovereign immunity bars.” Id. (quoting Fed. Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 405

(Tex. 1997), superseded by statute, Act of May 30, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1352, § 9, 1999 Tex.

Gen. Laws 4578, 4583-87, as recognized in Gen. Servs. Comm’n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co., 39

S.W.3d 591 (Tex. 2001)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Assessing “the intersection of these

two rules,” the court concluded that, “while governmental immunity generally bars suits for

retrospective monetary relief, it does not preclude prospective injunctive remedies in official-

capacity suits against government actors who violate statutory or constitutional provisions.”

However, the court subsequently explained that, while the Heinrich decision held “a claim

for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief against government actors in their official

capacities but acting [ultra vires] is not barred by immunity even if the requested relief compels

the governmental entity to make monetary payments,” the rule of sovereign immunity still “bars

suits against governmental entities for retrospective monetary relief.”

The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he constitutional privilege of a State to assert its

sovereign immunity in its own courts does not confer upon the State a concomitant right to

disregard the Constitution or valid federal law.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 753, 754-55 (1999).

Recognizing that Congress relied on state courts to vindicate essential rights arising under the

Constitution and federal laws, the Court previously noted: “With the growing awareness that this

reliance had been misplaced, however, Congress recognized the need for original federal court

jurisdiction as a means to provide at least indirect federal control over the unconstitutional actions

of state officials.” Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 502 n.30 (1978) (quoting District of Columbia

v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418, 428 (1973)).

27 of 159 App. 000028

DIR’s refusal to inform the plaintiff of his whistleblower rights by posting a sign in the

workplace, refusal to investigate his complaint, and initiate appeal and grievance procedures are

illegal acts; therefore, the defendants cannot claim immunity to suit for its violations of state law.

e. A constitutional challenge to a state official’s action is not a suit against the State

In Ex parte Young, the Supreme Court decided that a suit challenging the constitutionality

of a state official’s action is not one against the state. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). Further,

if a state official acts contrary to laws of the state, the Court acknowledged the official should not

have immunity because a sovereign could not and would not authorize its officers to violate its

own laws. Id. at 159-60.

Thus, a suit against a state official seeking redress for conduct not permitted by state law

is a suit against the officer, not the sovereign. Id. at 160. The Court theorized that an

unconstitutional enactment is void and does not impart immunity to a state official because the

state cannot authorize the action; therefore, the officer is “stripped of his official or representative

character and is subjected ... to the consequences of his [official] conduct.” Id.

“Similarly, when [a] state officer violates a state statute, the sovereign has ... [not] erected

[a] shield against liability.” See id. (explaining that the state has “no power to impart . . . any

immunity” to the state official due to the state official’s unconstitutional conduct). Pennhurst State

Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 158 (1984) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (emphasis omitted).

The Court permitted an exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity so that a private party could

bring suit against a state official in that officer’s official capacity, but only for injunctive relief. See

Young, 201 U.S. at 163 (establishing an exception to the immunity principle for parties seeking

injunctive relief).

28 of 159 App. 000029

f. No Permission required to sue the State for a state official’s violations of state law

“A private litigant in Texas is not required to obtain legislative permission to sue the State

for a state official’s violations of state law.” Fed. Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 404 (Tex.

1997) (citing Dir. of the Dep’t of Agric. & Env’t v. Printing Indus. Ass’n of Tex., 600 S.W.2d 264,

265-66 (Tex. 1980)), superseded by statute, Act of May 30,1999,76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1352, § 9,1999

Tex. Gen. Laws 4578, 4583-87, as recognized hn Gen. Servs. Comm’n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.,

39 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. 2001). “A state official’s illegal or unauthorized actions are not acts of the

State.” Id.

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that “an action to determine or protect a private party’s

rights against a state official who has acted without legal or statutory authority is not a suit against

the State that sovereign immunity bars.” Id.; cf Tex. Highway Comm’n v. Tex. Ass’n of Steel Imps.,

Inc., 372 S.W.2d 525, 529-31 (Tex. 1963) (concluding that a suit challenging a Texas Highway

Commission’s Minute Order was not against the state because the state agency was acting without

statutory authority).

Currently, Congress has the ability to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity through its

power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976)

(recognizing the congressional power to allow private suits against states for purposes of enforcing

the Fourteenth Amendment); see also Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 72 (acknowledging the

congressional power established in Fitzpatrick).

Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment empowers Congress to enforce the substantive

provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment through appropriate legislation. More specifically,

Section Five grants Congress the power to legislatively enforce the prohibitions in Section One of

the Fourteenth Amendment. (Thus, the states must meet certain procedural requirements before it

29 of 159 App. 000030

can deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 164 (1968)

(outlining the doctrine of “Selective Incorporation” and identifying the following incorporated

rights: the right to trial by jury, the right against self-incrimination, “the right to counsel, the right

to compulsory process for witnesses, the right to confront witnesses, the right to a speedy and

public trial, and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures”).

The Court noted that the Due Process Clause requires states to afford civil litigants a

“meaningful opportunity to be heard” by removing obstacles to their full participation in judicial

proceedings. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) id. at 379 (holding that a state may not

deny a citizen access to the courts without infringing on the “Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment”).

g. The trial court wrongly pursued a narrow construction of the Act

In consideration of this case, this court cannot ignore the purpose of the Act as “a broad

remedial measure intended to encourage disclosure of governmental malfeasance and corruption,”

City of Waco v. Lopez, 259 S.W.3d 147, 154 (Tex. 2008), or the “consequences of a particular

construction,” Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.023(5). This court should also consider the context in which

the Act was enacted and the State’s fundamental policies of governmental transparency and

accountability.

The 3rd Court of Appeals refused to analogize the Act’s waiver of immunity to the more

limited waiver provided by the Texas Tort Claims Act. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles v. Feinblatt,

82 S.W.3d 513, 521 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. denied) (comparing Texas Whistleblower Act

with Texas Tort Claims Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 101.001-.109). They noted that the

Act “contains a broad waiver of immunity expressed in expansive language” while the Tort Claims

Act provides a waiver that is “is limited in scope.” They also observed that the two statutory

30 of 159 App. 000031

schemes serve “different purposes” and are “guided by different policy concerns,” concluding that

“[i]t is reasonable to expect that the legislature intended a broad waiver of immunity for

whistleblower claims to accomplish” the Act’s “important policies.”

h. Okoli is flawed and cannot be applied to the facts of this case

In their Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction, the defendants stated: “Plaintiff did not report

the alleged violation of law to anyone with “authority to investigate or prosecute criminal conduct

or otherwise regulate conduct outside the agency involved.” Okoli, 440 S.W.3d at 618. … DIR is

not a law enforcement authority and does not have prosecutorial powers in any sense. As a result,

Plaintiff did not trigger the protections of the Whistleblower Act.”

First, the Supreme Court stated in Okoli: “According to Okoli, TDHS trained its employees

in how to report illegal acts by other employees. Okoli asserts that TDHS instructed him to report

such acts first to an immediate supervisor, and then up the chain of command if the first

supervisor’s response was unsatisfactory.” DIR has confessed to refusing or failing to inform its

employees of their whistleblower rights to refusing or failing to train them on how to report illegal

acts of other DIR employees.

Second, the trial court misapplied Okoli to the facts of this case by mistakenly accepting

the defendants’ framing of § 554.002(b)(1) and (2) as a set of two criteria, either of which would

satisfy the Act’s requirements, when in reality, there is a total set of four evaluation criterion.

Quoting the defendant’s plea: “The Texas Supreme Court has held that “[t]o satisfy the Act’s

requirements, a report must be made to (1) an individual person who possesses the law-

enforcement powers specified under the Act, or (2) someone who, like a police-intake clerk, works

for a governmental arm specifically charged with exercising such powers.” Texas Dep’t of Hum.

Servs. v. Okoli, 440 S.W.3d 611, 617 (Tex. 2014).” As the Supreme Court has explained, the “use

31 of 159 App. 000032

of the disjunctive conjunction ‘or’ between . . . two phrases . . . signifies a separation between two

distinct ideas.” Spradlin v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 34 S.W.3d 578, 581 (Tex. 2000). After

examination of the disjunctive conjunctions, there are four definitions of “law enforcement

agency” in the Act:

(1) regulate under the law alleged to be violated in the report (2) enforce the law alleged to be violated in the report (3) investigate violation of criminal law (4) prosecute a violation of criminal law

Notably, criteria (1)-(2) do not specify the type of law alleged to be violated, whereas (3)-

(4) qualify the type as criminal law. While criteria (2)-(4) fit neatly under both of Okoli’s

requirements for reports of violations of criminal law made internally, “regulate under the law

alleged to be violated in the report” does not because it not explicitly state “criminal” (which is

also true for (3)).

Thirdly, Okoli’s phrase “someone who, like a police-intake clerk, works for a governmental

arm specifically charged with exercising such powers” unduly restricts the Act’s purpose “to

encourage disclosure of governmental malfeasance and corruption.” Specifically, the phrase “like

a police-intake clerk” unconstitutionally narrows the scope of “malfeasance and corruption” to

purely criminal acts; due process violations are clear examples of “government malfeasance” but

not necessarily explicit criminal acts, which is a determination that would made on a case-by-case

basis.

The protocol for reporting a judge’s due process violation is to file a sworn complaint with

the State Commission on Judicial Conduct which is “a governmental arm specifically charged with

exercising such powers” of investigating, regulating, and enforcing violations of due process by

judges the Commission “supervises.” The commission does not have a “police-intake clerk”, but

a judicial officer found to have been retaliated against for reporting a judge to the commission for

32 of 159 App. 000033

violations of the constitution would not “trigger the protections of the Whistleblower Act” under

Okoli.

Fourth, the Okoli precedent is flawed because the holding that “internal agency reports to

a supervisor were not whistleblower reports to an appropriate law enforcement authority if the

agency itself generally lacked authority to investigate or prosecute criminal conduct or otherwise

regulate conduct outside the agency involved” because it omits the term “enforce” from the

statutory definition of a “law enforcement authority” in the Act and the plaintiff did not only report

the violation to his supervisor.

The errors of framing, omission, and substitution in Okoli and the defendants’ due process

errors, and mistakes and misrepresentations of law and fact are evident in the rest of the defendant’s

claims: “DIR, as an agency, has no law enforcement duties or powers” and that “DIR is not a law

enforcement authority and does not have prosecutorial powers in any sense.” While it is true that

DIR does not have “arrest” or “prosecutorial powers”, it a rulemaking “regulatory agency” that

has been granted statutory authority to “investigate,” “enforce”, and “regulate outside conduct.”

The defendants make the fatal miscalculation to mistakenly rely on DIR’s lack of authority

to “prosecute criminal conduct”, which is a concession, not a defense. DIR’s subsequent refusal to

examine its own authority to “otherwise regulate [outside] conduct” is an extension of its mea

culpa.

The Supreme Court first interpreted what it means to be an “appropriate law[-]enforcement

authority” under the amended statute in Texas Department of Transportation v. Needham, 82

S.W.3d 314 (Tex. 2002). To satisfy this requirement, a plaintiff seeking the Act’s protection must

prove that the report was made to an appropriate law-enforcement authority, or that the employee

had a good-faith belief that it was. Id. at 320. An employee’s belief is in good faith if: (1) the

33 of 159 App. 000034

employee believed the governmental entity qualified, and (2) the employee’s belief was reasonable

in light of the employee’s training and experience.

While the first element is subjective, the second element is an objective one: the reporting

employee only receives Whistleblower Act protection if a reasonably prudent employee in similar

circumstances would have believed the governmental entity to which he reported a violation of

law was an appropriate law-enforcement authority. Needham, 82 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. 2002) Id. at

321. Whether an employee has a good-faith belief that the entity is an appropriate law- enforcement

authority “turns on more than an employee’s personal belief, however strongly felt or sincerely

held.” Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Gentilello, 398 S.W.3d 680, 683 (Tex. 2013)

(emphasis in original).

The trial court cannot apply Okoli on the premise that this case is also analogous to Lueck

and Needham because those employees reported violations of law to supervisors within the

department and that those supervisors lacked appropriate law-enforcement authority to regulate or

enforce the law violated and therefore were insufficient to trigger the Act’s protections. Lueck, 290

S.W.3d at 885–86 (holding the head of a division within TxDOT could not regulate or enforce

federal traffic data-collection regulations); Needham, 82 S.W.3d at 320–21 (holding TxDOT could

only internally discipline an employee who violated drunk-driving laws). On the contrary, DIR

does have the authority to regulate and enforce federal copyright laws, by terminating a contract

in which a party attempts to defraud another and barring the party from entering into future

contracts.

Importantly, in both Needham and Lueck, the whistleblowers had been made aware that

their supervisors lacked law-enforcement authority. On the other hand, the DIR supervisor

attempted to dismiss and misconstrue the criminal nature of the complaint, indicating complicity

34 of 159 App. 000035

in the criminal act. Unlike the employees in Needham and Lueck, the plaintiff did report to an

appropriate law-enforcement authority, nor would any reasonable jury conclude that he did not

have had a good-faith belief that he did so.

In Okoli, the Supreme court declined, as it did in Gentilello, to say that no internal report

could ever merit protection under the Act. See 398 S.W.3d at 686. In Gentilello, it posited this

hypothetical:

“We do not hold that a Whistleblower Act report can never be made internally. A police department employee could retain the protections of the Whistleblower Act if she reported that her partner is dealing narcotics to her supervisor in the narcotics or internal affairs division. In such a situation, the employee works for an entity with authority to investigate violations of drug laws committed by the citizenry at large. UTSW concedes in its briefing that “some Whistleblower Act reports may be made internally—for instance, a report of a violation of the Texas Penal Code to a supervisor who is also a policeman and, as such, is authorized to investigate violations of criminal law.” But here, as in Needham and Lueck, the supervisor lacked any such power to enforce the law allegedly violated or to investigate or prosecute criminal violations against third parties generally.” The defendant’s amended plea to the jurisdiction goes on to state: “Moreover, a report to

his DIR manager is insufficient, because a governmental entity is obligated to comply with laws

does not mean they are a law enforcement authority, and Plaintiff’s manager is (at most) “a law-

compliance authority, but he was not a law-enforcement authority” sufficient to meet the

requirements of the Whistleblower Act, and dismissal based on sovereign immunity is

appropriate.”

This analogy is invalid because an “Information Technology Operations Manager” of the

“Department of Information Resources” clearly has the authority to regulate the criminal copyright

infringement of a software license owned by DIR perpetrated by a DIR employee. Had the plaintiff

reported the coworker for copyright infringement of software not owned and licensed by DIR, then

perhaps this defense would be valid. It should be alarming to suggest that a manager in a state

35 of 159 App. 000036

agency has no authority to manage the official conduct and misconduct of one of their own

employees; this is a paradoxical defense in light of the termination of the plaintiff for unspecified

alleged “misconduct.” The defendants claim knowledge of the criminal copyright infringement

prior to the retaliatory termination. The defendants do not deny or contest that the report of his

coworker’s criminal copyright infringement was the cause of his termination. No reasonable jury

would find that the plaintiff did not have a good faith belief that his manager could not regulate

his coworker’s copyright infringement of software licensed to DIR.

i. The trial court disregarded the unlawful employment practice claim

A public employee who sues under this chapter has the burden of proof, except that if the

termination of a public employee occurs not later than the 90th day after the date on which the

employee reports a violation of law, the termination, is presumed, subject to rebuttal, to be because

the employee made the report. Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.004(a). An employer commits an unlawful

employment practice if the employer retaliates against a person who files a complaint. Tex. Gov’t

Code § 21.055.

The defendants begin their amended plea with “Plaintiff Shamar Bradley (“Plaintiff”),

proceeding pro se, erroneously claims that he was discharged by DIR “because I reported a

colleague for sleeping at work.” Pl.’s Amd. Petition at 13. Weeks later, Plaintiff apparently changed

his mind, theorizing that he was terminated in violation of whistleblower protection statutes. Pl.’s

Amd. Petition at 14. Plaintiff observed what he believed to be “mistakenly using” licensed software

and reported it to his superiors.” The defendant omits that the report was also made to his

coworkers. The whistleblower retaliation claim is in addition to, not instead of, the unlawful

employment practices claim, and the defendant erroneously surmises. It is not necessarily illegal

36 of 159 App. 000037

to sleep at work if your job is fake laptop job in an airconditioned cubicle and not operating heavy

machinery.

The plaintiff reported the criminal copyright infringement prior to complaining about the

coworker sleeping at work. Due to the fact that no corrective action was taken in between the

report and the complaint, it is reasonable to assume that both were contributing factors in his

discharge. The defendants refused to explain the plaintiff’s alleged “misconduct” in the termination

letter or while terminating him and did not raise the affirmative defense that they would have

terminated the plaintiff based solely on information, observation, or evidence that was not related

to the fact that the plaintiff made a protected report of a violation of law as set forth in Tex. Gov’t

Code § 554.004(b).

The defendants are barred from alleging that they would have terminated the plaintiff

absent his whistleblower activity by the doctrine of res judicate; he was terminated presumably so

the defendant could seize the plaintiff’s work computer to destroy (tamper) with the evidence.

j. “Regulate Under the Law” Is Unconstitutionally Vague

“Law enforcement agency” means an agency of the state or an agency of a political

subdivision of the state authorized by law to employ peace officers. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. §

59.01(5). When enacting the Act, the legislature could have but chose not to reference § 59.01(5),

presumably intentionally. In re Bridgestone Ams. Tire Operations, LLC, 459 S.W.3d 565, 572 (Tex.

2015).

None of the definitions of “peace officer”, “special investigator” in Tex. Code Crim. Proc.

§§ 2A.001, .002 and other officers in §§ .003-.008 explicitly grant a peace officer the ability to

“regulate under the law”, and no statute defines “regulate” or “regulate under the law.” “[I]f a

37 of 159 App. 000038

statute defines a term, a court is bound to construe that term by its statutory definition only.” Tex.

Dep’t. of Transp v. Needham, 82 S.W.3d. 314, 318 (Tex. 2002) (citing Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.011(b)).

VI. DIR has investigative, regulatory, and enforcement powers

When answering a question of statutory interpretation, the Supreme Court always looks to

“the plain meaning of the words chosen” by the Legislature. Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Zurich

Am. Ins. Co., 642 S.W.3d 551, 557 (Tex. 2022). When those words unambiguously answer the

question at hand, a court’s inquiry is at an end, irrespective of anyone’s assessment of the statute’s

overall intent or purpose. The Supreme Court presumes the Legislature enacts statutes with full

knowledge of the existing law. In re Bridgestone Ams. Tire Operations, LLC, 459 S.W.3d 565, 572

(Tex. 2015).

a. DIR is a regulatory agency that makes rules governing other Agencies

“Regulatory agency” means any department that: is in the executive branch of state

government; has authority that is not limited to a geographical portion of the state; was created by

the Texas Constitution or a statute of this state; and has constitutional or statutory authority to

engage in regulation. Tex. Gov’t. Code § 572.002(8). The Department of Information Resources

is a regulatory agency. § 572.054(g-1).

“Regulation” means rulemaking and “rule” means all or part of an agency statement of

general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe

law or policy or to describe the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency. §

572.004(5). Rulemaking is a general power of DIR: The department may adopt rules as necessary

to implement its responsibility. § 2054.052(a).

The board shall develop and implement a policy to encourage the use of negotiated

rulemaking procedures under Chapter 2008 for the adoption of department rules. § 2054.037(a)(1).

38 of 159 App. 000039

The department shall develop rules or guidelines for its review of major information resources

projects and project management practices for the projects. The department shall also assist the

Legislative Budget Board in evaluating the determinations about comparative costs and benefits

that state agencies make. § 2054.037(b).

DIR shall adopt rules:

1. To establish department standards regarding evaluation and approval of operating plans. § 2054.102(b)

2. To establish procedures and required formats for implementing posting of cost-efficiency suggestions and ideas on state agency websites. § 2054.1264(e)

3. To remove of data from data processing equipment. § 2054.130(b) 4. To prescribe the amount of the fee to be collected by a state agency that establishes a profile system for its license holders. § 2054.2606(d)

5. Regarding operation of the state electronic internet portal project of § 251. § 2054.262 6. Regarding the use of a standardized database for authentication of individual identities and signatures. § 2054.271(c)

7. Regarding statewide technology centers. § 2054.379 8. To provide training for and technical assistance to state agencies regarding compliance with ensuring access to electronic and information resources by individuals with disabilities, § 2054.452(b)

9. To implement compliance with federal standards and laws, including rules regarding: the development, procurement, maintenance, and use of electronic and information resources by state agencies to provide access to individuals with disabilities. § 2054.453(a)(1)

10. Regarding the development and monitoring of state agency Internet websites to provide access to individuals with disabilities. § 2054.458 11. Regarding emerging technologies related to the purpose of and the commercial availability of products, including computer software, to implement access to electronic and information resources by individuals with disabilities. § 2054.459 12. Necessary to implement the Texas volunteer incident response team. § 2054.52007 13. To implement additional provisions on contracting including conflict of interest in contracting.

§ 2054.552(c)

14. Necessary to develop or update the contract management guide. § 2054.554(c). Criminal copyright infringement can occur in any of these scenarios. b. DIR has investigatory authority

A board member must complete a training program. The training program must provide

information to the person regarding the rules of the department, with an emphasis on the rules that

relate to disciplinary and investigatory authority. Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 2054.021(f), (g)(4).

39 of 159 App. 000040

The department shall keep a file about each written complaint filed with the department

that the department has authority to resolve. The department shall provide to the person filing the

complaint about the department’s policies and procedures pertaining to complaint investigation

and resolution. The department shall notify the person filing the complaint of the status of the

complaint unless the notice would jeopardize an undercover investigation. Tex. Gov’t Code §§

2054.036(a), (b)(1)-(6).

c. DIR has enforcement authority

The executive director shall employ a chief data officer to ensure compliance with statutes

and rules requiring agencies to uncover fraud and waste and verify compliance with applicable

laws. Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 2054.0286(a)(3), (a)(4).

The department shall develop policies related to operation of the project; approve or

disapprove services to be provided by the project; operate and promote the project; oversee

contract performance for the project; comply with department financial requirements; oversee

money generated for the operation and expansion of the project. Tex. Gov’t Code § 2054.259.

d. DIR otherwise regulates conduct outside the Agency

The department may acquire, apply for, secure, hold, and protect under the laws of the

State of Texas, the United States, any state in the United States, or any nation a copyright for an

original work of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later

developed, from which it can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly

or with the aid of a machine or device. § 2054.052(e)(1)(B). “Secure, hold, and protect a

copyright”, by definition, “regulate[s] conduct outside the agency [DIR] involved” by prohibiting

the unauthorized use of the original work protected. A copyright holder cannot “secure, hold, or

40 of 159 App. 000041

protect” a copyright it is not aware of any violations of the copyright; a violation of a copyright

cannot be discovered without an investigatory or regulatory authority.

Each state agency shall publish a contract management handbook that establishes

consistent contracting policies and practices to be followed by the agency and that is consistent

with the comptroller’s contract management guide. The agency’s handbook may include standard

contract provisions and formats for the agency to incorporate in contracts. Tex. Gov’t Code §

2261.256(b).

Unlike DIR’s refusal or failure to post a whistleblower right’s sign, DIR complied with the

mandate to “publish a contract management handbook”, stating: “Contract Manager shall enforce

contract terms and manage actions of parties as governed by the terms of the contract.” See DIR

Contract Management Handbook, Page 7.

The department shall coordinate with the quality assurance team to develop contracting

standards for information resources technologies acquisition and purchased services and work with

state agencies to ensure deployment of standardized contracts. Tex. Gov’t Code § 2054.051(h).

The department may include terms in a procurement contract entered into by the department,

including a contract entered into under § 2157.068, that allow the contract to be used by another

state agency, a political subdivision of this state, a governmental entity of another state, or an

assistance organization as defined by § 2175.001. Tex. Gov’t Code § 2054.0565(a). When

contracting with a vendor to perform a task related to an electronic government project, the

department shall consider methods of payments, including considering whether a percentage of

money to be saved could be used to provide an incentive to the vendor to complete the project on

time and under budget. Tex. Gov’t Code § 2054.058.

41 of 159 App. 000042

The department shall provide additional oversight services, including risk management,

quality assurance services, independent project monitoring, and project management, for major

information resources projects described by § 2054.003(10)(C) and for other major information

resources projects selected for oversight by the governor, lieutenant governor, or speaker of the

house of representatives. A state agency with a project subject to oversight shall pay for oversight

by the department and quality assurance team based on a funding model developed by the

department. The department may contract with a vendor to provide the necessary oversight at the

department’s direction. Tex. Gov’t Code § 2054.1181(a).

DIR manages IT contracts for state and local governments throughout the country. DIR

Contract DIR-CPO-4893 states: “State agencies are prohibited from doing business with terrorists

and terrorist organizations. Any Respondent listed in the prohibited Vendor list authorized by

Executive Order #13224, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons Who

Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” As part of DIR’s contract management,

periodic checks will be performed to ensure Contract Holder remains in compliance with these

Federal Requirements. DIR shall have the absolute right to terminate the Contract without recourse

in the event Successful Respondent becomes listed on the Terrorism List.”

DIR conducts “periodic checks” or, in other words” “investigates” technology vendors to

“regulate under” Executive Order #13224. In the event a technology vendor is designated as a

terrorist organization, DIR “enforces” Executive Order #13224 by “terminat[ing] the Contract

without recourse.” Therefore, DIR has “investigative,” “regulatory,” and “enforcement” powers of

“criminal law” of other state agencies.

Tyler Technologies provides software to state and local governments to manage legal case

files for courts and those that participate in legal proceedings. DIR manages the contracts between

42 of 159 App. 000043

Tyler Technologies and state and local governments in Texas and other states. Tyler Technologies

contract number with DIR is DIR-CPO-5274, which allows governmental entities to purchase

licenses for its Case Management Complete Platforms and Portfolio Suites at a 19.5% discount,

per user.

The State of Utah entered into contract #AR3764 with Tyler Technologies on April 20th,

2022 with a pricing model for SaaS Case Management Development Platform based on increments

of 5, 10, 25, 50, up to 200 concurrent users. The basic tier, Foundation, has an annual price of

$47,823.39 for up to 5 concurrent users and $333,459.51 for up to 200 concurrent users. The

premium tier, Advanced, has an annual price of $93,907.32 for up to 5 concurrent users and

$829,785.13 for up to 200 concurrent users. Based on DIR’s pricing model and Tyler Technologies’

software licensing tiers, it is clear that DIR can “regulate under the law”, “investigate”, and

“enforce” copyright infringement despite not having explicit “arrest or prosecutorial powers.”

The claim that DIR “generally lacked authority to regulate conduct outside the agency” is

clearly false. Contracts and those that manage them by definition “regulate conduct outside the

agency involved”-a service for which DIR generates revenue for by charging a contract

administration fee. The plaintiff’s report of copyright infringement to his coworkers and supervisor

satisfies § 554.002(b) because DIR can “regulate under and enforce the law alleged to be violated

in the report” and “investigate a violation of criminal law.”

However, had the plaintiff reported a violation of a different law by another governmental

unit to his supervisor and coworkers such as unlawful restraint, official oppression, abuse of

official capacity, removal of public information, refusing to provide public information, tampering

with governmental record, tampering with physical evidence, obstruction and retaliation,

tampering with witness, preventing execution of civil service, theft, perjury, aggravated perjury,

43 of 159 App. 000044

child endangerment, terroristic threats, aggravated kidnapping, sale of child, or trafficking of

persons, then the plaintiff would not have triggered the protections of the whistleblower act.

Last but not least, if DIR seriously wants to take the public position that it will allow

government criminals to defraud technology vendors by illegally duplicating licenses and using

their software for improper and unauthorized purposes, then the people have no choice but to

exercise their inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish DIR in such manner as they may think

expedient. TEX. CONST. art. I § 2.

44 of 159 App. 000045

STATEMENT OF IMMEDIATE AND IRREPARABLE HARM

The defendants repeatedly refused to initiate an internal complaint investigation prior to

the retaliatory termination of the plaintiff and subsequently repeatedly refused to initiate appeal

and grievance procedures invoked by him. Despite having been made aware of the plaintiff’s

intention to pursue legal remedies, the defendants repetitiously demanded that he return his work

computer containing evidence crucial to protect his reputation, but ironically failed to issue him

an invoice for the equipment assigned to him or provide instructions to him to retrieve his personal

property that was seized while he was being retaliated against.

In response to the defendant’s whistleblower retaliation lawsuit, the defendants did not

deny the plaintiff’s reports of wrongdoing or the merits of his reports; they asserted that the reports

were not made to an “appropriate authority”. All of the defendants’ pleadings contained knowingly

false statements of fact and were frivolous and improper to delay the trial of the case and harass

the plaintiff. Defendants refused to provide duly subpoenaed witnesses to establish facts necessary

to establish the court’s jurisdiction, causing the trial court to erroneously grant their amended plea

to the jurisdiction.

After the plaintiff filed a petition for review in the Supreme court, he made an appearance

at the defendant’s public quarterly board meeting to retrieve his personal property. Shortly after he

arrived at the meeting a police presence was requested. After the meeting concluded, the plaintiff

confirmed with the officer that his presence was the cause of his appearance. He requested that the

officer contact DIR to retrieve his personal property and the invoice for the DIR equipment;

fortunately, he was able to retrieve his personal property, but unfortunately, he was advised by the

State Police Officer that it is DIR’s contention that the DIR property assigned to him was

designated as stolen, which is false. The next day, he made a report to the defendants that it is a

45 of 159 App. 000046

criminal offense to knowingly make a false statement to a peace officer with intent to deceive by

claiming a crime occurred, when in reality, it did not, as set forth in Tex. Pen. Code § 37.08. In

response to the plaintiff’s report of the defendant’s criminal false report to a police officer, the

defendant’s threatened “any appropriate legal action” for failing to promptly return the equipment

containing the evidence of his coworker’s criminal activity that he was retaliated against for

reporting.

The defendant’s pattern of escalating criminal behavior targeting the plaintiff has caused

him to fear for his safety and that the defendants will cause him to be falsely arrested for retaining

his work computer during the adjudication of the petition for review so the defendants can seize it

and destroy the evidence of their criminal activity contained therein. Furthermore, the facts of case

D-1-GN-25-001373, which is a separate but related case, involving freedom of information act

violations, false arrests, etc., where multiple government agencies pretended body worn camera

video of the plaintiff did not exist and made false statements in official reports indicates that DIR

may attempt a similar strategy to avoid liability in this case. The plaintiff has a protected liberty

interest in his good name, honor, integrity, reputation, and employment which will be irreparably

harmed without immediate intervention.

46 of 159 App. 000047

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

This court has jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s cognizable whistleblower retaliation

complaint that is not barred by res judicata. The state and the defendants are not entitled to

sovereign immunity for illegal acts perpetrated inverso ordine. The plaintiff likely to prevail on

the merits of due process violations and whistleblower retaliation, and unlawful employment

practices on the trial of this cause. The defendants did not raise the affirmative defense that the

termination would have occurred absent his complaint of misconduct or report of a violation of a

law. The plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief to include establishes and protecting his right to

engage in the common occupations of life that and reinstatement to a similar position, of which

the defendant currently has available and advertised on its website.

The Court should grant the writ of injunction reinstating the plaintiff to his former or an

equivalent position. A writ of injunction may be granted if the applicant is entitled to a writ of

injunction under the principles of equity and the statutes of this state relating to injunctions. Tex.

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 65.011(1)-(3). A public employee whose employment is terminated in

violation of Section 554.002 is entitled to sue for injunctive relief. Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.003. The

defendant currently has a “Project Manager III (00049052)” position that has been unfulfilled since

April 28th, 2025. The plaintiff is qualified for this position and capable of performing the job.

Respectfully submitted.

/s/ Shamar D. Bradley Shamar D. Bradley Pro Se shamar.d.bradley@gmail.com 10109 Lake Creek Parkway, #170682 Austin, TX 78717 Telephone: (210) 425-5464

47 of 159 App. 000048

AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF BEXAR

“My name is Shamar D. Bradley. I am of sound mind and capable of making this sworn

statement. I have personal knowledge of the facts written in this statement. I understand that if I

lie, I may be held criminally responsible. The statements of fact and evidentiary documents

contained herein are true.”

______________/S/________ Shamar D. Bradley, MS, MBA, EIT 10109 Lake Creek Parkway, #170682 Austin, TX 78717 shamar.d.bradley@gmail.com 210-425-5464

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On June 26th, 2025, this document was served electronically in accordance with Rule 9.2(b)(1) on Denver Burris, lead counsel for Defendant DIR, via denver.burris@oag.texas.gov.

/s/ Shamar D. Bradley Shamar D. Bradley

48 of 159 App. 000049

APPENDIX List Of Exhibits Page Exhibit A1 - Pub. Law 95-454, CSRA of 1978, 13OCT1978, Page 1 .......................................... 52 Exhibit A2 - Pub. Law 95-454, CSRA of 1978, 13OCT1978, Page 3 .......................................... 53 Exhibit A1 - Pub. Law 95-454, CSRA of 1978, 13OCT1978, Page 4 .......................................... 54 Exhibit A1 - Pub. Law 95-454, CSRA of 1978, 13OCT1978, Page 5 .......................................... 55 Exhibit A1 - Pub. Law 95-454, CSRA of 1978, 13OCT1978, Page 6 .......................................... 56 Exhibit A1 - Pub. Law 95-454, CSRA of 1978, 13OCT1978, Page 7 .......................................... 57 Exhibit B - HB 1075, 68th R.S., TWA of 1983, 08APR1983, Page 1 ........................................... 58 Exhibit C1 - Pub. Law 101-12, WPA of 1989, 10APR1989, Page 1 ............................................ 59 Exhibit C2 - Pub. Law 101-12, WPA of 1989, 10APR1989, Page 2 ............................................ 60 Exhibit C3 - Pub. Law 101-12, WPA of 1989, 10APR1989, Page 3 ............................................ 61 Exhibit D1 - SB 248 73rd R.S., Revision of TWA, 10APR1989, Page 1 ...................................... 62 Exhibit D2 - SB 248 73rd R.S., Revision of TWA, 10APR1989, Page 64 .................................... 63 Exhibit D3 - SB 248 73rd R.S., Revision of TWA, 10APR1989, Page 65 ................................... 64 Exhibit E1 - HB 175 74th R.S., Revision of TWA, 17NOV1994, Page 1 .................................... 65 Exhibit E2 - HB 175 74th R.S., Revision of TWA, 17NOV1994, Page 2 .................................... 66 Exhibit E3 - HB 175 74th R.S., Revision of TWA, 17NOV1994, Page 3 .................................... 67 Exhibit E4 - HB 175 74th R.S., Revision of TWA, 17NOV1994, Page 4 .................................... 68 Exhibit E5 - HB 175 74th R.S., Revision of TWA, 17NOV1994, Page 5 .................................... 69 Exhibit E6 - HB 175 74th R.S., Revision of TWA, 17NOV1994, Page 6 .................................... 70 Exhibit E7 - HB 175 74th R.S., Revision of TWA, 17NOV1994, Page 7 .................................... 71 Exhibit F1 - Pub. Law 112-199, WPEA of 2012, 27NOV2012, Page 1 ....................................... 72 Exhibit F2 - Pub. Law 112-199, WPEA of 2012, 27NOV2012, Page 2 ....................................... 73 Exhibit G1 - HB3893, Proposed Revision to TWA, 06MAR2025, Page 1 .................................. 74 Exhibit G2 - HB3893, Proposed Revision to TWA, 06MAR2025, Page 2 .................................. 75 Exhibit G3 - HB3893, Proposed Revision to TWA, 06MAR2025, Page 3 .................................. 76 Exhibit G4 - HB3893, Proposed Revision to TWA, 06MAR2025, Page 4 .................................. 77 Exhibit G5 - HB3893, Proposed Revision to TWA, 06MAR2025, Page 5 .................................. 78 Exhibit G6 - HB3893, Proposed Revision to TWA, 06MAR2025, Page 6 .................................. 79 Exhibit H - OAG Whistleblower Sign .......................................................................................... 80 Exhibit I1 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 1 .......................................................... 81 Exhibit I2 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 2 .......................................................... 82 Exhibit I3 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 3 .......................................................... 83 Exhibit I4 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 4 .......................................................... 84 Exhibit I5 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 5 .......................................................... 85 Exhibit I6 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 6 .......................................................... 86 Exhibit I7 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 7 .......................................................... 87 Exhibit I8 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 8 .......................................................... 88 Exhibit I9 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 9 .......................................................... 89 Exhibit I10 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 10 ...................................................... 90 Exhibit I11 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 11 ...................................................... 91 Exhibit I12 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 12 ...................................................... 92

49 of 159 App. 000050

Exhibit I13 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 13 ...................................................... 93 Exhibit J1 - DIR RFO #DIR-CPO-TMP-550, 04DEC2020, Page 1............................................. 94 Exhibit J2 - DIR RFO #DIR-CPO-TMP-550, 04DEC2020, Page 21........................................... 95 Exhibit J3 - DIR RFO #DIR-CPO-TMP-550, 04DEC2020, Page 22........................................... 96 Exhibit J4 - DIR RFO #DIR-CPO-TMP-550, 04DEC2020, Page 23........................................... 97 Exhibit K1 - Utah Cooperative Contract with Tyler Tech, 20APR2022, Page 1 .......................... 98 Exhibit K2 - Utah Cooperative Contract with Tyler Tech, 20APR2022, Page 55 ........................ 99 Exhibit L1 - DIR-CPO-5274 Tyler Tech, Pricing Index, Page 1 ................................................ 100 Exhibit L2 - DIR-CPO-5274 Tyler Tech, Pricing Index, Page 2 ................................................ 101 Exhibit M - Bradley v DIR, D-1-GN-24-009408 ....................................................................... 102 Exhibit M1 - Bradley v DIR, D-1-GN-24-009408 Case Summary ............................................ 102 Exhibit M1A - Bradley v DIR, D-1-GN-24-009408 Case Summary, Page 1 ............................. 102 Exhibit M1B - Bradley v DIR, D-1-GN-24-009408 Case Summary, Page 2 ............................. 103 Exhibit M1C - Bradley v DIR, D-1-GN-24-009408 Case Summary, Page 3 ............................. 104 Exhibit M1D - Bradley v DIR, D-1-GN-24-009408 Case Summary, Page 4............................. 105 Exhibit M1E - Bradley v DIR, D-1-GN-24-009408 Case Summary, Page 5 ............................. 106 Exhibit M2 - Original Petition, D-1-GN-24-009408, 20NOV2024 ........................................... 107 Exhibit M2A - Original Petition, Page 1 ..................................................................................... 107 Exhibit M2B - Motion for Injunctive Relief, Page 1 .................................................................. 108 Exhibit M2C - Motion for Injunctive Relief, Page 2 .................................................................. 109 Exhibit M2D - Motion for Injunctive Relief, Page 3 ...................................................................110 Exhibit M2E - Motion for Injunctive Relief, Page 4 ...................................................................111 Exhibit M3 - Evidence in Support of Motion for Injunctive Relief, Page 14 ..............................112 Exhibit M4 - Order Denying Motion for Injunctive Relief .........................................................113 Exhibit M4A - Order Denying Motion for Injunctive Relief Email, 27JAN2025 .......................114 Exhibit M5 - DIR’s Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction, 09JAN2025 ...........................................115 Exhibit M5A - DIR’s Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction, Page 2 .................................................115 Exhibit M5B - DIR’s Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction, Page 3 .................................................116 Exhibit M5C - DIR’s Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction, Page 4 .................................................117 Exhibit M5D - DIR’s Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction, Page 5 .................................................118 Exhibit M5E - DIR’s Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction, Page 6 .................................................119 Exhibit M6A - Email to Court Administrator’s Office, 03JAN2025, Page 1 ............................. 120 Exhibit M6B - Email to Court Administrator’s Office, 03JAN2025, Page 2 ............................. 121 Exhibit M7 - Email from Court Administrator’s Office, 03JAN2025 ........................................ 122 Exhibit M8 - Lack of Notice of Whistleblower Rights Sign at WPC ......................................... 123 Exhibit M9 - Lack of Notice of Whistleblower Rights Sign at ADC ......................................... 124 Exhibit M10 - Lack Training of Whistleblower Rights .............................................................. 125 Exhibit M11A - Email to Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 1, Page 1 ...................... 126 Exhibit M11B - Email to Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 1, Page 2 ...................... 127 Exhibit M13 - Email to Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 2 ..................................... 128 Exhibit M14 - Email from Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 1................................. 129 Exhibit M15 - Email to Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 3 ..................................... 130 Exhibit M16 - Email from Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 2................................. 131

50 of 159 App. 000051

Exhibit M17 - Email from Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 3................................. 132 Exhibit M18 - Email to Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 4 ..................................... 133 Exhibit M19 - Email to Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 5 ..................................... 133 Exhibit M20 - Email from Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 4................................. 134 Exhibit M21 - Email from Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 5................................. 135 Exhibit M22 - Order Granting Defendant’s Plea to the Jurisdiction .......................................... 136 Exhibit M23 - Order Granting DIR’s Plea to the Jurisdiction Email, 03MAR2025 .................. 137 Exhibit N1 - Brickman V. OAG Final Order, 04APR2025, Page 1 ............................................ 138 Exhibit N2 - Brickman V. OAG Final Order, 04APR2025, Page 2 ............................................ 139 Exhibit N3 - Brickman V. OAG Final Order, 04APR2025, Page 3 ............................................ 140 Exhibit N4 - Brickman V. OAG Final Order, 04APR2025, Page 4 ............................................ 141 Exhibit O1 - DIR Project Manager III Job Announcement, 28APR2025, Page 1 ...................... 142 Exhibit O2 - DIR Project Manager III Job Announcement, 28APR2025, Page 2 ...................... 143 Exhibit O3 - DIR Project Manager III Job Announcement, 28APR2025, Page 3 ...................... 144 Exhibit O4 - DIR Project Manager III Job Announcement, 28APR2025, Page 4 ...................... 145 Exhibit O5 - DIR Project Manager III Job Announcement, 28APR2025, Page 5 ...................... 146 Exhibit O6 - DIR Project Manager III Job Announcement, 28APR2025, Page 6 ...................... 147 Exhibit O7 - DIR Project Manager III Job Announcement, 28APR2025, Page 7 ...................... 148 Exhibit 1 - “State-Owned Property” Email from Lisa Jammer, 27AUG2024 ............................ 149 Exhibit 2 - “DIR Equipment” Email from Randa Maldonado, 12SEP2024 ............................... 150 Exhibit 3 - Request for Invoice Email to Lisa Jammer, 20SEP2024 .......................................... 151 Exhibit 4A - DIR Whistleblower Appeal Email, 23SEP2024, Page 1 ........................................ 151 Exhibit 4B - DIR Whistleblower Appeal Email, 23SEP2024, Page 2 ........................................ 152 Exhibit 5 - Information Request for Invoice for DIR Property, 08NOV2024 ............................ 153 Exhibit 6 - Police Presence at DIR Board Meeting, 29MAY2025 ............................................. 154 Exhibit 7 - Report of Criminal False Report to Peace Officer, 30MAY2025 ............................. 155 Exhibit 8 - Email from Lisa Jammer, 30MAY2025 .................................................................... 156 Exhibit 9 - Defendants’ Threat of Any Legal Action, 30MAY2025 ........................................... 157

51 of 159 App. 000052

Exhibit A1 - Pub. Law 95-454, CSRA of 1978, 13OCT1978, Page 1 of 117

P BLIC LAW 95-45~0CT. 13, 1978 92 TAT. 1111

Public Law 95-454 95th Congre s An Act To reform the clvll rnce lawa. Oct. 13, 1978 [ . 2640]

Be it nacted by the enate and Home of Repruentatwu of tM Ci vii ervice Unit d tates of mericain Congress aaaemlJled, Reform Act of 1978.

liOltT TI'1'LE 5 U C 1101 n le.

1. This ct may be cited as the 'Civil rvice Reform Act TABLE OF CONTENTS

E '. 2. Th table of cont t:B i as follows:

TABLE OF CO ~ S . 1. hort title. ec. 2. T ble of conten . ec. 3. FincllD and tatement of purpose.

TITLE I-MERIT SY Tm! PRINCIPLES ec. 101. Merli. y tem principles; prohibited personnel practices. TITLE II-CIVIL ERVIOE FUNCTIONS; PERFORM.ANOE APPRAISAL;

ADVER E AOTIO S 1. nnel Management. 2. Prot Uon B ard and peclal Counsel. 3. Performance appralBals.

Adve e tions. Appeals. Tecbnlcal and conforming amendments.

TITLE fil-STAFFING . 301. olunt r ervi . .:. 3 2. Int rpr ting a i tant tor d t. employees.

. 303. Prob tlonary period.

• . 304. 'l'ralning. ec. 306. Travel, transportation, and ubalstence. ' . 306. Retirement. • 7. Veteran and pret.erence ellgibl . ' c. . Duo l pay tor retired members o! the uni!ormed ervices.

. 309. ivil ervice employment information.

' . 310. Lllinority r ruitm nt program.

•. 311. T mpornry employment limltatlon.

TITLE IY ENI R EXECUTIVE SERVICE • •. 401. Gen rot pr vi ions. .• r. 402. Authority tor employment.

c. 403. El nmlnati n, rtlflcatlon, and appointment C'C. 1 I. R t ntloo preference. • c. 405. P rforman rating. • . 406. Awarding f r Ilks. ec. 7. Pny rnt nil y tems. ec. 4 . Pa admlnlstr tion. ec. . Tr ,. I, transportation, and subsistence.

. 410. Leave.

411. Disciplinary actions. . 412. Retirement. . -U3. oversf n to the enlol' Executive Service.

' . 414. LlmltaUon 4n executive positions.

. 415. Ea tlve<i.ate; congressional revie .

52 of 159 App. 000053

Exhibit A2 - Pub. Law 95-454, CSRA of 1978, 13OCT1978, Page 3 3 of 117 P BLl LA . 13 978 92 T T. 1 3 ri • rood trol d ffi ® fil of • by the

t

t

b on

co

m

r nchnt • m

r • • J-

i tl M 11 l he of public r c g-

TITL • !-.MERIT

.I itl lS n i mnend by in rtin he follo, in

" HAPTER 23-MERIT Y TEM PRI IPLE •· 1. prln 1pl . ... 2. n,o "2303. Prohlb th ure n ! Inv ·'2 n • I I t la,·. "§ 230L Me • • s 2301.

h.

nd ~ ffi f th njt d ourt •

. ( impl mcnted cont I : ified in • • f. m e from l h01 • led at pp rtuni

53 of 159 App. 000054

Exhibit A1 - Pub. Law 95-454, CSRA of 1978, 13OCT1978, Page 4 4 of 117

92 T T. ll 4 PUBLJ LA 95-454- CT. 13 1978

"(2) All employ and pplicants m ould receiv fair and equitable trea.tmen • o el ma gement without regard to poll lor religion, na. i n 1 origin marital ha ing condition, a.nd wjth proper regard •vacy an conional right . ) Equal pay pro for work qu u with appropriat n of both n al a lo t paid by employe vat Lppr ia entives nnd recognition should •d for excel in performance.

"( ) All uld mainta· • h cl rd of inteS!? :y con rn for th p te1 {o) Th or hould d t1 and • l .

•

1

r d rd tion and ining • 1g w uld u]t in rforman . · ( )

( , n. tio nal favori • cal p nd official a y or influ- • r ff th r ult e on.

c r pri al for th tion I mploye reas n bly ny l le. 11 • n r u. wn , an abn l.llti s tUl to public

h

( ) In a • • •• • r-

lnfro. (1 with -.-.----., ion 2302(a (2) ( ) of this ti h uth ri y h • • includin ,he.

"(2) an h hich i nots tit:v action ' . • ·s nt • • h • principl .

5 U C 2302. "§ 2302. Prohibited • Definition . ' a.) {1 the pr hibit p r nn l pra • '

m ns an n n (b) of tha cti n.

(2) F pu •( rson an a.ppointm n • a promo in·

54 of 159 App. 000055

Exhibit A1 - Pub. Law 95-454, CSRA of 1978, 13OCT1978, Page 5 5 of 117 95-454- CT. 13, 1978 92 TAT. 1115

' (iii) an action un h of this ti 1- plinary or •vo n;

"(iv) tr r, or ns igrun n "(v) ent· '\vi) ion· ' vii) oyment;

viii) (I, ormo.n lun ioH uncl r h pt r 43 of this titls;

(iY d ci • n ·nin~ pa ', r tu·< or con ed tion or tru.imn if th n ining may r no.bl dt in m • fo r ·01

11

th h1u1 it in U1 level;

,.· an

I

r

n

ca. or any I· -

tion b 1e i-

t • • 1 nso • • ·on.

g Ill flll th ...\clmini trntiv ( flicp of tlw nitc•d . tat 0Y<•1111111mt rintin., m e, but d s no include-

( i) overnme • (ii the Fede ra.l 1 y i-

uti 1 of ~hich . ·gn intc r th lo r pl Ot ll " .min t mplo mentr-

• r 1· • • or n ti nal 71 1Right ct ( r hibit d • 12 on in •m e of

1

0 f

p

(29 ..c.

791) • or " ( • ) on th b • a.rital r polit,i l Oiliation prohibit d on w, rul uJ ·on;

55 of 159 App. 000056

Exhibit A1 - Pub. Law 95-454, CSRA of 1978, 13OCT1978, Page 6 92 TAT. 1116 P BLIC LAW 95-454-0CT. 13, 1978

'(2) solici or consider an mmendation or tern nt oral or written, with respect to any ividual who requests or is under c n idera.tion for any personn ction unl u mm ndation or tement is b d on J,>er nal kn wl r r c rd of the~ n furnishing it and consJS of-

.) an evaluation of th w ormanc bilit • aptitude, or gen ral qualifi ations o dividuul • or ' (B) an evaluation of the chnrac lty, or uitability of uch individual· ( } r·c political a ivity of a.n (' )udinrr the providin o y poli ical contribution e) to.k an acti n a in y mploy or appli n1 1 m nt as a r pri al r refu al f any p r on to n h politi al activity;

' (4) d ceiv or willfull obs ru t any p n it h r ·pect to uch pe on s right to comp te for employm nt • (5) influenc an p to withdraw from omp tition for any po ition for th p of improving or injuring th pro - p c of an oth r person for employ men ;

"(6) grant any p r advnntno-e not aut ·z 1 by law rule • nt loy or appli an mpl yment (in • vr or manner of com tion r th r q • any ) for th pt • • • '"' r inturina tl1 I?r s s of nny parti uln.r p y t• (7) appomt plo promot ad,·t t r • 1cnt, emp mcnt, _P,romotion or a • • n nny individual who i n 1 • ·1 ·n 5 C 3110. (3) • • of u 11 m n c mploye pub Ii o • • 1 d O(a) (2) r o,·N'

I ploy ri diction 1 . 11d1 nn offi ' fail to tnk n. personnel • n • re pect to any m • t f r mpl •m nt re l fol'-

, J of inf rmnti n b n e oy e r appli-

1 employ e or n.pp t 1 nnbly belie,·(' ~ vi ) a violation of any lnw re"nla • ' ii) mismana a !IT of fnn bu of authori y or a tia] cdan 0 nb health o if such di Jo not • ly prohibited by ln.w and 11 h inform no nlly r quii- rl l>\' E.· uti order to b kept secret er· t of nationnl dcfcn or tho ndu t of • 1 nffi • '(B) a.discl o th l o • the _for' - tems Protection Bon.rdl. or to the In en rnl of nn agenc or a.not mp1oye de i!!nntecl by th hencl f th ag ncy to h h disclo ure of infonnution whi 11 th~ employ o l t reasonably • vid nee -

" (i) •olation of any law gnlntion, 01· "(i1) mismnnnr, ment a g1 f fond s. nn nbn ofnuthority,or sub tnntittl dnn•• r 0111bli h nl h or nf ty;

' (9) take or fail to tnke • ny p r onn('] action ngnin, t any employe or n pli ant for cmplo in nt u n. t'('pri n] for th xcr i c of an • ht granted by nn lnw, rule, or re"ttlntion;

56 of 159 App. 000057

Exhibit A1 - Pub. Law 95-454, CSRA of 1978, 13OCT1978, Page 7 of 117

PUBLl L W 95-454-- CT. 3 1978 92 TAT. 1117

) • • • • em or applicnnt for , luch d a.tr t rf a pli rformg • hall prohib" to ining ui Ii n for • ric of olu ·o - , - Ill . m hi inf a!!n enion o and nfo tion ~ ~~ th h l m n 1gem t, or for ible within th limits (d o • • flort ~~ l for

r

in 'm lo - ng j ri1n-

he tnn ,mis A.ct of bitin tion on • of th i1i t,a 973 (2 791) J.> di r· n on £ handi ndit1on; or ( l5) • •on of any la l rul or at ion prohibiting di ri1 th bn. i f mnrit tu r oli i al affiliati "2303. Prohibit!d p_e onneJ practi e in th deral Bureau of 5 u 23 3.

(a). a TI n

n

to personnel nctio as r adil A y l (or an l for such ) which e 'd nces--

"(l) • • • or ' (2) l f r- i y or h ty.

For th p m on "Per noel d ribed i n.) ) of thjs 11 ·on."

57 of 159 App. 000058

Exhibit B - HB 1075, 68th R.S., TWA of 1983, 08APR1983, Page 1

t catUy t!aat t!e"'ttacW u. tra• ...

---------

oornot eon of' ~ Jo 75 .v111c11 1583 fl.FR -6 HI 12, 05 wu fU..S of reeor4 OlfII I am HOUSE i ~f PRfSi:tlHTll'ES a4 Hforred to tlla ~ t teo on:

S fu~ Affi )"<.S ~~._.

~. FEB281183 By Js. f/c,J "Ct S Po J:r.e. No. ~ A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

1 AN ACT 2 relating to the protection of public employees who report a

3 violation of law . 4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS,

s SECTION l. DEFINITIONS. In this Act,

6 ( l) "Law" means a state or federal statute, an ordinance 7 passed by a local governmental body, or a rule adopted under a 8 statute or an ordinance . 9 ( 2) " Local governmental body" means,

10 (A) a county; 11 (8) an incorporated city or town;

12 (C) a public school district; or 13 (D) a special purpose district or authority . 14 (3) "Public employee" means a person who performs services 15 for compensation under a written or oral contract for a state or 16 local governmental body. The term does not include an independent

17 contractor. 18 (4) "State governmental body" means:

19 (A) a board, commission, department, office, or other agency 20 in the executive branch of state government that was created under

21 the constitution or a statute of the state, including an 22 institution of higher education as defined by Section 61.003, Texas 23 Education Code; 24 (8) the legislature or a legislative agency; or

68R252l P8S - D 1

58 of 159 App. 000059

Exhibit C1 - Pub. Law 101-12, WPA of 1989, 10APR1989, Page 1 103 STAT. 16 PUBLIC LAW 101-12-APR. 10, 1989

Public Law 101-12 101st Congress An Act Apr. 10, 19 To amend tiU 6, United ta Code, to 1tTI!lngth n the protectio availabl t.o {S. 20} Fed raJ employ agains prohibited personnel practices, and for other purpoees.

Be it en.acted by the Senate and House of Representatiues of the Whistleblow r United tates ofAmerica in Congress assembled Prot.ection Actof 1 9. ECTIO J. HORTTITLE. 5 USC 1201 not.e.

This Act may be cited as the "Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989".

6 USC 1201 not.e. EC. 2. FlNDI G D P RPO E.

(a) FlNDINGB.-The Congr finds that-

(1) Federal employee who make disclosures described in section 2302(b 8) of title 5 United States Code, serve the public intere t by isting in the elimination of fraud. waste, abuse, and unnecessary Government expenditures;

(2 protecting employee who disclose Government illegality, waste and corruption is a major step toward a more effective civil service; and (3) in p ing the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Congress tablished the Office of Special Counsel to protect whistleblowers (those individuals who make disclosures described in uch section 2302(bX8)) from reprisal.

(b) PuRPosE.-The purpose of this Act i • to trengthen and im• prove protection for the rights of Federal employees, to prevent reprisals, and to help eliminate wrongdoing within the Government by-

(1) mandating that employees should not suffer adverse consequences as a result of prohibited personnel practices; and 2) tablishing-

(A) that the primary role of the Office of Special Coun 1 is to protect employees, especially whistleblowers, from prohibited personnel practices;

(B) that the Office of Special Counsel shall act in the interests of employees who seek istance from the Office of Special Counseli and (C) that while disciplining th who commit prohibited personnel practic may be used as a means by which to help accomplish that goal, the protection of individuals who are the ubject of prohibited personnel practices remains the paramount consideration.

E . 3. l\lERlT Y TE t PROTECTIO BOARD: OFFJ E OF EL: INDIVIDUAL RIGHT OF CTIO .

a) MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BoARo.-Chapter 12 of title 5, United States Code is amended-

(!) in tion 1201 in the ond sentence by striking out uchairman and";

59 of 159 App. 000060

Exhibit C2 - Pub. Law 101-12, WPA of 1989, 10APR1989, Page 2 2 of 20

PUBLIC LAW 101-12-APR. 10, 1989 103 STAT. 17 (2 in the heading for section 1202 by triking out the comma and inserting in lieu thereof a micolon;

(3) in section 1202(b}-

A) in the first ntence by striking out "his' and inserting in lieu thereof "the member's"; and (B) in the second sentence by striking out "of this title";

(4) in section 1203 a) in the first ntence by triking out the comma after "time";

(5) in section 1203 c) by striking ou "the Chairman and Vice Chairman" and inserting in lieu thereof "the Chairman and the Vice Chairman'· (6) by redesign'ating section 1204 as section 1211(b) and inserting such subsection after section 121l(a) as added in paragraph (11) of this subsection);

(7) by redesignating section 1205 as section 1204, and amending uch redesignated section-

(A) by strikin~ out "and Special Counsel'', "the Special Coun l." and 'of this section" each place such terms appear;

(B) by striking out "subpena" and "subpenaed" each place such terms appear and inserting in lieu thereof "subpoena " and "subpoenaed", re pectively;

(C in subsection a 4) by triking out "(e)" and inserting in lieu thereof "(f)";

(D) by amending subsection (bX2) to read as follow :

" 2) Any member of the Board, any administrative law judge appointed by the Board under section 3105, and any employee of the Board designated by the Board may, with respect to any individual-

"(A) issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and presentation of testimony of any such individual, and the production of documentary or other evidence from any place in the United States, any territory or poss ion of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia; and "(B) order the takinJ of depositions from, and responses to written interrogaton by, any such individual.";

(E) in subsection (c) in the first sentence-

(i) by striking out "(bX2) of this section," and inserting in lieu thereof "(b 2XA) or section 1214(b), upon application by the Board/; and (ii) by striking out "juaicial";

(F) by redesignating ubsections (d) through (k) as subsections (e) through 0), respectively, and inserting after sub c- tion (c) the following new subsection:

"d) A sub~na referred to in subsection (b 2XA) may, in the case of any individual outside the territorial jurisdiction of any court of the United States, be served in uch manner as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prescribe for service of a ubpoena in a foreign country. To the extent that the courts of the United States can District of rt jurisdiction over uch individual, the United States District Columbia.

Court for the District of Columbia shall have the same jurisdiction to take an>' action respecting compliance under this subsection by uch individual that uch court would have if such individual were personally within the jurisdiction of uch court.";

{G) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by subparagraph (F) of thi paragraph}-

60 of 159 App. 000061

Exhibit C3 - Pub. Law 101-12, WPA of 1989, 10APR1989, Page 3 3 of 20 103 STAT. 18 PUBLIC LAW 101-12-APR. 10, 1989 (i) in _paragraph (1)-

m by redesignating such paragraph as subparagraph (A) of paragraph (l); and 01) by inserting at the end thereof the following new subparagraph:

"(B i) The Merit Systems Protection Board may, during an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel or during the pendency of any proceeding before the Board, issue any order which may be necessary to protect a witn or other individual from harassment, except that an agency (other than the Office of Special Counsel) may not request any such order with regard to an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel from the Board during such. investigation.

"(ii) An order issued under this subparagraph may be enforced in the same manner as provided for under paragraph (2) with respect to any order under ubsection (a)(2).";

(ii) in paragraph (2)-

0) by redesignating uch paragraph as subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) and striking out "of this section" in the first ntence therein; and (II) by inserting at the end thereof the following new subparagraph (B):

Regulations. "(B) The Board shall prescribe regulations under which any employ who is aggrieved by the failure of any other employee to comply with an order of the Board may petition the Board to exercise its authority under subparagraph (A."; and • (iii) in paragraph (3) bv inserting "of Personnel Management" after "Office"; (H) in subsection (f) (as redesignated by subparagraph (F) of this paragraph}-

(i) in paragraph (1) in the first sentence by inserting "of the Office of Personnel M~ement" after "Director ", and by striking out "of this title"· (ii) in paragraph (2)-

0) in the first sentence by inserting a comma after "subsection";

(11) in subparagraph (A) by striking out "of this title"; and (III) in subparagraph (B) by triking out "of this title"; and (ill) in paragraph (3)-

(1) in su~~:agraph (A) by striking out "(A)"; (II) by str' • g out subparagraph (B); and (III) b1. redesignating subparagraph (C) and clauses (1) and (ii) therein as paragraph (4) and subparagraehs (A) and (B), respectively; and (I) in subsection (j) ( redesignated by subparagraph (F) of this paragraph) in the second sentence by striking out "of this title" after "chapter 33";

(8) by striking out sections 1206 through 1208; (9) by redesignating section 1209(a) as section 1205, and inserting before such section the following section heading:

"§ 1205. Tran mitta1 of information to Congre ";

(10) by redesignating section 1209(b) as section 1206, and inserting before such section the following section heading:

61 of 159 App. 000062

Exhibit D1 - SB 248 73rd R.S., Revision of TWA, 10APR1989, Page 1 D 1 of 3,044

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT

2 relating to the adoption of a nonsubstantive revision of statutes

3 relating to areas of government that affect or involve both state 4 and local entities , including the operation of government and

5 governmental bodies, public officers and employees, and fiscal 6 affairs and including conforming amendments, repeals, and 7 penal ties .

8 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: 9 SECTION 1. ADOPTION OF TITLES 5, 6, AND 10, GOVERNMENT CODE.

10 The Government Code is amended by adding Titles 5, 6, and 10 to 11 read as follows: 12 TITLE 5. OPEN GOVERNMENT; ETHICS 13 SUBTITLE A. OPEN GOVERNMENT 14 Chapter 551. OPEN MEETINGS 15 Chapter 552. OPEN RECORDS 16 Chapter 553. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 17 Chapter 554. PROTECTION FOR REPORTING VIOLATIONS OF LAW 18 Chapter 555. STATE AGENCY RECORDS RELATING TO 19 LICENSE HOLDERS 20 Chapter 556. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES BY STATE EMPLOYEES 21 Chapter 557. SEDITION, SABOTAGE, AND COMMUNISM 22 Chapter 558. INTERPRETERS FOR DEAF OR HEARING 23 IMPAIRED PERSONS 24 [Chapters 559-570 reserved for expansion)

73R3011 DAK-D

62 of 159 App. 000063

Exhibit D2 - SB 248 73rd R.S., Revision of TWA, 10APR1989, Page 64

•1 employee who sues under this chapter has the burden of proof, 2 except that if the suspension or termination of a pub l ic employee

3 occurs not later than the 90th day after the date on wh i ch the 4 employee reports a violation of law, the suspension or termination 5 is presumed, sub j ect to rebuttal, to be because the employee · made

6 the report. (V.A.c.s. Art. 6252-16a, Sec. 3(b).)

7 Sec. 554.005. LIMITATION PERIOD. Except as provided by

8 Section 554.006, a public employee who seeks relief under th i s 9 chapter must sue not l ater than the 90th day after the date on

10 which the alleged violation of this chapter: 11 (1) occurred; or

12 (2) was discovered by the employee through reasonable 13 diligence. (V.A.C.S. Art. 6252-16a, Sec. 3(a) (part).) 14 Sec. 5S4.006. EXHAUSTION OF GRIEVANCE OR APPEAL PROCEDURES. 15 (a) An employee of a local government must exhaust that 16 government's grievance or appeal procedures relating to suspension 17 or termination of employment or unlawful discrimination before 18 suing under this chapter.

19 (b) The employee must invoke the grievance or appeal 20 procedures not later than the 90th day after the date on which the 21 alleged violation of this chapter:

22 (1) occurred; or

23 (2) was discovered by the employee through reasonab l e 24 diligence. 25 (c) Time used by the employee in exhausting the grievance or 26 appeal procedures is excluded from the period established by 27 Section 554.005.

73R3011 DAK-D 64

63 of 159 App. 000064

Exhibit D3 - SB 248 73rd R.S., Revision of TWA, 10APR1989, Page 65

1 (d) This section does not apply if a final decision is not 2 rendered before the 31st day after the date on which the employee 3 initiated the grievance or appeal. (V.A.C.S. Art. 6252-16a, Secs. 4 3(d), (e).) 5 Sec, 554.007. WHERE SUIT BROUGHT. A public employee may sue 6 under this chapter in a district court of the county in which the ·7 employee resides or in a district court of Travis County. 8 (V,A.C,S. Art, 6252-16a, Sec, 3(c).) 9 Sec. 554.008. CIVIL PENALTY. (a) A supervisor who suspends 10 or terminates the employment of a public employee in violation of 11 this chapter is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000. 12 (b) The attorney general or appropriate prosecuting attorney 13 may sue to collect a civil penalty under this section. 14 (c) A civil penalty collected under this section shall be 15 deposited in the state treasury. (V.A.C.S. Art. 6252-16a, Sec. 5.) 16 Sec. 554.009. NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES. (a) A state agency or 17 local government shall inform its employees of their rights under 18 this chapter by posting a sign in a prominent location in the 19 workplace. 20 (b) The attorney general shall prescribe the design and 21 content of the sign required by this section. (V.A.C.S. 22 Art. 6252-16a, Sec. 6.) 23 CHAPTER 555. STATE AGENCY RECORDS RELATING TO LICENSE HOLDERS 24 SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS 25 Sec. 555 . 001. DEFINITIONS 26 Sec. 555.002. RULES 27 Sec, 555,003. EXCEPTION

73R3011 DAK-D 65

64 of 159 App. 000065

Exhibit E1 - HB 175 74th R.S., Revision of TWA, 17NOV1994, Page 1

------· --- I cer;ity that the attacned is a true and ~ .. '.,eel copy cf !ho -:io..."Ument which was fi;ed of record in the Chief Clerk's Office and referred to the committee on:

<'·1iet Clerk of the House

By

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT 2 r·elating to the protection of a public employee who reports a 3 violation of law. 4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: 5 SECTION 1. Section 554.001, Government Code, is amended to

6 read as follows: 7 Sec. 554.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: 8 (1) "Law" means: 9 (A) a state or federal statute: 10 (B) an ordinance of a local governmental entity 11 [ eo8y l : or 12 (C) a rule adopted under a statute or ordinance. 13 (2) "Local governmental entity [go•erl'lfflel'le]" means~ 14 political subdivision of the state, including a: 15 (A) [a] county: 16 (B) [a] municipality: 17 (C) [a] public school district: or 18 (D) [a] special-purpose district or authority. 19 (3) "Personnel action" means an action that affects a 20 public employee's compensation, promotion, demotion, transfer, work 21 assignment, or performance evaluation . 22 ill [ t3t l "Public employee" means· an employee or 23 appointed officer [a-persol'I] other than an independent contractor 24 who is paid to perform(7-£or-eompel'lsae¼ol'l7-per£orms] services for a

65 of 159 App. 000066

Exhibit E2 - HB 175 74th R.S., Revision of TWA, 17NOV1994, Page 2 2 1f 84

'i . • •.

1 state or local governmental entity [body-ttftder-a-wr¼tten-or-ora¼

2 eontraet] . 3 ill [t4t] "State governmental entity [ageney]" means:

4 (A) a board, commission, department, office, or 5 other agency in the executive branch of state government, created 6 under the constitution or a statute of the state, including an 7 institution of higher education, as defined by Section 61.003,

8 Education Code; 9 (B) the legislature or a legislative agency; or 10 (C) the Texas Supreme Court, the Texas Court of 11 Criminal Appeals, a court of appeals, a state judicial agency, or

12 the State Bar of Texas. 13 SECTION 2. Section 554.002, Government Code, is amended to

14 read as follows: 15 Sec. 554.002. RETALIATION PROHIBITED FOR REPORTING VIOLATION

16 OF LAW. 1!..l A state [ageney] or local governmental entity

17 [ge•erM\eftt) may not suspend or terminate the employment ofL or

18 take other adverse personnel action [d¼ser¼m¼nate] againstL a

19 public employee who in good faith reports a violation of law by the

20 employing governmental entity or another public employee to an

21 appropriate law enforcement authority.

22 (b) In this section, a report is made to an apPropriate law

23 enforcement authority if the authority:

24 (1) is a part of a state or local governmental entity

25 or of the federal government; and

26 (2) is authorized to:

27 (Al regulate under or enforce the law alleged to

74Rl 960 MJW-F 2

66 of 159 App. 000067

Exhibit E3 - HB 175 74th R.S., Revision of TWA, 17NOV1994, Page 3

1 be violated in the report: or 2 (B) investigate or prosecute a violation of 3 criminal law. 4 SECTION 3, Section 554.003, Government Code, is amended to

5 read as follows: 6 Sec. 554.003. RELIEF AVAILABLE TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEE. (a) A

7 public employee whose employment is suspended or terminated or who 8 is subjected to an adverse personnel action [diseriminated-against] 9 in violation of Section 554.002 is entitled to sue for: 10 (1) injunctive relief: 11 ( 2) actual damages: 12 ( 3) [exem~¼ary-damages7 13 [t4t) court costs: and 14 ill [tStl reasonable attorney fees. 15 (b) In addition to relief under Subsection (a), a public 16 employee whose employment is suspended or terminated in violation 17 of this chapter is entitled to: 18 (1) reinstatement to the employee's former position or 19 an equivalent position; 20 (2) compensation for wages lost during the period of 21 suspension or termination: and 22 (3) reinstatement of fringe benefits and seniority 23 rights lost because of the suspension or termination. 24 (c) In a suit under this chapter against an employing state 25 or local governmental entity, a public employee may not recover 26 more than $250,000 in monetary damages, including lost wages. 27 SECTION 4. Chapter 554, Government Code, is amended by

74Rl960 MJW-F 3

67 of 159 App. 000068

Exhibit E4 - HB 175 74th R.S., Revision of TWA, 17NOV1994, Page 4

l adding Section 554.0035 to read as follows: 2 Sec. 554.0035. WAIVER OF IMMUNITY. A public employee who

3 alleges a violation of this chapter may sue the employing state or

4 local governmental entity for the relief provided by this chapter.

5 Sovereign immunity is waived and abolished to the extent of

6 liability for the relief allowed under this chapter for a violation

7 of this chapter. 8 SECTION 5. Section 554.004, Government Code, is amended to

9 read as follows:

10 Sec. 554.004. BURDEN OF PROOF; PRESUMPTION; AFFIRMATIVE

11 DEFENSE. fil A public employee who sues under this chapter has 12 the burden of proof, except that if the suspension or termination

13 of, or adverse personnel action against, a public employee occurs

14 not later than the 90th day after the date on which the employee

15 reports a violation of law, the suspensionL [er] termination.!..-..2£.

16 adverse personnel action is presumed, subject to rebuttal, to be

17 because the employee made the report. 18 (b) It is an affirmative defense to a suit under this

19 chapter that the employing state or local governmental entity would

20 have taken the action against the employee that forms the basis of

21 the suit based solely on information, observation, or evidence that

22 is not related to the fact that the employee made a report

23 protected under this chapter of a violation of law.

24 SECTION 6. Section 554.006, Government Code, is amended to

25 read as follows: 26 Sec. 554.006. USE [E*HASS~i8H] OF GRIEVANCE OR APPEAL 27 PROCEDURES. (a) A public [An] employee [e£--s--¼ecs¼--ge~ernfflen~]

74Rl960 MJW-F 4

68 of 159 App. 000069

Exhibit E5 - HB 175 74th R.S., Revision of TWA, 17NOV1994, Page 5

1 must initiate action under the [exhattst--that--go•ernmentisJ 2 grievance or appeal procedures of the employing state or local 3 governmental entity relating to suspension or termination of 4 employment or adverse personnel action [ttniawftt¼-diserimination] 5 before suing under this chapter. 6 (b) The employee must invoke the applicable grievance or 7 appeal procedures not later than the 90th day after the date on 8 which the alleged violation of this chapter: 9 (1) occurred; or 10 (2) was discovered by the employee through reasonable 11 diligence. 12 (c) Time used by the employee in acting under [exhattsting] 13 the grievance or appeal procedures is excluded, except as provided 14 by Subsection (d), from the period established by Section 554.005. 15 (d) If a final decision is not rendered before the 31st day 16 after the date procedures are initiated under Subsection (a), the 17 employee may elect to: 18 (1) exhaust the applicable procedures under Subsection 19 (a), in which event the employee must sue not later than the 30th 20 day after the date those procedures are exhausted to obtain relief 21 under this chapter; or 22 (2) terminate procedures under Subsection (a), in 23 which event the employee must sue within the time remaining under 24 Section 554.005 to obtain relief under this chapter [~his-seetion 25 does-not-app¼y-if-a-fina¼-deeision-is-not-rendereo-before-the--3+st 26 day-after-the-date-on-whieh-the-empioyee-initiated-the-grie¥anee-or 27 appeal].

74R1960 MJW-F 5

69 of 159 App. 000070

Exhibit E6 - HB 175 74th R.S., Revision of TWA, 17NOV1994, Page 6 1 SECTION 7. Section 554.007, Government Code, is amended to 2 read as follows: 3 Sec. 554.007. WHERE SUIT BROUGHT. A public employee may sue

4 under this chapter in a district court of the county in which the 5 cause of action arises [emp¼oyee-res¼des-or-¼n-a-distr¼et-eottrt-er 6 ~rav¼s-eettnty]. 7 SECTION 8. Section 554.008, Government Code, is amended by 8 amending Subsection (a) and by adding Subsections (d) and (e) to 9 read as follows: 10 (a) A supervisor who in violation of this chapter suspends 11 or terminates the employment of a public employee or takes an 12 adverse personnel action against the employee [¼n-vie¼at¼en-er-this 13 ehapter] is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 14 [$t,888].

15 (d) A civil penalty assessed under this section shall be 16 paid by the supervisor and may not be paid by the employing 17 governmental entity. 18 (e) The personal liability of a supervisor or other 19 individual under this chapter is limited to the civil penalty that 20 may be assessed under this section. 21 SECTION 9. Section 554.009(a), Government Code, is amended 22 to read as follows: 23 (a) A state [ageney] or local governmental entity

24 [government] shall inform its employees of their rights under this 25 chapter by posting a sign in a prominent location · in the workplace. 26 SECTION 10. The changes in law made by this Act apply only 27 to a suspension or termination of employment of a public employee

74Rl960 MJW-F 6

70 of 159 App. 000071

Exhibit E7 - HB 175 74th R.S., Revision of TWA, 17NOV1994, Page 7

1 or to other adverse personnel action taken against a public 2 employee on or after the effective date of this Act. A suspension 3 or termination of employment of a public employee or other adverse 4 personnel action against the employee, within the meaning of the 5 law changed by this Act, that is taken before the effective date of 6 this Act is governed by the law existing on the date the 7 suspension, termination, or other adverse personnel action 8 occurred, and the former law is continued in effect for that 9 purpose. 10 SECTION 11. The importance of this legislation and the 11 crowded condition of the calendars in both houses create an 12 emergency and an imperative public necessity that the 13 constitutional rule requiring bills to be read on three several 14 days in each house be suspended, and this rule is hereby suspended, 15 and that this Act take effect and be in force from and after its 16 passage, and it is so enacted.

74Rl960 MJW-F 7

71 of 159 App. 000072

Exhibit F1 - Pub. Law 112-199, WPEA of 2012, 27NOV2012, Page 1 <\\l!litNflf:AlLM? ~•'\ l,fl\'lll'IMCNt INr-OIIM t lO", CPO

PUBLIC LAW 112-199-NOV. 27, 2012 126 STAT. 1465

Public Law 112-199 112th Congress An Act To am nd chapter 23 of title 5, nited tat s Code, to elarily the di. clos ures of information protccled from prohi bited per onnel pracLi ces, requ.iro a statement in non-disclosure policie , form s, a nd agreements tb at such policies, forms, and ov, 27, 2012 agre ment conform witb erlain disclo ur protections, provide certain a uthority I . 7431 for the pecial ounsel, a nd for other purpose .

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Sta.te ofAmerica in Congres a sembl d, WhistJ eblowcr ProLectioa SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. Enhnnrement Act or 2012.

Thi Act may be cited a the "Whi tleblower Protection 5U 101 notu. Enhancement Act of 2012".

TITLE I-PROTECTION OF CERTAIN DIS-

CLOSURES OF INFORMATION BY FED- ERAL EMPLOYEES EC. 101. CLARIFlCATlON OF DI LOSURES COVERED.

{a ) IN GENERAL.-Section 2302 b) 8) of title 5, United State Code, i amended-

(! ) in ubparagraph (A)(i ) by trikjng "a violation" and inserting 'any v:iolation' ; and (2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ''a v:iolation" and inserting '·any violation (other than a violation of thi ection) '. (b PROHIBITED PER ONNEL PRA Tl E UNDER SE TION 2302(b)(9 ).-

fl ) TE HNl AL AND ONFORMING AMENDMENTS.-Title 5, United tate ode, i amended-

(A) in subsections (a )( 3), (b)(4)(A), and (b (4) B ) i) of ection 1214 and in sub ections (al, (e (1), and (i ) of section 1221, by inserting "or ection 2302(b)( 9 AJ(iJ, (B ), ( ), or {D)" after "section 2302(b)(8)" each place it appear ; and (B) in section 2302(a )( 2) C)(i ), by inserting 'or section 2302(b 9) {A){i), (B ), (C) or CD " after "(b (8)' _ (2) OTHER REFERENCE .-(A) Title 5, United State Code, i amended in uh ection (b)(4 HB) i) of ~action 1214 and in subsection e )(l) of section 1221 by inserting "or protected activity" after "disclosure" each place it appears.

(B) Section 2302(b) 9 of title 5, Uruted States Code, i amended-

(i by striking subparagraph A ) and in erting the following :

72 of 159 App. 000073

Exhibit F2 - Pub. Law 112-199, WPEA of 2012, 27NOV2012, Page 2 126 STAT. 1466 PUBLIC LAW 112-199-NOV. 27, 2012 "(A) the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation-

"(i) with regard to remedying a violation of paragraph (8); or "(ii) other than with regard to remedying a violation of paragraph (8);"; and (ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting "(i) or (ii)" after "subparagraph (A )". (C) Section 2302 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: "(f)( l ) A disclosure shall not be excluded from subsection (b)(8)

because--

"(A) the disclosure was made to a supervisor or to a person who participated in an activity that the employee or applicant reasonably believed to be covered by subsection (b)(8)(A)(i) and (ii);

"(B) the disclosure revealed information that had been previously disclosed;

"(C) of the employee's or applicant's motive for making the disclosure;

"(D) the disclosure was not made in writing; "(E) the disclosure was made while the employee was off duty; or "(F) of the amount of time which has passed since the occurrence of the events described in the disclosure. "(2) If a disclosure is made during the normal course of duties of an employee, the disclosure shall not be excluded from subsection (b)(8) if any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action with respect to the employee making the disclosure, took, failed to take, or threatened to take or fail to take a personnel action with respect to that employee in reprisal for the disclosure.". SEC. 102. DEFINITIONAL AMENDMENTS.

Section 2302(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code, is amended-

(1) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking "and" at the end; (2) in subparagraph (C)(iii), by striking the period at the end and inserting "; and"; and (3) by adding at the end the following: "(D) 'disclosure' means a formal or informal communication or transmission, but does not include a communication concerning policy decisions that lawfully exercise discretionary authority unless the employee or applicant providing the disclosure reasonably believes that the disclosure evidences-

"(i) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or "(ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds , an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.".

SEC. 103. REBU'ITABLE PRESUMPTION.

Section 2302(b) of title 5, United States Code , is amended by amending the matter following paragraph (12) to read as follows: "This subsection shall not be construed to authorize the withholding of information from Congress or the taking of any personnel action Determination. against an employee who discloses information to Congress. For purposes of paragraph (8), (i) any presumption relating to the performance of a duty by an employee whose conduct is the subject of a disclosure as defined under subsection (a)(2)(D) may be rebutted

73 of 159 App. 000074

Exhibit G1 - HB3893, Proposed Revision to TWA, 06MAR2025, Page 1 ([] 1 of 6

By : Reynolds H. B . No . 3893

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

1 AN ACT 2 Relating to the protection of whistleblowers , accountability in

3 public and private sectors , and penalties for retaliatory actions . 4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS :

5 SECTION 1 . SHORT TITLE . 6 This Act may be c i ted as the " Whistleb l ower Protection and

7 Accountability Act of Texas ." 8 SECTION 2 . PURPOSE .

9 The purpose of this Act is to : 10 1. Strengthen protections for whistleblowers who

11 report fraud , corruption , unlawful activities , or violations of 12 public trust ; 13 2. Deter retaliation against whistleblowers through 14 civil and criminal penalties; 15 3. Promote transparency and accountability in

16 government entities , law enforcement , and private - sector

17 organizations .

18 SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS . 19 For the purposes of this Act , the following definitions 20 apply :

21 1. Whistleblower An employee , contractor , or 22 volunteer who reports misconduct , fraud , corruption , safety

23 violations , or unlawful activities in good faith . 24 2. Retaliation Any adverse employment action ,

1

74 of 159 App. 000075

Exhibit G2 - HB3893, Proposed Revision to TWA, 06MAR2025, Page 2 (ilJ 2 of 6 H. B . No . 3893 1 including termination , demotion , suspension , harassment ,

2 blacklisting , pay reduction , or other forms of discrimination .

3 3. Protected Disclosure - A good faith communication

4 regarding misconduct reported to a supervisor , compliance officer ,

5 oversight body , law enforcement , or an elected official .

6 SECTION 4 . SCOPE OF COVERAGE .

7 This Act applies to :

8 1. Public Sector Employees - State , county , municipal , 9 and law enforcement personnel .

10 2. Private Sector Employees - Emp l oyees of bus i nesses 11 and nonprofit organizations operating in Texas .

12 3. Contractors and Volunteers Individuals

13 performing services for an employer under contract or as unpaid

14 personnel.

15 SECTION 5 . PROHIBITED RETALIATION .

16 (a) No employer , agency , or organization may engage in 17 retaliation against a whistleb l ower . 18 (b) Retaliation includes , but is not limited to :

19 1. Termination , suspension , or demotion ; 20 2. Pay reduction or denia l of benefits ;

21 3. Workplace harassment or the creation of a hostile

22 work environment ;

23 4. Blacklisting or any act that harms future

24 employme n t opportunities . 25 (c) Employers violating this provision may be subject to

26 criminal liability under Texas Penal Code § 39 . 06 (Misuse of 27 Official Information) and civil liabi l ity under Chapter 554 , Texas

2

75 of 159 App. 000076

Exhibit G3 - HB3893, Proposed Revision to TWA, 06MAR2025, Page 3 il.D. lSV • .J07.J IIJ 3 of 6 1 Government Code (Whist leblower Protect ion Act) .

2 SECTION 6 . WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS .

3 (a) Confidentiality : Whistleblower identities sha l l remain

4 confidential unless disclosure is required by law .

5 (b) Remedies for Reta l iation :

6 1. Reinstatement to the same or equivalent position ;

7 2. Compensation for lost wages , benefits , and

8 emotional distress;

9 3. Punitive damages and reimbursement of legal fees .

10 SECT I ON 7 . MANDATORY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .

11 (a) All employers in Texas shall establish :

12 1. Internal procedures for whistleblower disclosures;

13 2. Mandatory notification of employee rights under

14 this Act ;

15 3. Supervisor and HR personnel training on handling

16 whistleblower complaints .

17 SECTION 8 . TEXAS WHISTLE BLOWER OVERSIGHT COMMISSION

18 (TWOC) .

19 (a) The Texas Whistleblower Oversight Commission (TWOC) is

20 hereby established as an independent body to :

21 1. Receive , investigate , and mediate whistleblower

22 complaints;

23 2. Recommend penalties for retaliatory actions ;

24 3. Require annual reports from organizations

25 detailing whistleblower disclosures and remedial actions taken .

26 SECTION 9 . TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC ENTITIES .

27 All Texas government agencies , including constables '

3

76 of 159 App. 000077

Exhibit G4 - HB3893, Proposed Revision to TWA, 06MAR2025, Page 4 ID 4of 6 H. B . No . 3893

1 offices , shall :

2 (a) Submit quarterly budget reports disclosing funding

3 allocations for specialized units ;

4 (b) Include whistleblower reports and resolutions for

5 public review under the Texas Public Information Act (Chapter 552 ,

6 Texas Government Code) .

7 SECTION 10 . LAW ENFORCEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY .

8 (a) No law enforceme n t agency , including constables '

9 precincts , may hire an officer previously dismissed for :

10 1. Official misconduct under Texas Penal Code§ 39 . 02 11 (Abuse of Official Capacity) ;

12 2. Civil rights violations under Texas Penal Code § 13 39 . 03 (Official Oppression) .

14 (b) Agencies must conduct thorough background checks and 15 periodic personnel reviews of all officers.

16 SECTION 11 . LEGAL RECOURSE FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS . 17 (a) Whistleblowers may file civil l awsuits against 18 employers within three ( 3) years of retaliatory actions .

19 (b) Lawsuits may include : 20 1. Compensation for economic and emotional damages ;

21 2. Recovery of lega l fees and punitive damages ;

22 3. Injunctive relief restoring employment or 23 benefits .

24 SECTION 12 . AMENDMENTS TO TEXAS WH I STLEBLOWER ACT . 25 (a) Expansion of Protections:

26 1. Extends whistleblower protections to 27 private - sector employees ;

4

77 of 159 App. 000078

Exhibit G5 - HB3893, Proposed Revision to TWA, 06MAR2025, Page 5 I[] 5 of 6 H. B . No . 3893 1 2. I ncludes explicit safeguards for reporting 2 constitutional and civil rights violations ; 3 3. Aligns Texas laws with federal whistleblower 4 protections under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act 5 (WPEA) . 6 SECTION 13 . PENALTIES FOR RETALIATION. 7 (a) Civil Penalties : Employers guilty of retaliation may 8 face : 9 1. Fines up to $500 , 000 per violation ; 10 2. Compensatory damages for affected whistleblowers . 11 (b) Criminal Penalties:

12 3. Any employer obstructing a whistleblower 13 disclosure may be charged under Texas Penal Code § 36 . 06 14 (Obstruction or Retaliation) and face imprisonment. 15 SECTION 14 . ESTABLISHMENT OF WHISTLE BLOWER SUPPORT FUND . 16 (a) A state - funded program shall provide : 17 1. Financial assistance for whistleblowers facing 18 legal proceedings ; 19 2. Counseling services for whistleblowers and their 20 families . 21 SECTION 15 . ENFORCEMENT . 22 (a) The Texas Attorney General ' s Office shall oversee 23 enforcement of this Act ; 24 (b) The Texas Whistleblower Oversight Commission (TWOC) 25 shall monitor compliance and publish an annual report to the Texas 26 Legislature. 27 SECTION 16 . EFFECTIVE DATE .

5

78 of 159 App. 000079

Exhibit G6 - HB3893, Proposed Revision to TWA, 06MAR2025, Page 6 H. B . No . 3893 1 This Act shall take effect on January 1 , 2025 . 2 SECTION 17 . SEVERABILITY . 3 If any provision of this Act is held invalid , the remainder of 4 the Act shall not be affected and shall continue in full force and 5 effect .

6

79 of 159 App. 000080

Exhibit H - OAG Whistleblower Sign

ICE

The Texas Whistleblower Act protects public employees who make good faith reports of violations of law by their employer to an appropriate law enforcement authority. An employer may not suspend or terminate the employment of, or take other adverse personnel action against, a public employee who makes a report under the Act.

80 of 159 App. 000081

Exhibit I1 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 1

DI Texas Deportment of Information Resources

CONTRACT MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK

Contract Management Handbook - Department of Information Resources

81 of 159 App. 000082

Exhibit I2 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 2 liD of 13

The information contained in this Contract Management Handbook complies with Texas Government Code 2261 .256, which requires each state agency to develop and comply with purchasing accountability and risk analysis procedures. This handbook ident ifies contracts that r equire enhanced contract monitoring o r immediate attentio n of contract management staff and establishes clear levels of purchasing accountability and staff responsibilities re late d t o purchasing.

Additionally DIR contract procedures are drafted with the State of Texas Contract Management Guide (hereinafter the "Guide" ) as a reference and with the intent to use as much of the " best practices" contained therein as applies to the Cooperative, Enterprise and internal contracts that DIR establishes. To the extent any procedures are at variance with the Contract Management Guide, there are practical reasons for the variance. Most of the Cooperative Contracts are commodity contracts as opposed to a deliverable-based project type contracts. For example, the typical DIR Cooperative Contract allows a Customer to place an order directly w ith the Vendor, the Vendor ships the item or items to the Customer, and invoicing and payment ensue. Therefore, some of the steps outlined in the Guide do not apply or are not essential to a successful contract of this variety. Finally, DIR uses a template as the Contract. These templates have been carefully drafted and are not generally open to extensive renegotiation with Vendors. The few alternative language items allowed are highlighted as exceptions to the standard language in the contract document. The template is attached to each solicitation so that Vendors understand DIR's contract terms and conditions when developing their proposals. DIR has found this disclosure of the Contract as a part of the procurement process speeds the contract award process.

82 of 159 App. 000083

Exhibit I3 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 3 [J of 13

Accountability through risk analysis Planning is the first and a very important step in Contract Management. Better planning results in a more successful Contract. A well-formed solicitation document results in better responses and more competition. A clear statement of demand/need and effective research gathering makes the Contracting Team more knowledgeable about the subject matter of a contract. Planning focuses the Contract Manager on who, why, what, how and when of the Procurement. Who establishes the Contract Management Team. Why helps to determine the need for a Procurement. What focuses on the Product or Service to be procured . How is the procurement method and the Contract model. When establishes the proper timeline.

According to the Guide, "each contract management initiative should include an executive sponsor, a contract manager, purchasing department staff and program staff to assist in the contract management process. The extent and degrees of executive sponsorship and participation should be directly related to the level of risk associated with the procurement"

These DIR Procedures state that the Contract Management team shall be composed of a Contract Manager, Enterprise or Cooperative Contracts Director, Contracts Attorney, Purchasing Staff. Chief Procurement Officer, and the Executive Director (or designee). Possible involvement by the Executive Director of the Department of Information Resources will be dependent on the contract initiative itself.

According to the Guide, risk management is an important step in the planning phase. In the planning phase, the DIR Contract Manager will conduct a certain amount of risk analysis and work to mitigate that risk by adhering to the procedures established in the DIR Contract Management Procedures.

Contract Demand/Need establishes the two types of Needs Assessment that DIR Contract Managers will deal with, internal and external. Internal demand would be expressed through DIR Management. External demand would be expressed through outside forces, Vendors or Customers.

Success of resulting contracts is based on effective research performed up front during the planning stage. The DIR Procedures identify the method for gathering research such as description of the product/service, how the product or service is sold, who sells the product or service, pricing offered to other states, potential use by Customers and potential cost avoidance.

According to the Guide, well-formed objectives will help keep the contracting process focused and on track. Any resulting recommendations from the New Product Service Request initiated

83 of 159 App. 000084

Exhibit I4 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 4 I[)~ ot 13

in the DIR Procedures become DIR Contract Management contracting objectives and purpose.

In addition to the research DIR Contracts Managers will rely on the experience of having done these types of procurements repeatedly. DIR staff also review solicitations and contracts put into place by other states, other Texas state cooperatives, and the federal government.

For the Cooperative Contracts, the standard DIR business model is a direct model, whereby customers deal directly with the Vendors. DIR puts the Contract into place and the Customers work directly with the Vendor under the terms of the Contract to obtain products and services.

The Guide indicates that during the Planning stage a cost estimate should be developed. Based on the research done in the Planning stage, the Contract Manager should have estimates on how much the product/service should cost Customers. Since DIR Cooperative Contracts are awarded on an indefinite quantity basis with no minimum guarantees of any purchase, DIR does not perform this cost estimate exercise as an internal cost item. However DIR does perform cost avoidance calculations for its Contracts, which benchmarks DIR prices against pricing achieved by other purchasing cooperatives and demonstrates savings to the taxpayers generated by use of the DIR Contracts. Deliverables Based Information Technology Services Contracts.

Enhanced Monitoring of Contracts The DIR Contract Management staff determine which contracts require enhanced monitoring through the use of a risk assessment matrix (Appendix A) . In making the determination, the matrix considers factors such as:

• The contract type; • The contract amount; - Risk; • Special circumstances of the project; and • Scope of goods or services provided.

Enhanced contract monitoring reports will be provided to the Chief Procurement Officer and, when applicable, the Executive Director or the DIR Board.

Purchasing Accountability and Responsibilities The following are a list of the responsibilities of staff across the agency regarding purchases. Individuals authorized to obligate the agency are identified in DI R's Delegation Matrix for Contracts and Amendments (Appendix B)

84 of 159 App. 000085

Exhibit I5 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 5 I[] 5 of 13

Purchasing Staff • Establish standard DIR procedures for procurement of products and services in accordance w ith state statutes, Comptroller rules, and DIR policies.

• Within the agency purchasing process, there are built-in separation of duties and additional authorizations.

• Perform all departmental purchases, or authorize the delegation thereof. • The Purchaser works independently to procure routine agency needs and consults with other agency personnel with relevant expertise for more complex purchases.

• The Purchaser plans, organizes, coordinates, and prepares specifications for procurement documents.

• Assist DIR employees with the various types of purchases.

Contract Staff

• Establish standard DIR procedures for procurement of products and services in accordance with state statutes, Comptroller rules, and DIR policies.

• Within the agency Contracting process, ensure there are built in separation of duties and multiple levels of authorizations • Perform all departmental contracting functions in accordance with DIR policies. • The Contract Staff works independently to procure more complex purchases. • The Contract Staff handles all aspects of the contract process.

All DIR Employees • Anticipate needs well in advance to allow time for purchase requests to be processed and products to be delivered.

• Ensure that products and services are requisitioned according to agency guidelines. • Ensure all documents are handled by the appropriate procurement or contract staff, and that no obligation is made outside those who are authorized on behalf of the agency to make such obligations.

85 of 159 App. 000086

Exhibit I6 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 6 liD 6 or 13

Requesting department is responsible for contract initiation including:

• Consulting with the Chief Procurement Office and the Office of the General Counsel when necessary;

• Identifying needs; • Planning; • Preparing risk assessment with assistance of Contract Manager (reference Appendix A);

• Developing detailed statement of work, deliverables and performance measures; • Identifying DIR Policies that apply to services being performed; • Assisting Contracts Department with contract development; and • Assisting with contract negotiations, when needed.

Requesting department, after contract has been awarded, will:

• Apply specialized knowledge, skills, and techniques to support program activities; • Administer and manage daily operations of required services established in contract. The three elements managed are cost, time, and scope;

• Manage performance as required in the contract. May require involvement of Contract Manager should a dispute arise;

• Ensure provider meets required performance objectives defined in the contract; • Oversee delivery and receipt of services; • Analyze invoices for contractual compliance; • Certify services were performed and deliverables met; and • Approve invoice for payment.

86 of 159 App. 000087

Exhibit I7 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 7 liD 7 of 13

Contract Management All contracts must be processed by the Contracts Department. All DIR divisions are required to consult with the Contracts Department when a contract is anticipated.

1. Contract Department handles contract management. Contract Manager shall:

a. Conduct competitive solicitation processes as required, to select vendors/service providers based on best value standards; b. Check Comptroller's Vendor Performance Tracking System (YPTS) to identify past performance issues before awarding contract or PO; c. Process all contract documents and amendments including renewals; d. Obtain required documentation; e. Ensure appropriate terms, conditions and clauses are in each contract; f. Negotiate final terms with other party; g. Prepare and finalize contract documents; h. Obtain legal review; i. Obtain reviews and approvals from all stakeholders. Contract approval is accomplished by routing through CAPPS workflow; j. Obtain signatures from all required parties. Contract documents are routed for signature in accordance with DIR Purchase Approval Matrix (Appendix B); k. Enforce contract terms and manage actions of parties as governed by the terms of the contract; I. Ensure DIR receives the services contracted for, at the quality level expected, at the time agreed to and for the price that was negotiated.

2. Ensu r e contracts are properly awarded in accordance with legal and statutory requirements and that the highest ethical standards are followed at all times;

3. Ensure integrity of DIR is maintain in all its business dealings;

4. Meet Certified Texas Contracts Manager (CTCM) standards; and

5. Certify all contracts have been entered into in accordance with the rules, statutes and Contract Management Guidelines established by Comptroller of Public Accounts.

87 of 159 App. 000088

Exhibit I8 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 8

DIR Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM)

The DIR Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) is a tool used by contract staff to analyze contracts to identify areas of risk (the potential for loss, harm, or damage may occur due to errors or problems associated with contractors' performance). This tool also allows staff to identify specific areas that may need accelerated monitoring.

This tool should be used prior to: I) awarding contracts from RFP/RFO proposals; 2) entering into new contracts with vendors; and 3) renewing existing contracts.

Risk factors are indicators that determine the risk of the contract or project objectives not being met.

The risk factors included in the DIR RAM include:

1 Type of Contract purchase - what type of contract solicitation - competitive/ non- competitive, Master Cooperative Contract; Enterprise Contract 2 Payment Type/Structure - the type of budget included in the contract; 3 The dollar amount of the contract; 4 Essential Agency Function; 5 Stability and Experience of Contractor's Key Management Staff; 6 Percentage of Services Performed by Subcontractors; 7 Compliance History; 8 Past Programmatic Performance; 9 Audit Outcomes; 10 Number of years in business; 11 Performance Measures; 12 Deliverables; and 13 Greater than $ I million dollars - amount of financial reports required .

Additional risk factors should be added when appropriate for a contract.

Rate each contractor on the risk elements using the range of Low (score 1-3), Medium (Score 4-7), or High (Score 8-10). The form will add up the scores in the Overall Risk Score field. The range for the Overall Risk Scores are:

Low risk procurement: 0 - 39 Medium risk procurement: 40- 91 High Risk Procurement: 92- 130

88 of 159 App. 000089

Exhibit I9 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 9 I[) 9 of 13

APPENDIX A

The RAM should be completed for each new solicitation, however risk should continue to be assessed on an on-going basis throughout the contract period. A new RAM should be completed when risk conditions undergo a substantial change ( e.g., contractor's management or ownership changes) . Contract management and monitoring activities should be adjusted to focus on the riskiest contractors during the entire contract period.

# Risk Factor Risk Level - Risk Level - Risk Level- Justification/Comments Risk Level LOW MEDIUM HIGH Score Score 1-3 Score4-7 Score 8-10

Pre-set Risk Factors 1 Type of lnteragency, Contract Less Consulting, Contract MOU or than $25K Eme rgency, Purchase lnterlocal Sole Source, Proprietary, or Construction > $25K 2 Payment Type/ Fixed price or Rate or Fee for Cost Structure contingency Services Reimbursement 3 Tota l Dollar Less than $100K to $1 million Over $1 million Amount $100K 4 Essential Contract Contract services Contract Agency services are are moderately services are Function not critical for essential to DIR's critical to meeting DIR's mission DIR mission mission 5 Stability & No recent No recent change, Recent change Experience of change and but not significant and not Contractor's Key significant experience; or significant Management experience recent change experience Staff but significant experience 6 Percentage of No Subcontractors Subcontractors Services Subcontractor account for 50% account Performed by involvement or less of contract for more Subcontractors work performed than 50% of cont ract work performed 7 Compliance No issues Moderate instances Substantial History of non- of non-compliance/ finding of non-

compliance no history - never compliance contracted with DIR before

89 of 159 App. 000090

Exhibit I10 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 10

8 Past Met or Met 75% or more Met less than Programmatic exceeded all of output and 75%of Performance output and outcome measures output and outcome outcome measures measures Risk factors - Financial 9 Audit No audit Moderate issues or Substantial Outcomes required or findings in audit(s) issues or no issues or findings in finding in audit(s) audit(s)

10 Number More than 5 1 year to 5 years Less than 1 of years in years year business

Risk Factors • contract 11 Performance Contract Contract contains No Measures contains at least one performance multiple clearly defined measures defined and or measurable Included in measurable performance contract performance measure measures 12 Deliverables Contract Contract contains No deliverables contains at least one clearly included in multiple defined deliverable contract deliverables that are clearly defined 13 Greater than Greater than Greater than Greater than $1 Million $1 M illion $1 Million $1 Million Financial Financial Financial reports No Financial Reports reports required reports required required reaulred

Overall Risk Score: 0

Low risk procurement: 0-39 Medium risk procurement: 40-91 High risk procurement: 92-130

90 of 159 App. 000091

Exhibit I11 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 11 I[) 11 of 1!

Summary of Risk Assessment:

Additional Risks:

Ris k Mitigation Plan:

91 of 159 App. 000092

Exhibit I12 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 12 [D12of13

APPENDIX B TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION RESOURCES APPROVAL MATRIX

Value of the Contract/Agreement/Work Signature Authority Examples of Contracts/Agreements Order/Statement of Work (Contract) or Amendment Amount $1 Mi ll ion and greater Executive Director* Enterprise Contracts and Amendments ($1M and>)

Statements of Work ($1M and >) Service Agreements ($1M and>) lnteragency Contracts {IAC)s ($1M and>) Audit Contracts Outside Counsel Contracts $0 to $999,999 CTS Division Enterprise Contracts and Amendments (<$1M)

Director CTS, CCTS and NSOC Service Agreements CTS, CCTS and NSOC Statements of Work CTS, CCTS, and NSOC IACs with state agencies $0 to $999,999 DCS Division Enterprise Contracts and Amendments (<$1M)

Director * DCS Service Agreements DCS Statements of Work DCS IACs with state agencies $0 to $999,999 Chief Operations PPMO Statements of Work Officer• $0 to $999,999 Deputy Executive Enterprise Contracts and Amendments (<$1M)

Director* Audit Contracts (<$ lM)

Outside Counsel Contracts (<$1M) Trademark and other IP Documen t s (<$1M)

$0 to $999,999 CISO, Security Enterprise Contracts and Amendments (<$1 M )

Division Director• Security Service Agreements Security Statements of Work Security IACs with state agencies $0 to $999,999 IRM, Digital Enterprise Contracts and Amendments (<$1M)

Government Texas.gov, ITS, and ISO/COOP Service Agreements Division Director• Texas.gov, ITS, and ISP/COOP Statements of Work Texas.gov, ITS, and ISO/COOP IACs with state agencies $0 to $999,999 Chief Financia l Enterprise Contracts and Amendments (<$1M)

Officer• Facilities, Finance, Purchasing and HR Service Agreements Facilities, Finance, Purchasing and HR Statements of Work Facilities, Finance, Purchasing and HR IACs with state agencies $0 to $999,999 Chief Technology Enterprise Contracts and Amendments (<$1M)

Officer* TPPG and ESS Service Agreements TPPG and ESS Statements of Work TPPG and ESS IACs with state agencies $0 to $999,999 Chief Procurement Enterprise Contracts and Amendments (<$1M)

Office* Cooperative Contracts Enterprise and Cooperative Contract Amendments to exercise a contract term extension Agency Statements of Work

92 of 159 App. 000093

Exhibit I13 - DIR Contract Management Handbook Page 13

Value of the Contract/Agreement/Work Signature Authority Examples of Contracts/Agreements Order/Statement of Work (Contract) or Amendment Amount $0 to $999,999 Public Affairs Pu blic Affa irs Contracts and Amen dments (<$1M)

Director• Public Affa irs Service Agreements Public Affairs Statements of Wo rk

• Th is de legation of signature authorit y does not eliminate the requirement t o have CTPM/CTCM review nor eli minate the require ment to have t he Chief Procu rement Officer approve prior to execution of t he Contract/Agreement/Se rvice Agreement/Statement of Work or Ame nd ment. IAC includes an y type of customer agreement for the program area.

93 of 159 App. 000094

Exhibit J1 - DIR RFO #DIR-CPO-TMP-550, 04DEC2020, Page 1

Texas Department of Information Resources

Request for Offer (RFO)

Cybersecurity Products and Services

DIR-CPO-TMP-550

Class ltem(s)

204 -29 *Data/File Security Hardware/Software, to Include Encryption

208- 55 *Inventory Management Softwa re, M icrocomputer

208-78 *Redaction, De- identification Software

208-81 *Software for Computer Software Tra ining, Microcomputer

208-88 ' Software, Monitoring, Microcomputer

208- 89 *Threat Alert Software, Microcomputer

•Utilities: Back-up, Batch File, Firewall, Menus, Operating System, Network Operating System, 208-90 Network Management, Recovery, Screen, Security, Virus Protection ...

209- 24 ' Biometric Authentication System Software, Mainframes and Serv ers

*Utilities. Back- up, Batch File, Menus, Network Management Operating System, Recovery, Screen, 209-91 Security, Virus Protection, etc., Mainframes and Servers

838-34 ' Communication Security Systems

918-93 ' Secu rity and Safety Consu lting

920-37 *Networking Services, Includ ing Installation, Security, and Ma intenance

990-48 ' Identity Theft Protection and Data Security Services

990-28 *Document Recovery Services, Disaster, Including Pa per Documents, Fi lm, Tapes ...

Issued: December 14, 2020 Version 1.0

Responses Due: January 21, 2021 02:00 PM (CT)

94 of 159 App. 000095

Exhibit J2 - DIR RFO #DIR-CPO-TMP-550, 04DEC2020, Page 21

3.4.3 HUB Resources Available

A list of certified HUBs is available on the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (CPA) Website at: https:Umycpa.cpa .state.tx.us/tpasscmblsearch/index.jsp. For additional information, contact the CPA's HUB program office at StatewideHUBProgram@cpa.texas.gov. If Respondent knows of any businesses that may qualify for certification as a HUB, they should encourage those businesses to contact the CPA HUB program office.

3.5. Successful Respondent Qualifications

3.5.1 Authorized Successful Respondents

Successful Respondents who propose to this RFO must be one of the following :

(a) Successful Respondent will sell directly to Customers through a Co -op Contract.

Any proposing Successful Respondent who is not the Manufacturer/Publisher must supply a signed letter from the Manufacturer/Publisher certifying that Successful Respondent is an authorized reseller of Manufacturer's/Publisher's products to the agencies and political subdivisions of the State, including institutions of higher education, and may sell such products under the terms and conditions of the DIR Contract, in support of Successful Respondent's proposal. Signed letters of authorization must be submitted with Successful Respondent's proposal. Failure to supply the letter may result in elimination of the related proposal from the solicitation process.

(b) Successful Respondent will execute a Co-op Contract with DIR and designate one or more qualified dealers or resellers or Order Fulfillers to sell directly to Customers on its behalf. Successful Respondent may also sell directly to Customers. Successful Respondents proposing to this RFO must supply a signed letter from the Manufacturer/Publisher certifying that Successful Respondent is an authorized reseller of Manufacturer's/Publisher's products to the agencies and political subdivisions of the State, including institutions of higher education, and may sell such products under the terms and conditions of the DIR Contract, in support of Successful Respondent's proposal. Signed letters of authorization must be submitted with Successful Respondent's proposal. Failure to supply the letter may result in elimination of the related proposal from the solicitation process.

RF DIR-CPO-TMP-550 Cybcrsecurity Products and crviccs 19

95 of 159 App. 000096

Exhibit J3 - DIR RFO #DIR-CPO-TMP-550, 04DEC2020, Page 22 ID 22of64

3.5.2 Federal Requirements

(a) State agencies are prohibited from doing business with terrorists and terrorist organizations. Any Respondent listed in the prohibited Vendor list authorized by Executive Order #13224, "Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism ", published by the United States Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (Terrorism List) shall not be awarded a Contract as a result of this RFO. Any Respondent awarded a Contract must agree that if at any time during the term of the Contract the Successful Respondent is listed on the Terrorism List, the Successful Respondent shall promptly notify DIR. As part of DI R's contract management, periodic checks will be performed to ensure Contract Holder remains in compliance with these Federal Requirements. DIR shall have the absolute right to terminate the Contract without recourse in the event Successful Respondent becomes listed on the Terrorism List.

(b) Should any Contract Holder become suspended or debarred from doing business with the federal government as listed in the System for Award Management (SAM) maintained by the General Services Administration, the Contract Holder' s Contract will be terminated without recourse.

(c) Successful Respondent shall comply with the requirements of the Immigration and Reform Act of 1986, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (" IIRIRA"), and the Immigration Act of 1990 (8 U.S.C.1101 , et seq.) regarding employment verification and retention of verification forms for any individual(s) hired on or after the effective date of the 1996 Act who will perform any labor or services under this Contract.

(d) The Education Department of General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR)

are the federal regulations that govern all federal grants awarded by the U.S. Department of Education on or after December 26, 2014. EDGAR encourages the use of cooperative agreements for procurement or use of common or share goods and services in order to foster greater economy and efficiency. DIR uses an open market competitive procurement process to award contracts as required by Texas Government Code 2054 and 2157. If Successful Respondent provides evidence of its EDGAR compliance that DIR to the best of information and belief, finds to be satisfactory, then DIR may identify Successful Respondent as certifying that all or a

RPO DIR-CPO-TMP-550 Cyber ccurity Products and Servicl!S 20

96 of 159 App. 000097

Exhibit J4 - DIR RFO #DIR-CPO-TMP-550, 04DEC2020, Page 23 IIlJ 23 of 64

portion of Successful Respondent's listings are EDGAR eligible, and DIR may then permit Successful Respondent to so identify all or part of its offerings on Successful Respondent's DIR website. In such cases, upon request from eligible Customer, Successful Respondent must complete EDGAR certification affirmation forms to satisfy Customer requirement.

3.5.3 Successful Respondent Performance and Debarment

In accordance with 34 TAC, Chapter 20, Subchapter C, Respondent that is debarred from doing business with the State of Texas will not be awarded a Contract. The list of debarred vendors is located on the CPA Web site at

https://comptroller.texas.gov/purchasing/programs/vendor- performancetracking /debarred-vendors.php

3.5.4 Required Respondent and Subcontractor Current and Former State Employee Disclosures

Respondent shall disclose, for itself and on behalf of all of its Subcontractors, in its response to Exhibit A Respondent Information, Section 12 Respondent and Subcontractor Conflict of Interest Disclosure, all of the following :

1. Any current or former employees of Respondent who will spend twenty percent (20%) or more of their time on the Contract and are current or former employees of DIR within the past five (5) years;

2. Any proposed Respondent personnel assigned to work directly on the Contract twenty percent (20%) or more of their time who are related within two (2) degrees of consanguinity of any current or former employees of DIR. Disclosure of former state employees may be limited to the last five (5) years; and

3. Respondent will certify that they are in compliance with Texas Government Code, Title 6, Subtitle B, Section 669.003, relating to contracting with the executive head of a state agency. If Section 669.003 applies, Respondent will complete the following information in order for the Response to be evaluated: Name of Former Executive, Name of State Agency, Date of Separation for State Agency, Position with Respondent, and Date of Employment with Respondent.

3.5.5 Cybersecurity Training

In accordance with Section 2054.5192, Texas Government Code, for any contract with a

RFO OIR-CPO-TMP-550 Cybcrsccuri ty Products anJ Services 21

97 of 159 App. 000098

Exhibit K1 - Utah Cooperative Contract with Tyler Tech, 20APR2022, Page 1

Co ntract #: AR3764

TA TE OF UT AH COOPERATIVE CO TRACT

I. CO TRACTING PARTIES: Thi con1rac1 is between the Utah Division of Purchasing and the following Contrac1or:

Tyler Technologies Inc . Name One T ler Wa Streer Address

Yarmouth Maine 04096 City Srare Zip Vendor # VC248808 Commodiry Code #: 920-05 Legal Sta1us of Contrac1or: For-Profit rporation

Con1act Name · Laura alcutta Phone Number: + I 800-800-258 1 Email: laura.calcutta tylenech.com

2. CO TRA T PORTFOLIO NAME: Pl a1form Management; Ma ter Daia Managemem.

3. G NERAL PURPOS E OF CO TRACT: Ci1izen Engagement Platform.

4. PRO UREME T : This contract i entered into a a result of the procurement process on FY202 I, ol ici1a1ion# KM2 l -47

5. CO TRACT PERIOD: Effec1ivc Date: Tuesday April 19 2022. Tcnninalion Dale: Monday. September 14. 2026 unless 1ermina1ed earl y or exlcndcd in accordance wilh the lerms and condi1ions of Ihis contract. Renewal Oplions: lwo I year renewal opli on .

6. Administralivc Fee (if any): One Quar1er of One Pcrcenl (or 0.25%).

7. Prompl Paymenl Di scount De1 ails (if any): Refer 10 Attachment C.

8. ATTACHME TA: NASPO ValuePoim Mas1er Agreement Tern, and Condi1ions ATTACHME TB: Scope of Work ATTACHME TC: Price Schedule ATTACHME TD: End User License Agreemenls (as appli cable) Any conflicts between Attachment a nd the other tt ac hmcnts will be resolved in fa or of Attachment A.

9. D UME TS rNCORPORATED I TO TH IS CONTRA T BY R FERE CE BUT OT ATTACHED:

a. All 01her govemme111al laws, regula1ions. or ac1ion app licab le 10 1hc goods and/or serv ices au1horized by this contract b. U1ah Procurement Code, Procurement Rules, and Contraclor·s response 10 so lici1a1ion #K 12 1-47.

I0. · ac h person igning 1his Agreement represents and warrants tha1 he/she is duly aulhorized and ha legal capac ity 10 execute and del iver 1hi Ai,,,-cemen1 and bind 1he panics here10. Ea h signa1ory represe111s and warran1s 10 1he 01hcr thai 1he execution and delivery of the Agreement and !he performance of each pany's obligalions hereunder have been duly aulhorized and tha1 the Agreement is a va lid and legal agrcemen1 binding on the panic and enforceable in accordance wilh it. terms.

WIT ESS WHEREOF, the panies sign and cause this contract to be executed. otwithslanding verbal or 01 her rcpresen1a1ions by the parties, the "Effec1ivc Date" of this Contract sha ll be 1he date provided within Sec1ion 5 above.

CONTRACTOR DI VI 10 OF P RCH G

~~H !la1111«ft 20,2 04/20/2022 //JIU~ ll'D ~\q 04/20/2022 H•nnah May ~pr •1 lOT) tllck H\igho. (Apr 10, 2022 09:48 '40TI

Contractor's signalure Date Director, Di vision of Purchasing Dale

Hannah May Senior Corporate Attorney

Type or Print ame and Tille

I111emal Con1rac1Tracking #: AR3764 olicita1ion #: KM2 l-47 Vend r #: C248808

98 of 159 App. 000099

Exhibit K2 - Utah Cooperative Contract with Tyler Tech, 20APR2022, Page 55 ID 55 of 134

T lerTechnol ies, NIC Division • Catego 1 Pricing Cat.a l

l',W T ~ N I C ~ l1tt....,_Jc-CUI- ,..,,_ l f ~ ~ - ~-0.01«1 pnOnf: ("I.OM) SlOO.OOOl,......._,,,..,.,,t<ll•17S,OOO,,,,C, T""'T«hlocto,-.HIC~ l11ttfOf.wFCMlrut,o,,lt,tfom,(J~I -"'-~pnoncl5M-1DM) SIOO,OOO~UDnfer•SISJlf:JOI,,_ , ... T~HICDMsO> £11'1-r-dmori~IJOUflCUlelml ~-Wledllf'Oll{lM•W) StOD,OOO......._,ui.-la•SSO..DOD/ffll:, ~T~MDMol.loft lm-,f-JIIIDlll'UorfDffl>j~M) oc,pljU1111t1'6ne011t1D111l~IMI St00,DOO~lm;SJ0..0Dlllma T\"lfrlKfl. . . .~ I I I C ~ (n1.,.nwf-<,l.nCU1-~tJOIMdH.,anl) •PQPwall-llli;odpna,i,:lol'-~11&~•IM) S7\000~ftt • ~ - T',Cnl.......ld.NIC°'"""°" C n t e r p m c t - a r - ~ ~ I _.,,o,,MlotdPOQ111f'11f11UMtlO,lllliesl~KIOlJ SSOOCll~•-lff•Sll,ooa(mo Twta-T~HIC"DMsoc,n lffl8-Kf-•lltu1"'rfwfflV~ _..__.,_M!diw..,.fo,~('<2Wlll ~ODO......,_,l_,_•SU.IIDQ(IM ' - " " ' " ' ~ - - 0 . . . S - b,~Jwndu... ~'-'«-r.o,,•t.lodul,rj . PoPlllltxwo.bsailP"'211~lOM) SSO.OOO~l••S~ooa(mo T.,_1fflln0ktr-h1CO.-C,,, [ M _ . . f - d a t l m l t ' b ~ ~ - ~ J - po. . .Uofl--....{5M lQl,4) SlS,OOO~lff•UQ..OOIWmo t \ ' l f f T ~ f r l k ~ ll'll-1MJCM\ct.ta,l'Wfa,"'~- Modl,,wl · ~ ~ l l M S I - ' ) SILOm~MOlllff•SJ4000(me Twtn-TKlvdocco,NK~ lt't--fDMIMUtb>"latlu!1"t~-Modulej ---DIIM'IIOfa'ICl<tMI SlOOOD~-lff•SlSmal'- T\olarlmw,glea;~MC~ [M__.,fD1111dar...Plad..,..~-~J ~ . . - . l o r ~ f ! , O O l·lMI UDOO..,.._UID!>fft•SlO.aoo/lno TVWT~Nte°""""'" (,,lc_... ,.....,~lQPl,..rfann~-~ · ~ - - - ~ , o r ~ I-~ S§,0 0 0 f f i ~ I N • S1,5,IIO/fff0 1'-"'l~HIC~ (,..~fov'lllt!JOl'l'!Mf-~-~l • IOOll'IIIM~IW-.fat,...,...~R'll~I ss.ooo.,.~i- - suoa,"'° l.,tnl~in,HICDtwl\lof'I ll'!.-""'foi;m:l""'°" ..., . _ , , ~ , . 6 i c r l l l l ~ w c l ' " ° " " SO.W11elCllffllrf l\41,rT~e,HIC~ Cnt_,_r_o•uonfllltfo,,o,jGowZGo•MiduM) ~ - P < " ° " ' l ! P .I DMJ "S7'11..11110,',, ,sas,000 ~ l ' I I D I I - _.u1nw ly!a"T_,...._NICo,,,,t..., lnt.....-h,u,.ci• lO'lfllltf..,..jGaw?Go• ModU.) -----bn«IDrCffl&t!,M l.OM) •sss.aoo1ma,sn.ooo~uan-.....,kfti,w fylro"t~;e.MC~ (M~J-Qfa,,t,UOl'Wl~K,a• ~ , . _..,.,,...._~l1"'"5MI •~•SlS.C00~~---.1111f;,... 1¥\ttTffl'odoltlft.lft(~ fll(~~lboll~f(iOvlGo•Moct....) ~Pl'IDrofl<IMI 'SlS.OOtll- · SJS.000~~,1a11--•"°"" lyltrT~-NICl>Mww> lm...._F.....,d-Pi.tfomtjGo,,Koo•Moduwj ~ i , . . . , _ l u , _ _ _ . _ ~ 1M) "SlO.~•SlU)OO~IOll--llb. f,Wf-....-NICo..n.. lnt--hlunlll....,91.d"""f(;avlGa• MDd. .l _,_lalftl.....,,..lnr..........,. (25Dlt,50lllJ •s11.soo/nta•SJS..000.....,_1mn _ _ 11aw 1,-,-......... wo.-- £M...,,-f-11d•,_,.__1G<w1t.a•ua-1 ~-......,....,_...........,4!41 "'$1.S,O!XV-•Sl\OOO_,.,...,_,u1mn_,,,.nftao ,....,___,.-,MC_ flllff.,,_.FGlfld,IIOfl~(T~""MOOl.-t•IOC.M_-,IOICIII St0,000,,,,_,.frNl!N,~•SOllt--l SlM..,._.lk-.lwllM--..:_QCMr_afld ~C-~Dll~.,.--fftQ.....,Clata C-.,..alldbaW011~-n,1a)AHD/[Nl;uptaSlO

s 1 , o o o o ~ -- ,"'• - SXIOOOWGc11o1Go-on"-

-- -

SlOD,aoo/mu-1,0.25,ptr~l"'ffll SlZO,DOO~toofn•Slil,ODOp,,,-GcwZGo-Ulo.o• sua.00Cli'... •S0.2!i_..., _ _ $100,00ll""pil,IIMUIIDIIIN•SlO_DOOperGar.'>Go~• t~f~.._NIC""""- t,n~~IOOll~l,tJIMGd""8•kNnll.ll-/•IIOfl'IIM--11, _...,lll\0'4.(1M·W) Sl1000Gf,no,SO.:ZS _ _. _ PS.OOO~ff't • SXUIOOHl'GowlGo~'"- · S'j,l),OXl/ma • so.n- ._.u.,n,1 S70,oll0....,.._,..,bOllkoe•SlQ,OIIOp«Go,,lG<i--• SO,ooclr/,,,a•SO.u,..~1 $16.GlO~~ll!l'•SXl,IIOO_,GovlUO~• SJ0.001)1,,io•5025Nt~!Mflt ~~i,onJtt•S20.000-GiwZC-.O_..,_,_• ,.,..,.,.._,.._HIC.,,..._, lfflonraehluRlll•i-ftaUDnlllAIModula•F....a•uana;l•_,.lllt-.bawdi,na,,lar-fbal~J Sll,(IXlf,na•SO,.ll,-_.,._.1 lylB"l~-.HC~ em...,,-fG.ml•hml ...ffllnlltAl,,__.•,.._nmm•IIIDl1Rfll) u...-__,.-..,.... u.,mSl~

--~·--

IMT~'" ~I(~ l l l l f ! f - ~ - , t ) f ' - ( M l i f t . . . . •FCIWfWl•-l•troll_.ll)fl<Q~l'f'dlil 1.1o1auoo--

11'1!,'T~ er...Mr...-1~P1Mr-

...._.._,\_Dll.4~

..

1,-,j ... ~ - · - · ~ ~ - ~ ~ - -• - l - -

WOlbw--.,.-0.,..__.,.NJDl'IOl,........~t.,.._I SC--911CL-..I_.._I !.adC:...._,..._~.,._,.,.,."-19-C-,·JO~U-.i-<DIIJ -c..-.....,.~,."---~19wNC-I :zs~~t-caal

S

,.,., 47,IZH9

•.Uc..16 !oMSC..........-~---f-(SI\IIM'-J M'.IC-ta.l~..a) ~ c - . . . . . , _ ~ , . . _ , _ ~ l " " " - 1 l't,C--.j-c.CI "'''"'

,.,....,, 116,M.OO " ' ' r - - - - ~ - - , - 1 - - ~ JDDc-n-i-.i---1 ,.,__,, - ~ , . . . . . . _ ~ f l l a f , w . , - - - 1 9 ' a r N ~ - USC.......-I.INQ ........ lasll ! o M S C . . . . . . . . . . , . _ _ ~ ~ , _ 1 9 w t i d C - l Ullc-fl'Wll.,._lt--'-i ,,....... s..6C.-........,_~,._-,_ISI\M,ll-/ llSC--~i-Ulll'I 110.411.ll ~c....,....,,,..._~......,_.,...........,,._l_l JOOC-..,-U-1l..,_.rc,,d S lll,4S,SI ,,..._~,a.-.. .. -.......---°""'~' ..._,_ i.-a-~---

caw, ........... ~ - - - - - - M -

~C..~~..,_.,._,.,,.,.,_,..,..lot-.(lfwNlliM-I ,r-.-~~-. S ,7,&U.M l , o , d C - . . . . . _ _ ~ ....-,-..,..io,, ..."'Ac(,-,,.,.,,,.llN!-1·\0C--.1.-1...-.,1-U w.,,.., !oadc:a..........,._.,~,...,._f_wllll~ ~ C - ) J5C---..-i--c> li!,,UO.Sl !&dC- .......- ~ , . _ _ _ , . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . _ ~ 1 -1 Mic-..-.._,....... ~ n1.02uo """6~ ............. .,.,,____"---.__•··,._.~1.a,,1-, .7!,c-..._,_.. ....., 106,U,Y I . M 5 C - _ . , _ ~ , . . _ - , _ _ , . . . , ~ 1 9 w o . , . ~ 1- 11111~'-->I-..I-II k.5,!n'-1 ~o,.,......-~,..,.,,._,_ _•-~ ~c........_,_~....,_,..,f........__.....,._ ~ r - , usc-...-'--1_.....t-.Q f ! l w N ~ I uoc--u...t,.__.r-i

S

_,,.., ~],.4Sl.14

S - t . . - - - ~ f l a , . _ , , _ • • 1 t - - - - ! S N , H t . . - j IISC-W...U-..(.....,._l lll_llOU1 ~ ) ~ ~ O . .......... Plll_,___11""""" CV-M~l·IClll'--~1-.."'6U !167.....111 ~o,,n.1~- ,....,._.._o..~c--1

-- _,,..,.,.-e,,-..,_...,.,_.

99 of 159 App. 000100

Exhibit L1 - DIR-CPO-5274 Tyler Tech, Pricing Index, Page 1

Case Management Complete Tyler Technolog ies Platforms and Porfolio Suites 19.50% Per User (Saas or Software License)

Justice Analytics Suite, CJIS Population Based Tyler Technologies 5.00% Enterprise Data Platform Pricing

Managed Services - Silver, Gold, Tyler Technologies 19.50% Annualy Platimum and Platimum Plus

Tyler Technolog ies Set Up Fee (Onetime cost) 19.50% One Time Fee

Per Configure Tyler Technologies Custom Reporting Services 19.50% Report

Tyler Technologies Data Migration 19.50% Per Hour

Tyler Technologies Implementation 19.50% Per Hour

Tyler Technologies Training And Certification 19.50% Per User

Tyler Technolog ies Certified Administrator Training 19.50% Per Class

Tyler Technologies Certified Developer Training 19.50% Per Class

Certified implementation Tyler Technologies 19.50% Per Class Consultant Training

Tyler Technologies Certified Report Engineer Training 19.50% Per Class

Tyler Technolog ies Configu ration Services by Role 19.50% Per Hour

Maintenance and Support Gold, Tyler Technologies 19.50% Annualy Platimum and Platimum Plus

100 of 159 App. 000101

Exhibit L2 - DIR-CPO-5274 Tyler Tech, Pricing Index, Page 2

Based on Tyler Technologies Versa Maintenance Packages 19.50% Customer Requirements Based on Data Storage and Hosting Tyler Techno logies 19.50% Customer Packages Requirements

Base annual Maintenance (20% of 20% Calculated Tyler Technologies Base and Named User License 0.00% from Total Purchase Price) Discounted Price

Online Portal Module Base Year 20% Calculated Maintenance (20% of Module Base Tyler Technologies 0.0.0% from Total and Named User License Purchase Discounted Price Price)

Analytics Module Base Year 20% Calculated Maintenance (20% of Module Base Tyler Technologies 0.00% from Total and Named User License Purchase Discounted Price Price)

Turnkey solutions packages to be configure based on cu stomers requirements and it will include but not limited to (Software and 19.50% Overall Package Services as listed above)

101 of 159 App. 000102

Exhibit M - Bradley v DIR, D-1-GN-24-009408 Exhibit M1 - Bradley v DIR, D-1-GN-24-009408 Case Summary Exhibit M1A - Bradley v DIR, D-1-GN-24-009408 Case Summary, Page 1 https://research.txcourts,gov/CourtRecordsSearchNiewCasePrinl/92023cd9c3d549c487193c47935771 Of

Case Information SHAMAR BRADLEY vs. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION RESOURCES D-1 -GN-24-009408 Locatiort Case C.ategory Case Type CAse Filed D1:11e Judgo Cas~ St~,u~ Travis County - Civil - Employment Other Employment 11 /2012024 419TH, DISTRICT Open (Open) District Clerk COURT

Parties0 Type Name Nl(Ji.name/AIIElS Allotne'r'S

Plaintiff SHAMAR D BRADLEY Pro Se

Defendant TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION DENVER BURRIS RESOURCES

Hearings[!] oa1emmt! Ju.IQ• Loo1ol\1U11

12/18/2024 02:00 PM Setting Date

1/22/2025 02:00 PM Setting Date

217/2025 09:00 AM Setting Date

2/1 812025 02:00 PM Setting Date

Events[!i] Dale Evco1 Type Comme11ts Oocu1nems

11120/2024 Filing 5050DC WHISTLEBLOWER ORIGINAL PETITION/APPLICATION (OCA),pdl RETALIATION COMPLAINT

11 /20/2024 Filing 5402DC STATEMENT OF INABILITY STATEMENT OF INABILITY TO AFFORD COSTS.pd!

TO AFFORD PAYMFNT OF COURT COSTS

11/20/2024 FIiing 5050DC WH ISTLEBLOWER ORIGINAL PETITION/APPLICATION (OCA).pdl RETALIATION COMPLAINT

11/22/2024 Filing 5265DC MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.pd!

RELIEF

11/22/2024 Filing 5415DC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .pd!

11/27/2024 Filing 5415DC EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF EV IDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.pdf RELIEF

12/2/2024 Filing 5415DC WITNESS LIST WITNESS LIST.pd!

12/412024 FIiing 5415DC LETTER- SUBPOENA LETTER- SUBPOENA REQUESTS VIA PCT 5.pdf REQUESTS VIA PCT 6

12/11 12024 FIiing 5150DC DIR S ORIGINAL ANSWER DIR S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND DE FENSES.pdf AND DEFENSES

12/13/2024 Filing 5150DC DIR S PLEA TO THE DIR S PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION.pd!

JURISDICTION

12/17/2024 Filing 5153DC DIR S OPPOSITION TO DIR S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PLA INTIFFS MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELI EF AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.pd!

102 of 159 App. 000103

Exhibit M1B - Bradley v DIR, D-1-GN-24-009408 Case Summary, Page 2 I[] 2 of 6 REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

12/18/2024 Hearing Setting Date

12/23/2024 FIiing 5054DC AMENDED AMENDED WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT.pdf RET/\LI/\TION COMPLAINT

1/9/2025 Filing 5153DC DIR S AMENDED PLEA TO DIR S AMENDED PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION.pd!

THE JURISDICTION

1/9/2025 Filing 4B0BDC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA.pdf

1/9/2025 Filing 4808DC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA.pd!

1/9/2025 FIiing 5415DC NOTICE OF HEARING ON NOTICE OF HEARING ON TEXAS DEPARTMENT 0 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION RESOURCES PLEA TO THE INFORMATION RESOURCES JURISDICTION.pdf PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION

1/9/2025 Filing 480BDC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA- JOHN DECHENE.pdl - JOHN DE CHENE

1/9/2025 Filing 4808DC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: MICHELLE DANG .pd!

MICHELLE DANG

1/9/2025 Filing 4808DC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA : WILLIAM FANG .pdf WILLIAM FANG

1/9/2025 Filing 4808DC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: WILLIAM WILLIAM FARAONE FARAONE.pdf

1/9/2025 Filing 4808DC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: TAWANNA HARRIS.p TAWANNA HARRIS

1/9/2025 Filing 4B0BDC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: LISA JAMMER.pd!

LISA JAMMER

1/9/2025 Filing 4808DC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA : PATRICK LARSON .pc PATRICK LARSON

1/9/2025 Filing 4808DC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: EDUARDO EDUARDO MARQUIS MARQUIS.pd!

1/9/2025 Filing 4808DC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA : AMANDA AMANDA MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY.pd!

1/9/2025 Filing 480BDC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: SARAH PAYLOR.pd!

SARAH PAYLOR

1/9/2025 Filing 4808DC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: BETH PERRY.pd!

BETH PERRY

1/9/2025 FIiing 4808DC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: BRIAN PURDY.pd!

BRIAN PURDY

1/9/2025 Filing 4B0BDC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: RISHI SEEDAN .pdf RISHI SEEDAN

1/9/2025 Filing 4808DC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: GINA SMITH.pd!

GINA SMITH

1/9/2025 FIiing 4808DC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: ANN TEXTER.pdf ANN TEXTER

1/9/2025 Filing 480BDC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: TONY TRAN .pd!

TONY TRAN

1/9/2025 Filing 4B0BDC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: GUY VACHON.pd!

GUY VACHON

103 of 159 App. 000104

Exhibit M1C - Bradley v DIR, D-1-GN-24-009408 Case Summary, Page 3 ([] 3 of 6

1/912025 Filing 4808DC SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: SIGN AND SEAL SUBPOENA: ISSAC WILCHER.pd!

ISSAC WILCHER

1/9/2025 Filing 5415DC EXECUTED SUBPOENA GUY EXECUTED SUBPOENA GUY VACHON.pd!

VACHON

1/912025 Filing 5415DC EXECUTED SUBPOENA EXECUTED SUBPOENA EDUARDO MARQUIS.pd!

EDUARDO MARQUIS

1/912025 FIiing 5415DC EXECUTED SUBPOENA EXECUTED SUBPOENA ISAAC WILCHER.pdf ISAAC WILCHER

1/912025 Filing 5415DC EXECUTED SUBPOENA EXECUTED SUBPOENA TONY TRAN .pd!

TONY TRAN

1/912025 Filing 54 15DC EXECUTED SUBPOENA ANN EXECUTED SUBPOENA ANN TEXTER .pd!

TEXTER

1/13/2025 Filing 5265DC MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY.pd/ DISCOVERY

1/13/2025 Filing 4893DC EXECUTED SUBPOENA · EXECUTED SUBPOENA · MICHELLE DANG.pdf MICHELLE DANG

1/13/2025 FIiing 4893DC EXECUTED SUBPOENA - EXECUTED SUBPOENA · DEREK BLACKMAN.pd!

DEREK BLACKMAN

1/13/2025 FIiing 4893DC EXECUTED SUBPOENA· EXECUTED SUBPOENA · TAWANA HARRIS.pdf TAWANA HARRIS

1/13/2025 Filing 4893DC EXECUTED SUBPOENA· EXECUTED SUBPOENA · JOHN DECHENE .pdf JOHN DECHENE

1/13/2025 Filing 4893DC EXECUTED SUBPOENA· EXECUTED SUBPOENA· SHARON BLUE.pd / SHARON BLUE

1/13/2025 Filing 4893DC EXECUTED SUBPOENA· EXECUTED SUBPOENA· RISHI SEEDAN .pdf RISHI SEEDAN

1/13/2025 Filing 4893DC EXECUTED RETURN EXECUTED RETURN SERVICE OF CITATION • SERVICE OF CITATION · TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES .pd! INFORMATION RESOURCES

1/ 14/2025 Filing 5265DC DIR S MOTION FOR DIR S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE.pd!

CONTINUANCE

1/14/2025 FIiing 5265DC MOTION TO DISMISS MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS PLEA TO THE DEFENDANTS PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION AND MOTION FOR JURISDICTION AND MOTION CONTINUANCE.pdf FOR CONTINUANCE

1/1 5/2025 FIiing 4893DC EXECUTED RETURN EXECUTED RETURN SERVICE OF CITATION • SERVICE OF CITATION • PERRY BETH .pd! PERRY BETH

1/15/2025 Filing 5265DC MOTION FOR CONTEMPT MOTION FOR CONTEMPT.pd!

1122/2025 FIiing MOTION TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION INFORMATION RESOURCES RESOURCES MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER MOTION FORA STAYING DISCOVERY.pdf PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY

1122/2025 Filing MOTION MOTION TO DISMISS MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER.pd/ A PROTECTIVE ORDER

104 of 159 App. 000105

Exhibit M1D - Bradley v DIR, D-1-GN-24-009408 Case Summary, Page 4 liIJ 4 of 6

1/22/2025 Filing MOTION TO MOTION FOR MOTION FOR REINSTATEMENT.pdf RETAIN/REINSTATE REINSTATEMENT

1/22/2025 Hearing Setting Date

1/23/2025 Filing OTHER· NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE OF HEARING.pd!

1/23/2025 Filing MOTION AMENDED MOTION FOR AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT.pd!

CONTEMPT

1/23/2025 Filing OTHER • NOTICE DIR S AMENDED NOTICE OF DIR S AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING.pd!

HEARING

1/23/2025 Filing EXECUTED SERVICE EXECUTED RETURN EXECUTED RETURN SERVICE OF SUBPOENA· SERVICE OF SUBPOENA • SMITH , GINA.pdf SMITH, GINA

1/23/2025 Filing EXECUTED SERVICE EXECUTED RETURN EXECUTED RETURN SERVICE OF SUBPOENA · SERVICE OF SUBPOENA - PURDY. BRIAN .pdf PURDY, BR IAN

1/23/2025 Filing EXECUTED SERVICE EXECUTED RETURN EXECUTED RETURN SERVICE OF SUBPOENA -

SERVICE OF SUBPOENA - FANG WILLIAMS.pd! FANG WILLIAMS

1/23/2025 Filing EXECUTED SERVICE EXECUTED RETURN EXECUTED RETURN SERVICE OF SUBPOENA -

SERVICE OF SUBPOENA - PAYLOR SARAH.pdf PAYLOR SARAH

1/23/2025 Filing EXECUTED SERVICE EXECUTED RETURN EXECUTED RETURN SERVICE OF SUBPOENA -

SERVICE OF SUBPOENA - FARAONE JIM.pd! FARAONE JIM

1/23/2025 Filing EXECUTED SERVICE EXECUTED RETURN EXECUTED RETURN SERVICE OF SUBPOENA -

SERVICE OF SUBPOENA - JAMMER LISA.pd! JAMMER LISA

1/24/2025 Filing ORDER ORDER DENYING ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.pd! INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1/27/2025 Filing OTHER - NOTICE SUBPOENA-BRENT SUBPOENA - BRENT EDWARD WEBSTER, FIRST EDWARD WEBSTER, FIRST ATTORNEY GENERAL.pd/ ATTORNEY GENERAL

1/27/2025 Filing OTHER - NOTICE SUBPOENA- HOLLY EILEEN SUBPOENA- HOLLY EILEEN TAYLOR .pdf TAYLOR

1/27/2025 Filing OTHER - NOTICE SUBPOENA SIGNED & SU BPOENA SIGNED & SEALED - GERTRUDE SEALED - GERTRUDE "TRUDY" HUNTER STRASSBURGER.pdf "TRUDY" HUNTER STRASSBURG ER

1/27/2025 Filing OTHER - NOTICE SUBPOENA SIGNED & SUBPOENA SIGNED & SEALED - JOSHUA TRAVIS SEALED - JOSHUA TRAVIS "JOSH" RENO.pd! "JOSH'' RENO

1/27/2025 Filing OTHER - NOTICE SUBPOENA SIGNED & SUBPOENA SIGNED & SEALED - WARREN SEALED • WARREN KENNETH "KEN" PAXTON JR .. pdf KENNETH "KEN" PAXTON JR.

1/27/2025 Filing OTHER - NOTICE SUBPOENA SIGNED & SUBPOENA SIGNED & SEALED - RALPH MICHAEL SEALED · RALPH MICHAEL MOLINA.pdf MOLINA

1/27/2025 Filing OTHER - NOTICE SUBPOENA SIGNED & SUBPOENA SIGNED & SEALED • RICKEY DURANTE SEALED · RICKEY DURANTE JONES.pd!

105 of 159 App. 000106

Exhibit M1E - Bradley v DIR, D-1-GN-24-009408 Case Summary, Page 5 llD sot 6

JONES

1/27/2025 Filing OTHER - NOTICE SUBPOENA SIGNED & SUBPOENA SIGNED & SEALED - JASON SEALED - JASON HUDSON HUDSON.pdf

1/27/2025 Filing OTHER - NOTICE SUBPOENA SIGNED & SUBPOENA SIGNED & SEALED - DEXTER EARL SEALED - DEXTER EARL GILFORD.pd! GILFORD

1/27/2025 Filing OTHER - NOTICE SUBPOENA SIGNED & SUBPOENA SIGNED & SEALED - KIMBERLEY ANN SEALED - KIMBERLEY ANN GDULA.pd! GDULA

1/27/2025 Filing OTHER - NOTICE SUBPOENA SIGNED & SUBPOENA SIGNED & SEALED - DELIA AILEEN SEALED - DELIA AILEEN GARZA.pd! GARZA

1/27/2025 Filing OTHER - NOTICE SUBPOENA SIGNED & SUBPOENA SIGNED & SEALED - MICHELLE E.

SEALED - MICHELLE E. FERNALD.pd! FERNALD

1/27/2025 Filing OTHER - NOTICE SUBPOENA SIGNED & SUBPOENA SIGNED & SEALED - LESLIE WOOD SEALED - LESLIE WOOD DIPPELpdf DIPPEL

1/27/2025 Filing OTHER - NOTICE SUBPOENA SIGNED & SUBPOENA SIGNED & SEALED - LUCIO ALONZO SEALED - LUCIO ALONZO DEL TORO.pd! DELTORO

1/29/2025 Filing SUBPOENA SIGNED & SUBPOENA SIGNED & SUBPOENA SIGNED & SEALED - JASON SEALED SEALED - JASON ANDERSON.pdf ANDERSON

1/29/2025 Filing SUBPOENA SIGNED & SUBPOENA SIGNED & SUBPOENA SIGNED & SEAL - MICHAEL SHANE SEALED SEALED - MICHAEL SHANE ATTAWAY.pd!

ATTAWAY

1/29/2025 Filing SUBPOENA SIGNED & SUBPOENA SIGNED & SEAL SUBPOENA SIGNED & SEAL - BRENT DUPRE.pdf SEALED - BRENT DUPRE

1/30/2025 Filing EXECUTED SERVICE EXECUTED RETURN EXECUTED RETURN SERVICE - LARSON SERVICE - LARSON PATRICK PATRICK.pdf

1/30/2025 Filing OTHER - NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE OF HEARING.pd!

1/30/2025 Filing MOTION MOTION FOR MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE.pd!

CONTINUANCE

2/5/2025 FIiing MOTION MOTION TO DISMISS FOR MOTION TO DISMISS FOR WANT OF WANT OF PROSECUTION PROSECUTION.pd!

2/5/2025 Filing RESPONSE DIR S RESPONSE IN DIR S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE.pd! S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

2/6/2025 Filing MOTION TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION INFORMATION RESOURCES RESOURCES MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER MOTION FORA STAYING DISCOVERY.pdf PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY

2/7/2025 Hearing Setting Date

2/18/2025 Hearing Setting Date

106 of 159 App. 000107

Exhibit M2 - Original Petition, D-1-GN-24-009408, 20NOV2024 Exhibit M2A - Original Petition, Page 1 ([] 1 of 49

Flied In Th Dfltrlct Court ofTravll County, Texa D-1-GN -24-009408 NOV 2 0 2024 JG 419TH DISTRICT COURT At H·8o PM.

Velva L Price, DI ttlct Clerk ARD. BRADLEY TIIE DI TRI T RT Plaintiff 1:

TEXAS DER RTME T OF I 'FORMAT/0 RESO RCES D ifenda111 )

I

B DI F R lATIO

hamar D. Bradley. M . MB . EIT r hamar·) has been retaliated again t in hi

employment a a Databa e Aclmmi trator II with the Te as Department of Information Resour e •

al 300 W. I th lreel, uile I 00 Au ·tin, T 7 70 I. a a re uh of having report d criminal

a tivit . The ·tale go emmental entity and person · that ha, e r taliated against me are: Te a·

Department of Information Res urce . Bnan Hurdle, IT perations Manager. and L1 a Jammer,

Dire tor of P ople and Culture m e.

II

T TE 1 T OF F T

I. Between ovemb r I th , 2 2 and Augu t 21 t, 2024. hamar wa employed a a Database

dmini trator II with the Te as Department of Information Re ource in u tin, Te a . Hi

dutie in that capacity require him to, am ng other thing . co rdinate the planning,

de elopment, maintcnanc . and mon11onng r integrated databa e y tern ; evaluating nd

re, iewing databa e architecture: and maintaining data integrity. hamar had ne er recei ed a

wrillen reprimand r notice r adver"e ac11on b an upervi or or manager

107 of 159 App. 000108

Exhibit M2B - Motion for Injunctive Relief, Page 1 ([) 1 of 19 11 /27/2024 9:07 AM Velva L. Price District Clerk Travis County SHAMAR D. BRADLEY ) IN THE 419' h DlSTRlCT cc§tjltJN-24-009408 Eva Fairchild Plaintiff )

V. ) TRAVIS COUNTY )

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF ) INFORMATION RESOURCES )

Defendant ) Cause NO. D- I -GN-24-009408

EVlDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELlEF

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit A I - Offer Letter 3 IOCT2023 , Page I ............................ .................... ....... ... .... ............. 5 Exhibit A2 - Offer Letter 3 IOCT2023 , Page 2 .. .... ..... .. ... ....... ..... .. ..... ..... .... .... .... ... .... .. .. .... ....... 6 Exhibit BI - DIR Database Administrator Job Description I 3OCT2023, Page I ..... ................. 7 Exhibit B2 - DlR Database Administrator Job Description l3OCT2023 , Page 2 ... ...... .. .... .. ..... 8 Exhibit B3 - DIR Database Administrator Job Description I 3OCT2023, Page 3 ... .... ............... 9 Exhibit B4 - DlR Database Administrator Job Description 13OCT2023, Page 4 .................... 10 Exhibit BS - DlR Database Administrator Job Description 13OCT2023, Page 5 .... .. .... ....... .... 11 Exhibit B6 - DIR Database Administrator Job Description 13OCT2023, Page 6 ... ................. 12 Exhibit B7 - DlR Database Administrator Job Description 13OCT2023, Page 7 .................... 13 Exhibit C - Shamar Bradley Termination Letter 21 AUG2024 .................................................. 14 Exhibit D - Protected Whistleblower Disclosure I 6AUG2024 ..... .................. .... ...... ...... ......... 15 Exhibit E - Business Objects Status Teams Meeting 07AUG2024 ............................ ...... ......... 16 Exhibit FI - Recent User Login Email from Guy Vachon - I 5AUG2024, Page I ................... 17 Exhibit F2 - Recent User Login Email from Guy Vachon - I 5AUG2024, Page 2 ...... .. ...... ..... 18

Page I of 18

Copy from re :SearchTX

108 of 159 App. 000109

Exhibit M2C - Motion for Injunctive Relief, Page 2 I[] 2 of 19

II

JURISDICTlON AND SUMMARY OF EVCDE CE

The Texas Department of Information Resources ("DIR") is a state of Texas governmental

entity. See Texas Governm ent Code§ 554.00/(5)(AJi. Shamar D. Bradley began employment at

DIR on November 13th, 2023. ii Bradley was employed as a Database Administrator. iii Bradley was

wrongfully terminated on August 2 1st, 2024. iv The total time of Bradley's employment at DIR was

9 months and 8 days. Therefore, he successfully completed the mandatory 9-month probationary

period and is a "public employee." See Texas Governm ent Code § 554.001(4!'.

Bradley hereby timely invoked action under the DIR grievance/appeal procedure relating

to the cause for tennination of public employment at DIR. See Texas Government Code §

554.006(b)(J t;. Bradley was wrongfully terminated in illegal retaliation vii for refusing to engage

in illicit activity and for the good faith report of a violation of a law viii by public employees at DIR.

Bradley refused to be compl icit in and reported criminal violations of software copyright

infringementi• by another public employee of D[R; shortly thereafter, he was terminated thus

satisfying the knowledge-timing test. See 17 U11ited States Code § 506(a)(l)(B). (e); see also / 8

United States Code §23J9(b)(f)_

DIR fa il ed to display notice of whistleblower rights in the recently acqui red Adult Day

Care (ADC) facility.• See Texas Government Code § 554.009(a). Notwithstanding

aforementioned lack of notice, Bradley's burden of proof has been met with clear and convincing

evidence•i and the allegation of retaliatory termination is presumed to be true. See Texas

Government Code § 554.004(a). xii

DIR sovereign irnmunity•iii is to be waived and abolished and relief'iv is being sought in

the appropriate jurisdiction.Xv See Texas Government Code§ 554.0035 . See also Texas Governm ent

Code§ 554.00J(a)-(c). See also Texas Governm ent Code§ 554.007(a).

Page 2 of 18

Copy from re:SearchTX

109 of 159 App. 000110

Exhibit M2D - Motion for Injunctive Relief, Page 3 ID 3 ot 19

Ill CITATIONS AN D ENDNOTES

i See Texas Government Code§ 554.001(5/(A/ - State governmenta l entity" means: a board, commission, department, office, or other agency in the executive branch of state government, created under the constitution or a statute of the state, including an institution of higher education, as defined by Section 61.003, Education Code ii See Exh ibit A 1-A2 - Offer Letter 31 OCT2023, Pages 1-2 iii See Exh ibit B 1-B7 - DIR Database Adm inistrator Job Description 13OCT2023. Pages 1-7

iv See Exhibit C - Shamar Bradley Terminati on Letter 21 AUG2024

vSee Texas Government Code 1~ 554.001(4) - "Public employee" means an employee or appoi nted officer other than an independent contractor who is paid to perform services for a state governmenta l enti ty. vi See Texas Go vemment Code § 554.006(b)(I) - (use of grievance or appeal procedures) "A public employee must initiate action under the grievance or appea l procedures of the employing state governmental entity relating to suspension or termination of employment or adverse personnel action before su ing under this chapter. The employee must invoke the applicable grievance or appeal procedures not later than the 90th day after the date on wh ich the alleged violation of thi s chapter occu rred. vii See Texas Government Code § 554.002(a) 01)(1) - (reta liation prohibited for reporting vio lation of law) A state governmental entity may not terminate the emp loyment ofa public employee who in good faith reports a violation of law by the employing governmenta l entity or another public emp loyee to an appropriate law enforcement authority. In this section, a report is made to an appropriate law enforcement authority if the authority is a part of a state governmenta l entity that the employee in good fa ith believe is authorized to regulate under or enforce the law alleged to be violated in the report. viii See Texas Government Code§ 554.00/(J)(A) - In this chapter "Law" means a state or federal statute. ix See / 7 United States Code § 506(al(I )(Bl (el - (Crimina l offense ) Crimina l Infringement mean any person who wi ll fully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 23 19 of tit le 18, if the in fringemen t was committed by th e reproduction or di tribution, including by electron ic mean , during any 180- day period, of I or more copyrighted works, wh ich have a total retail value of more than $ 1,000. (e) Fa lse Representation - any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in th e application for copyri ght registrntion provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500. See also 18 United States Code§ 23J9(bl(I I - (Crim inal infringement of a copyright) Any person who commi ts an offense under section 506(a)( l )(A) of title 17 shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set fo rth in th is title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, includ in g by electronic mean , during any 180-day period of I or more copyrigh ted works whi ch have a tota l retai l value of more than $2,500. x See Texas Government Code§ 554.009(0/ - (notice to emp loyees) A state governmental entity shall inform its emp loyees of their rights under thi s chapter by posting a sign in a prominent location in the workpl ace. xi See Exhibi t D - Protected Whistleblower Disclosure I 6AUG2024

xi i See Texas Govemment Code§ 554.004(a) - (burden of proof; presumption) A public employee who sues under this chapter ha the burden of proof, except that if the termination ofa public emp loyee occurs not later than the 90th day after the date on which the employee reports a violation of law, the termination is presumed to be because the employee made the report.

xiii See Texas Government Code S 554.0035 - (waiver of immunity) A public employee who all eges a vio lation of this chapter may sue the employing state governmenta l enti ty for the relief provided by this chapter. Sovereign immunity is waived and abo lished to the extent ofliability for the relief allowed under this chapter for a vio lation of this chapter.

Page 3 of 18

Copy from re :SearchTX

110 of 159 App. 000111

Exhibit M2E - Motion for Injunctive Relief, Page 4 ([] 4 of 19

,iv See Texas Government Code 6 554.00J{a)-(c/ - (relief availab le to public employee) (a) A public employee whose emp loyment is suspended or terminated or who is subjected to an adverse personnel action in vio lation of Section 554.002 is entitl ed to sue fo r: injunctive relief; actua l damages; court costs; and reasonable attorney fees.

In addition to relief under Subsection (a), a public employee whose employment is terminated in violation of this chapter is en titled to: reinstatement to the employee's former position or an equi valent position; compensation for wages lost during the period of termination; and reinstatement of fringe benefits and seniority rights lost because of the terminat ion.

In a suit under this chapter agai nst an employing state governmenta l entity, a public employee may not recover compensatory damages for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffe ring, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses in an amount that exceeds $200,000, if the emp loying state governmenta l ent ity has more than 200 and fewer than 501 employee in each of20 or more calendar week in the calendar year in which the suit is fi led or in the preceding year. " See Texas Government Code~ 554.00 l (a) - A public emp loyee of a state governmental entity may sue under this chapter in a di trict court of the county in which the cau e of action arises or in a district co urt of Travis County.

Page 4 of 18

Copy from re:SearchTX

111 of 159 App. 000112

Exhibit M3 - Evidence in Support of Motion for Injunctive Relief, Page 14

Exhibit - hamar Bradley Tennination Lette r 2 IAUG2024

IR Agency Memorandum

To: Shamar Bradley

From: Brian Hurd le

Date: August 21, 2024

Subject: Termination of Employm nt

This memorandum is to inform you that your employm nt is terminated effective today, August 21 , 2024, for misconduct.

I

Texas Department of Information Resources I dir,texas.gov I #DIRislT @TexasDIR I Page 1

Page 14 of 18

112 of 159 App. 000113

Exhibit M4 - Order Denying Motion for Injunctive Relief ([]1of1 01/24/202512:31:42 PM Velva L. Price District Clerk Travis County D-1-GN -24-009408 CAUSE NO. O-1--GN-24-009408

SHAMAR 0. BRADLEY § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, § § V. § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS § TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION § RESOURCES § Defendant. § 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the Motion for Injunctive Relief filed by

Plaintiff Shamar Bradley. After due consideration of the law and the filings of the

parties, the Court DENIES said motion.

SIGNED this2$ day of ck,,"'1,...,. , 2025.

M

HON. ~ YA GUERRA GAMBLE 459TH DISTRICT JUDGE

113 of 159 App. 000114

Exhibit M4A - Order Denying Motion for Injunctive Relief Email, 27JAN2025

Gmail Shamar 0. Bradley <shamar.d.bradley@gmail.com>

This is a Signed Order notification from the Travis County District Clerk's Office for Case Number D-1-GN-24-009408 TC.Orders@traviscountytx.gov <TC.Orders@traviscountytx.gov> Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 8:55 AM To: SHAMAR.D.BRADLEY@gmail.com

This is a notification that a signed Order has been accepted by the Travis County District Clerk's Office.

CauseNumber: D-1-GN-24-009408

Date Accepted : 1/27/2025 8:55 :20 AM

Document Information : ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Please do not reply to this email. This message was automatically generated by The Travis County District Clerk's office

If you need technical assistance, please call: 512-854-9457

This email may have been generated by a computer program or a copy machine on behalf of another Travis County user. Please verify the validity of the message or the identity of the sender before taking any action if this email is unexpected or appears suspicious.

This electronic mail message , including any attachments , may be confidential or privileged under applicable law. This email is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed . If you are not the intended recipient of this email , you are notified that any use, dissemination , distribution , copying , disclosure or any other action taken in relation to the content of this email including any attachments is strictly prohibited . If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this email, including secure destruction of any printouts.

627368.pdf 82K

114 of 159 App. 000115

Exhibit M5 - DIR’s Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction, 09JAN2025 Exhibit M5A - DIR’s Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction, Page 2

Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed because he does not present a viable

whistleblower claim and does not plead facts to show the waiver of sovereign

immunity for whistleblower claims applies in this instance.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A plea to the jurisdiction challenges the court's subject matter jurisdiction to

decide a case. See Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 54 7. 553-54 (Tex. 2000).

A plaintiff has the burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 446. The

existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law for the court. See City of

Dallas u. Carbajal, 324 S.W.3d 537, 538 (Tex. 2010). Where the pleadings and

evidence before the court fail to show subject matter jurisdiction, the court must grant

a plea to the jurisdiction and dismiss the case. See Tex. Dep 't of Parks & Wildlife v.

Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217. 226-28 (Tex. 2004). The purpose of a plea to the jurisdiction

"is to defeat a cause of action without regard to whether the claims asserted have

merit." Blue at 554.

Ill ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

In this case, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff

cannot overcome the sovereign immunity of DIR. As a result, Plaintiffs claims should

be dismissed.

A. Sovereign Immunity Deprives this Court of Jurisdiction.

In a plea to the jurisdiction, sovereign immunity may be properly raised

because it "deprives a trial court of jurisdiction over lawsuits in which the state ... or

governmental units have been sued, unless the state consents to suit." Mission

Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629, 635-36 (Tex. 2012); see also

115 of 159 App. 000116

Exhibit M5B - DIR’s Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction, Page 3

Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 224; Dallas Cnty. Mental Health v. Bossley, 968 S.W.2d 339,

341 (Tex. 1998).

A suit against the State or its agencies is barred by sovereign immunity absent

clear and unambiguous legislative consent, and sovereign immunity deprives a trial

court of subject matter jurisdiction. Tex. Dept. of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133

S.W.3d 217, 224-225 (Tex. 2004); Tex. Dep't. of Transp. v. Miller, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638

(Tex. 1999). Sovereign immunity bars a suit against the State unless the legislature

expressly consents to the suit. Texas Nat. Res. Conservation Comm'n. v. IT-Davy, 74

S.W.3d 849, 853 (Tex. 2002).

B. DIR is entitled to sovereign immunity.

DIR "is an agency of the state" by statute. TEX. Gov. CODE §2054.004. As such,

it is entitled to sovereign immunity.

C. Plaintiffs claims are barred by sovereign immunity.

"A plaintiff has the burden to affirmatively demonstrate the trial court's

jurisdiction ...That burden encompasses the burden of establishing a waiver of

sovereign immunity in suits against the government". Town of Shady Shores v.

Swanson, 590 S.W.3d 544, 550 (Tex. 2019). Unless the plaintiff pleads a viable claim,

sovereign immunity is retained for government defendants. See Andrade v. NAACP

of Austin, 345 S.W.3d I, 11 (Tex. 2011).

Here, Plaintiff may not avail himself of any waiver of sovereign immunity

because his whistleblower claim is not viable.

116 of 159 App. 000117

Exhibit M5C - DIR’s Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction, Page 4 The Supreme Court of Texas has made it clear that "the statutory elements in

Section 554.002(a) are 'jurisdictional when necessary to ascertain whether plaintiff

has adequately alleged a violation of the [Whistleblower Act].' " Mission Consol.

Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629, 636 (Tex. 2012), citing State v. Lueck,

290 S.W.3d 876, 880 (Tex.2009). By statute, a plaintiff wishing to bring a

whistleblower claim must have reported the alleged violation of law to "an

appropriate law enforcement authority." See TEX. Gov. CODE §554.002(a). The statute

defines "an appropriate law enforcement authority" as one that the employee in good

faith believes is authorized to:

(1) regulate under or enforce the law alleged to be violated in the report, or (2) investigate or prosecute a violation of law.

See TEX. Gov. CODE §554.002(b)(l) and (2). The Texas Supreme Court has held that

"[t]o satisfy the Act's requirements, a report must be made to (1) an individual person

who possesses the law-enforcement powers specified under the Act, or (2) someone

who , like a police-intake clerk, works for a governmental arm specifically charged

with exercising such powers." Texas Dep't of Hum. Servs. u. Okoli, 440 S.W.3d 611 ,

617 (Tex. 2014). The Supreme Court of Texas established that internal agency

reports to a supervisor were not whistleblower reports to an appropriate law

enforcement authority if the agency itself generally lacked authority to investigate or

prosecute criminal conduct or otherwise regulate conduct outside the agency

involved. Id. , at 618.

Here, Plaintiff observed what he described a s a "mistake" related to use of

copyrighted software. He specifically stated on two occasions 'We are mistakenly

117 of 159 App. 000118

Exhibit M5D - DIR’s Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction, Page 5 using one license key for two machines." Pl.'s Amd. Petition at 11. Plaintiff made

these statements in a group chat on Microsoft Teams to various coworkers in DIR,

none of whom are law enforcement authorities. Pl.'s Amd. Petition at 12. In his

Amended Petition, Plaintiff judicially admits that he reported the alleged violation

only to his coworkers at DIR. Pl.'s Amd. Pet. at 11-12. Plaintiff provides no evidence

that he reported his concern to any actual law enforcement authority, opting instead

to merely report the alleged violation to his supervisors and coworkers. DIR, as an

agency, has no law enforcement duties or powers. SEE TEX. Gov. CODE §2054.051.

Moreover, a report to his DIR manager is insufficient, because a governmental entity

is obligated to comply with laws does not mean they are a law enforcement authority,

and Plaintiffs manager is (at most) "a law-compliance authority, but he was not a

law-enforcement authority'' sufficient to meet the requirements of the Whistleblower

Act, and dismissal based on sovereign immunity is appropriate. See Univ. of Texas

Sw. Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Gentilello, 398 S.W.3d 680, 685 (Tex. 2013). As a result,

"[r]eporting to [the manager] was not protected by the Act." Id., at 687.

Plaintiff did not report the alleged violation of law to anyone with "authority

to investigate or prosecute criminal conduct or otherwise regulate conduct outside the

agency involved." Okoli, 440 S.W.3d at 618. As a former employee of DIR, Plaintiff

would know, based on his training and experience with the agency, that DIR is not a

law enforcement authority and does not have prosecutorial powers in any sense. As

a result, Plaintiff did not trigger the protections of the Whistleblower Act.

118 of 159 App. 000119

Exhibit M5E - DIR’s Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction, Page 6 Under Andrade, DIR retains its sovereign immunity because Plaintiffs claim

is not viable. As a result, Plaintiffs claims remain barred by sovereign immunity and

should be dismissed accordingly.

IV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

For the foregoing reasons, DIR respectfully requests this Court to grant this

Plea to the Jurisdiction, to dismiss Plaintiffs claims in their entirety, and to grant

DIR such other relief to which it may be entitled.

DATE: January 9, 2025

Respectfully submitted.

KEN PAXTON Attorney General of Texas

BRENT WEBSTER First Assistant Attorney General

RALPH MOLINA Deputy First Assistant Attorney General

JAMES LLOYD Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation

KIMBERLY GDULA Chief for General Litigation Division

/s/ Denver Burris DENVER BURRIS Assistant Attorney General Texas Bar No. 24138940 Office of the Attorney General General Litigation Division P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 (512) 475-4105 I FAX: (512) 320-0667

119 of 159 App. 000120

Exhibit M6A - Email to Court Administrator’s Office, 03JAN2025, Page 1 From: shamar bradley <shamarb11@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 3, 2025 4 :01 PM To: tc.civildistrictannounce <TC .CivilAnnouncements@traviscountytx .gov> Subject: [CAUTION EXTERNAL] hearing announcement D-1 -GN -24-009408

AUTION , This email Is from OUTSIDE Travis County. Links or attachments may be dangerous. Chck the Phish A lert button bove 11 you think this email is malicious .

hearing announcement on the Motion for Injunctive Relief for cause D-1-GN-24-009408 (Sha mar D. Bradley vs . Texas Department of Information Resources , Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint).

Regards, _ _Isl _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Shamar D. Bradley, MS, MBA, EIT 10109 Lake Creek Parkway, #1 70682 Austin, TX 78717

This electronic mail message, including any attachments, may be confidential or privileged under applicable law. This email is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution , copying , disclosure or any other action taken in relation to the content of this email including any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the orig inal and any copy of this email, including secure destruction of any printouts.

120 of 159 App. 000121

Exhibit M6B - Email to Court Administrator’s Office, 03JAN2025, Page 2 CIVIL DISTRICT COURT A OUNCEMENTFORM THIS FORM MUST BE FILLED OUT I FULL AND RECEIVED NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M. 0 WED ESDA Y OF THE WEEK PRIOR IN ORDER FOR THE ANNOUNCEME T TO BE PROC ESSED. ANNOUNCEMENT MUST BE E-MAILED TO: TC.CivilDistrictAnnounce traviscountytx.gov

Date and Time of Setting: January 22nd, 2025 at 2pm

Cause Number: D-1-GN-24-009408 Case Style: Shamar D. Bradley vs. Texas Department of Information Resources Hearing(s )/Trial(s) that are set: _ _M_o_t_io_n_ fo_ r_ ln_ju_ n_c_t_iv_e_ R_e_li_e_f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Name/Contact Information for any interpreter appearing on this setting: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

****All parties have conferred and we:

D AGREE that thi s hearing/trial can proceed REMOTELY FILL OUT lN FULL THE AGREEMENT TO REMOTE PROCEED! GS WHICH IS LOCATED AT THE E D OF THIS ANNOUNCEME T FORM . IO ATURES OF ALL SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS OF RECORD MUST BE INCLUDED . ATTA H TH IS FORM WHEN ANNOU CING WITH THE COURT ADM I ISTRATOR' S OFFICE. fNCOMPLETE FORMS WILL OT BE CONSIDERED . (PLEASE OTE TBA T TlfE CO RT WILL ADVISE O ROW THE REARING WILL PROCEED PRIOR TO THE HEARING. LESS OTHERWISE ORDERED OR I STRUCTED BY THE CO RT I N WHI CH THE CASE IS ASSIG ED, PROCEED! G WILL OCC RI '-PER~O )

Time Estimate (TOT AL TIME FOR ENTIRE HE ARI G OR TRIAL): _ 1_ h_o _u _r _ _ __ For Jiuy docket cases and Family and Civil Monday Long docket cases only: Has Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) been comp leted or waived by the Court?: Yes:D_; No:D_(Jf ot, Reason?_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~

FOR FAMILY LAW CASES ONLY: ls/Are Hearing(s) Still Necessary?: Yes:D_; o:0_ (Ifno, provide reason: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __, District Judge being requested?: Yes: D_; No: O Has an Agreement been filed waiving right to De ovo?: Yes:O ; No:_□-~-- Request for Record to be made of Proceeding?: Yes: O • No:._O _ _,____

1

121 of 159 App. 000122

Exhibit M7 - Email from Court Administrator’s Office, 03JAN2025 Gmail shamar bradley <shamarb11@gmail.com>

RE : [CAUTION EXTERNAL] hearing announcement D-1-GN-24-009408 1 message

tc.civildistrictannounce <TC.Civi1Announcements@traviscounlytx.gov> Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 4:09 PM To: shamar bradley <shamarb11@gmail.com>, "tc.civildistrictannounce" <TC.CivilAnnouncements@traviscountytx.gov>

Mr. Bradley

The announcement cannot be accepted as it is too early because your hearing is set for January 22, 2025 . The ready announcement period is ONE week prior Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday by 5:00 p.m. Please send your announcement at that time.

Thank you ,

Court Administrator's office

Travis County Civil & Family Courts

122 of 159 App. 000123

Exhibit M8 - Lack of Notice of Whistleblower Rights Sign at WPC

Gmail Shamar D. Bradley <shamar.d.bradley@gmail.com>

[Records Center] Public Information Request:: R004019-010925 1 message

Texas DIR Public Records Center <texasdir@mycusthelp.net> Fri , Jan 24, 2025 at 4 :55 PM To : "shamar.d.bradley@gmail .com" <shamar.d.bradley@gmail .com>

--- Please respond above this line --

Powered by

Gov 01 /24/202-

RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of January 09, 2025, Reference # R0040I 9-0 I0925

Dear Shamar Bradley:

DlR received a public information request from you on January 09, 2025 . You requested :

" Date of posti ng and location of Notice of Whistleblower ri ghts in WPC (300 W 15th St. Suite 1300, Austin, TX 78701 )"

Thank you for your req ue t. The Texas Department of ln forma tion Resources does not have any document responsive to your request.

Regards,

Gloria C. Rivera Legal Assistant

To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the Public Records Center

Po rl!d b}

Gov

123 of 159 App. 000124

Exhibit M9 - Lack of Notice of Whistleblower Rights Sign at ADC

Gmail Shamar D. Bradley <shamar.d.bradley@gmail.com>

[Records Center] Public Information Request:: R004020-010925 1 message

Texas DIR Public Records Center <texasdir@mycusthelp.net:> Fri , Jan 24, 2025 at 4 :58 PM To: "shamar.d .bradley@gmail.com" <shamar.d .bradley@gmail .com>

--- Please respond above this line ---

r«I by

Gov 01 /24/2025

RE: PUBLIC RECORD REQUEST of January 09, 2025, Reference # R004020-0 I 0925

Dear Shamar Bradley:

DIR received a public information request from you on January 09, 2025. You requested :

"Date ofposti.ng and location of otice ofWhistleblower rights in ADC (9500 metric boulevard , Austin , TX 78758)'"

Thank you for yourrequest. The Texas Department of Information Re ow·ces does not have anydocument responsive to your request.

Regard ,

Gloria C. Rivera Legal Assistant

To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the Public Records Center

Pu eredby

Gov

124 of 159 App. 000125

Exhibit M10 - Lack Training of Whistleblower Rights

Gmail Shamar D. Bradley <shamar.d.bradley@gmai l.com>

(Records Center) Public Information Request :: R004021-010925 1 message

Texas DIR Pu blic Records Center <texasdir@mycusthelp.net> Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 5:31 PM To: "shamar.d.bradley@gmail.com" <shamar.d.bradley@gmail .com>

--- Please respond above this line --

01 /24/2025

RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of January 09 2025, Reference # R00402 I-O I 0925

Dear Shamar Bradley:

DIR received a public information reque t from you on January 09, 2025. You req uested:

" Date of training, completi on certificate and training materia ls for whistl eblower rights for Li a Jammer, Brian Hurdle, and Shamar Bradley"

DIR does not have a training specificall y designated as the whistleblower ri ght tra ining as specified by yo ur request. As such, DLR has no responsive documents and your request is now closed .

Regards,

Christi Koenig Brisky Assistant General Counsel

To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the Public Records Center

Po I by

Gov

125 of 159 App. 000126

Exhibit M11A - Email to Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 1, Page 1

Gmail shamar bradley <shamarb11@gmail.com>

Hearing announcement - D-1-GN-24-009408 1 message

shamar bradley <shamarb11@gmail.com> Thu , Jan 30, 2025 at 12:11 PM To: TC .CivilDistrictAnnounce@traviscountytx.gov

Hi,

Just sending this hearing announcement in case the defense, who originally scheduled the hearing for 07feb2025 didn't already send it:) .

Shamar

Hearing announcement 07feb2025.pdf 157K

126 of 159 App. 000127

Exhibit M11B - Email to Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 1, Page 2 CNIL DISTRICT COURT ANNOUNCEMENT FORM THI S FORM MUST BE FILLED OUT IN FULL AND RECEIVED NO LATER THA 5:00 P.M. ON WED ESDA Y OF THE WEEK PRIOR rN ORD ER FOR THE ANNOUNCEMENT TO BE PROCESSED. ANNOUNCEMENT MUST BE E-MAIL ED TO : TC.CivilDistrictAnnounce@traviscountytx.gov

Date and Time of Setting: February 7th, 2025 at 9am Cause Number: D-I-GN-24-009408 Case Style: Shamar D. Bradley vs. Texas Department of Information Resources

Hearing(s)/TriaJ(s) that are set:_M _ o_ti_o_n_f_o_r _C_o_n_t_e_m~p_t_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Name/Contact Information fo r any interpreter appearing on this setting: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

**** All parties have co nferred and we:

0 AGREE that this hearing/trial can proceed REMOTELY FILL OUT 1N FULL THE AGREEMENT TO REMOTE PROCEEDING WHICH I LOCATED AT THE EN D OF THIS ANNOUNCEMENT FORM. SIGNATURES OF ALL SELF-REPRESE TED PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS OF RECORD MUST BE INCLUDED. ATTACH TH IS FORM WHEN ANNOUNCING WITH TJJ E COURT ADMINlSTRATOR'S OFF ICE. INCOMPLETE FORM WILL NOT BE CON ID ERED. (PLEAS E OT E THAT THE COURT WILL ADVIS E O HOW THE HEARING WILL PROCE ED PRIOR TO THE HEARING . U, LESS OTHERWISE ORDERED OR I STR CTE D BY THE COURT I WHICH THE CASE IS ASSIG:'IE D PROCEE DING WI LL OCCU R I -PERSON)

Time Estimate (TOT AL TIME FOR ENTIRE HEARING OR TRIAL): _ 1_ h_o _u _r _ _ __ For Jury docket cases and Family and Civil Monday Long docket cases only: Has Alternative Dispute Reso luti on (A DR) been compl eted or wa ived by th e Court?: Yes:0 _; No:D_(IfNot, Reason?_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~

FOR FAMILY LAW CASES ONLY: Is/Are Hearing(s) Still Necessary?: Yes:0 _· No:0__ (lfno, provide reason:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __, District Judge being requ ested?: Yes: 0_; No:O Has an Agreement been fil ed waiving right to De Novo?: Yes: O ; No:_._O_..____ Request for Record to be made of Proceeding?: Yes:O ; No:....

O_..._____

1

127 of 159 App. 000128

Exhibit M13 - Email to Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 2 From: shamar bradley <shamarb11@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 12:14 PM To: tc.civildistrictannounce <TC .CivilAnnouncements@traviscountytx.gov> Subject: [CAUTION EXTERNAL] Re: Hearing announcement - D-1-GN-24- 009408

CAUTION : This email is from OUTSIDE Travis County. Links or attachments may be dangerous. Click the Phish Alert button above if you think this email is malicious .

It's supposed to be 2 hours , sorry

128 of 159 App. 000129

Exhibit M14 - Email from Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 1

Gmai shamar bradley <shamarb11@gmail.com>

RE: [CAUTION EXTERNAL] Re: Hearing announcement - D-1-GN-24-009408

tc.civildistrictannounce Thu , Jan 30, 2025 at 1:58 <TC.CivilAnnouncements@traviscountytx.gov> PM To: shamar bradley <shamarb 11@gmail.com>

Good afternoon Shamar,

The max amount of time you can set for this docket is 15 minutes. Therefore, majority of the settings on this date will not be heard by the judge. Please call our office for further information and to advise of which ones you would like to remove at (512) 854-2484 option zero.

Best,

Court Admini Lrator s Office

Travis County Civil District Courts

PO. Box 1748

Austin, TX 78767

This electronic mail me sage, including any attachments, may be confidential or privileged under

129 of 159 App. 000130

Exhibit M15 - Email to Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 3

shamar bradley <shamarb11@gmail.com>

Re: [CAUTION EXTERNAL] Re: Hearing announcement - D-1-GN-24-009408 shamar bradley <shamarb11@gmail.com> Thu , Jan 30, 2025 at 3:23 PM To: "tc.civildistrictannounce" <TC.CivilAnnouncements@traviscountytx.gov>

Hi,

The court administrator agreed to a 2 hour hearing on February 7th.

130 of 159 App. 000131

Exhibit M16 - Email from Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 2

shamar bradley <shamarb11@gmail.com>

RE: [CAUTION EXTERNAL] Re: Hearing announcement - D-1-GN-24-009408 1 message

tc.civildistrictannounce Thu , Jan 30 , 2025 at 3:27 <TC. CivilAnnouncements@traviscou ntytx.gov> PM To: shamar bradley <shamarb 11@gmail.com>

This was set in error and therefore, will not be able to proceed . The max amount of time allowed is 15 minutes.

Best,

Court Admini. trator :~· Office

Travis County Civil District Courts

PO. Box 1748

Au tin, TX 78767

This electronic mail mes age, including any attachments, may be confidential or privileged under applicable law. This email is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are notified that any use, dissemination distribution, copying, disclosure or any other action taken in relation to the content of this email including any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received thi

131 of 159 App. 000132

Exhibit M17 - Email from Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 3 On Thu , Jan 30, 2025 at 3:24 PM tc.civildistrictannounce <TC .CivilAnnouncements@ traviscountytx.gov> wrote:

That docket only allows for a max of 15 minutes.

Best,

Court Administrator :~ Office

Travi County Civil District Courts

P.O. Box 1748

Austin, TX 78767

Thi s electroni c mail message, includ ing any attachme nts, may be confi dentia l or pri vi leged under applicable law. This email is intended solely fo r the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipien t of this email, you are notified that any use, dis emination, di tribution copying, di sclosure or any other action taken in re lati on to the content of thi s email including any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have rece ived thi email in en-or, please noti fy the send er immediately an d permanently delete the ori ginal and any copy of thi email , inc luding secure de tructioo of any pri ntouts.

132 of 159 App. 000133

Exhibit M18 - Email to Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 4 From: shamar bradley <shamarb11@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 3:26 PM To: tc.civildistrictannounce <TC.CivilAnnouncements@traviscountytx.goV> Subject: Re: [CAUTION EXTERNAL] Re: Hearing announcement - D-1-GN-24-009408

CAUTION: This email is from OUTSIDE Travis County. Links or attachments may be dangerous. Click the Phish Alert button above if you think this email is malicious.

I can send you the audio recording of the court administrator agreeing to the 2 hour hearing.

Exhibit M19 - Email to Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 5 From: shamar bradley <shamarb11@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 3:39 PM To: tc.civi ldistrictannounce < TC.CivilAnnouncements@traviscountytx.goV> Subject: Re: [CAUTION EXTERNAL] Re: Hearing announcement - D-1-GN-24-009408

G~Yi t9!-'J l~J.~~ ~g ~IJltt~J~~9 ~ /J.~ 19..tl.'?l'-!i~)f O u.~ty!..,~~n~~:p t-~!t.~w~.n:.~~t~.:~ ~x,pj ., dangerous. Click the Phish Alert button above Wy6u\think ,this!email 1is', malici6us':•.:a,....& -

Please provide the name , address, and phone number of the supervisor for the announcements division.

133 of 159 App. 000134

Exhibit M20 - Email from Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 4

Gmail shamar bradley <shamarb11@gmail.com>

RE: [CAUTION EXTERNAL] Re: Hearing announcement - D-1-GN-24-009408 tc.civildistrictannounce Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 3:41 <TC. CivilAnnouncements@traviscountytx.gov> PM To: shamar bradley <shamarb11@gmail.com>

Good afternoon Shamar,

We attempted to contact you earlier regarding this to further explain and left a detailed voicemail. Please contact us at (5 12) 854-2484 option zero for further information .

Best,

Court Administrator's Office

Travis County Civil District Courts

PO. Box 1748

Austin, TX 78767

This electronic mail message, including any attachments may be confidential or privileged under applicable law. This email is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are notified that any use

134 of 159 App. 000135

Exhibit M21 - Email from Court Administrator’s Office, 30JAN2025 - 5 From: shamar bradley <shamarb11@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 3:26 PM To: tc.civildistrictannounce <TC .CivilAnnouncements@traviscountytx.gov> Subject: Re: [CAUTION EXTERNAL] Re : Hearing announcement - D-1-GN-24- 009408

CAUTION : This email is from OUTSIDE Travis County. Links or attachments may be angerous. Click the Phish Alert button above if you think this email is malicious.

I can send you the audio recording of the court administrator agreeing to the 2 hour hearing .

135 of 159 App. 000136

Exhibit M22 - Order Granting Defendant’s Plea to the Jurisdiction I[] l of I 02/28/2025 05 :17:27 PM Velva L. Price District Clerk Travis County D-1-GN-24-009408 CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-24-009408

SHAMAR D. BRADLEY § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, § § V. § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS § TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION § RESOURCES § Defendant. § 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER GRANTING DIR'S AMENDED PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the Am nded Plea to the Jurisdiction filed by

Defendant Texa Department of Information Resources (''DIR"). After due

consideration of the law and th filings of the parties, the Court finds said plea

meritorious. It is therefore ,

ORDERED that Dill's Plea to th Juri diction is GRANTED. It i further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against DIR are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE in their entirety.

SIGNED this 28th day of F ebruary, 2025.

r N. JESSICA MAN RUM 200THDISTRICT JUDGE

136 of 159 App. 000137

Exhibit M23 - Order Granting DIR’s Plea to the Jurisdiction Email, 03MAR2025

Gmail Shamar D. Bradley <shamar.d.bradley@gmail.com>

This is a Signed Order notification from the Travis County District Clerk's Office for Case Number D-1-GN-24-009408 TC.Orders@traviscountytx.gov <TC .Orders@traviscountytx.gov> Mon , Mar 3, 2025 at 12:06 PM To: SHAMAR.D .BRADLEY@gmail.com

This is a notification that a signed Order has been accepted by the Travis County District Clerk's Office.

CauseNumber: D-1-GN-24-009408

Date Accepted : 3/3/2025 12:06 :21 PM

Document Information : ORDER GRANTING DIR'S AMENDED PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION

Please do not reply to this email. This message was automatically generated by The Travis County District Clerk's office

If you need technical assistance, please call : 512-854-9457

This email may have been generated by a computer program or a copy machine on behalf of another Travis County user. Please verify the validity of the message or the identity of the sender before taking any action if this email is unexpected or appears suspicious.

This electronic mail message , includ ing any attachments , may be confidential or privileged under applicable law. This email is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed . If you are not the intended recipient of this email , you are notified that any use, dissemination , distribution , copying , disclosure or any other action taken in relation to the content of this email including any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this email , including secure destruction of any printouts.

tJ 639523.pdf 217K

137 of 159 App. 000138

Exhibit N1 - Brickman V. OAG Final Order, 04APR2025, Page 1

7

04/04/2025 04 :32 :12 PM Velva L. Price District Clerk Travis County D-1 -GN-20-006861 CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-20-006861

JAMES BLAKE BRICKMAN, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DAVID MAXWELL, § J. MARK PENLEY, and § RYANM. VASSAR § Plaintiffs, § § ~ § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS § OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL § OF THE STA TE OF TEXAS § § § Defendant. § 250 th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

FINAL JUDGMENT

The trial of this case took place on February 20 and March 26, 2025. All matters, legal and

factual, were submitted to the Court for its determination.

The Court heard evidence from Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs moved for judgment based on the sworn pleadings and evidence, and the Court

announced its decision for Plaintiffs.

In support of its decision, the Court makes the following findings:

On September 30, 2020, Plaintiffs were all public employees employed by the Defendant,

the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas ("Defendant" or "OAG") in OAG' s office

in Austin, Travis County, Texas. OAG had more than 500 employees in each of 20 or more

calendar weeks in 2019 and 2020.

On September 30, 2020, Plaintiffs in good.faith reported to appropriate law enforcement

authorities violations of law by Attorney General Ken Paxton, other employees of the Office of

the Attorney General, and the Office of the Attorney General. Plaintiffs reported to law

enforcement that, over the course of 2019 and 2020, Ken Paxton abused his office, obstructed

138 of 159 App. 000139

Exhibit N2 - Brickman V. OAG Final Order, 04APR2025, Page 2

justice, and accepted bribes from ate Paul. Plaintiffs reported that Paxton and OAG deployed

the power of OAG and directed employees and resources of OAG spanning multiple functions and

departments, to improperly interfere in the civil disputes and criminal matters of Nate Paul.

Plaintiffs also reported that Paxton and OAG engaged in these acts not only to benefit Paul, but to

benefit Paxton personally because of the financial, reputational and personal relationships between

Paul and Paxton, relationships Paul and Paxton sought to conceal. These reports were made in

good faith.

On October 1, 2020, Plaintiffs notified Paxton and the Office of the Attorney General of

the reports to law enforcement.

The Office of the Attorney General then retaliated against Plaintiffs by first attempting to

harass and intimidate them, placing some of the Plaintiffs on investigative leave, and then by

terminating their employment. OAG terminated Plaintiff James Blake Brick.man's employment on

October 20, 2020, Ryan Vassar's employment on November 17, 2020, David Maxwell's

employment on November 2, 2020, and Mark Penley's employment on November 2, 2020.

Plaintiffs made their reports to law enforcement in good faith, and OAG terminated each

of the Plaintiffs because of their reports to law enforcement in violation of the Texas

Whistleblower Act.

In addition to evidence establishing that OAG terminated Plaintiffs because of their reports

to law enforcement, it is presumed that OAG took the adverse employment actions because OAG

terminated each Plaintiff within 90 days of their reports. 1

Each of the Plaintiffs initiated action under the grievance or appeal procedures of the OAG

before filing suit and not later than the 90th day after the date on which the violations of the Texas

1 See TEX. GOVT. CODE §554.004(a).

2

139 of 159 App. 000140

Exhibit N3 - Brickman V. OAG Final Order, 04APR2025, Page 3

Whistleblower Act occurred. Each of the Plaintiffs filed suit not later than the 90 1h day after the

date on which the violations of the Texas Whistleblower Act occurred. Each of the Plaintiffs

presented evidence establishing the damages awarded in this Judgment.

Because reinstatement, a form of mandatory relief available under the Texas

Whistleblower Act, is not feasible, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of the value of such

reinstatement, commonly referred to as "front pay." 2

OAG by and through its counsel of record elected not to dispute the Plaintiffs' lawsuit as

to any issue, including any issue of fact in this case as to the claim or damages. Moreover, OAG

won the right to avoid discovery in this case by certifying to the Supreme Court of Texas that "the

agency does not contest liability, damages, or reasonable attorneys' fees." On attorney's fees,

OAG represented to the Supreme Court that it "agreed not to contest the figures offered by

Plaintiffs." Having achieved the relief it sought, OAG is now estopped from contesting liability,

damages, or the attorney's fees figures that Plaintiffs' counsel have testified are reasonable and

necessary. See Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211 , 227, n. 8 (2000) (Judicial estoppel protects the

integrity of the judicial system and "generally prevents a party from prevailing in one phase of a

case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase.");

Fleming v. Wilson, 694 S. W.3d 186, 192 (Tex. 2024) (quoting Pegram for application of judicial

estoppel if the successful representation arose "in another phase" of the same case).

Independent of judicial estoppel, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have proved liability,

damages, and reasonable and necessary attorney' s fees by a preponderance of the evidence.

Because the Office of the Attorney General violated the Texas Whistleblower Act by firing and

2 See TEX. GOVT. CODE §554.003(b)(I); see also Pollardv. £.!. DuPont Nemours & Co., 532 U.S. 843-853 (2001); City ofHouston v. Livingston, 221 S.W.3d 204, 231-233 (Tex. App. -Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); Giles v. Gen. £lee. Co., 245 F.3d 474, 489 n. 27 (5th Cir. 200 I); and Wal mart Stores, Inc. v. Davis, 979 S.W.2d 30, 45 (Tex. App. - Austin 1998, pet. denied).

3

140 of 159 App. 000141

Exhibit N4 - Brickman V. OAG Final Order, 04APR2025, Page 4

otherwise retaliating against the Plaintiffs for in good faith reporting violations of law by Ken

Paxton and OAG, the Court hereby renders judgment for Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court

ORDERS that Plaintiffs recover the following from the Office of the Attorney General:

As to Plaintiff James Blake Brickman,

Compensation for wages lost during the period of termination in the amount of $65,770.82;

Compensatory damages for emotional pain, suffering inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life in the amount of $250,000.00;

Prejudgment interest on the above damages awarded at the rate of7.5% from November 12, 2020, until the date of this judgment in the amount of $102,906.69

Attorneys' fees in the amount of $842.269.00 3;

Court costs in the amount of $2,420.66; and

Post-judgment interest on all of the above at the rate of 7.5%, compounded annually, from the date this judgment is rendered until all amounts are paid in full.

As to Plaintiff David Maxwell,

Compensation for wages lost during the period of termination in the amount of $871,249.83 ;

Compensatory damages for emotional pain, suffering inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life in the amount of $250,000.00·

Prejudgment interest on the above damages awarded at the rate of 7.5% from November 12, 2020, until the date of this judgment in the amount of $365,404.57;

In lieu of reinstatement, front pay, from the date of trial through the remainder of the Attorney General's current term in the amount of $392.916.59·

Attorneys' fees in the amount of $336,708.00; and

3 Plaintiff Brickman' s attorney ' s fees are comprised of: $465,705 from Tom Nesbitt; $345,995 from the firm of Cain & Skamulis; and $30,569 from the firm ofScanes Yelverton & Talbert.

4

141 of 159 App. 000142

Exhibit O1 - DIR Project Manager III Job Announcement, 28APR2025, Page 1 [[] 1 of 7

~apps CENTRALIZED ACCOUNTING 6 PAYROLL/PERSONNEL SYSTEM

G LEN HEGA R • T EXA COMPTROLL ER OF PU BL IC ACCO U NTS

Welcome. You are- not signed In. I My Account Options )!r My Job Cart I Sign In

;. Job Search My Jobpage

Basic Search Jobs Matching My Profile

App ly Online Add to My Job Cart

Job Description

Project Mgr Ill (00049052) Organization: DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION RESOURCES

Primary Location: Texas-Austin

Work Locations: Network Security Operation CTR 1001 W NORTH LOOP Austin 78756

Job: Business and Financial Operations

Employee Status: Regular

Schedule: Full-time

Standard Hours Per Week: 40.00

State Job Code: 1560

Salary Admin Plan: B

Grade: 24

Salary (Pay Basis): 7,500.00 - 7,916.67 (Monthly)

142 of 159 App. 000143

Exhibit O2 - DIR Project Manager III Job Announcement, 28APR2025, Page 2

Number of Openings: 1

Overtime Status: Exem pt

Job Posting: Apr 28, 2025, 4:08:28 PM

Closing Date: Ongoing

Description

Position Title:

Project Manager Ill

Class/Group:

1560/ 824

Military Occupation Specialty Code:

Navy 641X

Fair Labor Standards Act Status:

Exempt

Number of Vacancies:

Division/Section:

Chief Operations Office/ Program Operations/Strategic Client Services

Salary Range:

$7500.00 - $7916.67 I monthly

Duration:

Regular

Hours Worked Weekly:

40

Travel:

Occasional

Work Location:

Central / Austin, Texas 78756

Web site:

143 of 159 App. 000144

Exhibit O3 - DIR Project Manager III Job Announcement, 28APR2025, Page 3

httQs://dlr.texas.QQ\lL

Refer Inquiries to:

People and Culture Office

Telephone:

(512) 463-5920 or (512) 475-4957

How To Apply:

• Select the link below to search for this position:

b.ll~J;ms.taleo.net/careersection/ex/Jobsearch.ftl?laog =en • Enter the job posting number 00049052 in the keyword search.

• You must create a CAPPS Career Section cand fdate profUe or be logged in to apply.

• Update your profile and apply for the job by navigating through the pages and steps . • Once ready, select "Submit" on the "Review and Submit" page.

• 11.you have problems accessing the CAPPS Career Section please follow the instructions in the Resetting CAPPS Password for Job Candidate desk aid.

Special Instructions:

• Applfcants must provfde Tn-depth Information in the EXPERIENCE: & CREDENTIALS section to demonstrate how they meet the position qualifications. Incomplete applications may result in disqualification.

• Resumes may be uploaded as an attachment but are n21 ~pted to Heu of the information required in the EXPEAIE:NCE & CREDENTIALS section of the application.

Interview Place/Time:

Candidates will be notified for appointments as determined by the selection committee.

Selective Service Registration:

Section 65 t .005 of the Government Code requires males. ages 18 through 25 years. to provide proof of their Selective Service registration or proof of their exemption from the requirement as a condition of state employment.

H-1B Visa Sponsorship:

We are unable to sponsor or take over sponsorship of an employment Visa at this tirne.

Equal Opportunity Employer

144 of 159 App. 000145

Exhibit O4 - DIR Project Manager III Job Announcement, 28APR2025, Page 4 I[] 4 of 7 The Department of Information Resources does not exclude anyone from consideration for recruitment, selection , appointment, training , promotion, retention, or any other personnel action, or deny any benefits or participation in programs or activities, which it sponsors on the grounds of race, color, national origin , sex, religion , age, or disability. Please call 512-475-4922 to request reasonable accommodation.

What We Do

We are a technology agency powered by people.

DIR offers secure, modern, and cost-effective technology to help government entities in Texas serve their constituents.

DIR is a fast-paced and collaborative environment with highly motivated, innovative, and engaged employees dedicated to achieving the best value for the state. We have over 250 professionals working at DIR who are honored to serve as the cornerstone of public sector technology in Texas. By joining DIR, you will be an integral part of transforming how technology serves Texans.

Position Summary

When your publicly funded organization requires telecommunications services, DIR makes procuring these services easy and cost effec ti ve. Since pricing is negotiated with the full vo lume buying power of the State of Texas we 're ab le to provide highly competi ti ve rates and services leve ls for vo ice, data, wireless, video, internet and managed services including network optimization and management of voice and/or data networks.

This position performs complex (journey-level) project management services in support of client procurements for vo ice and data communications products and services, for the client's enterprise and agency networks in conj unction with the Communic ations Technology ervice ( T ) Operations and T etwork Engineeri ng group . Responsible for the development of business and technical requirements documentation for procurements. Works with the contract manager in all phases of the procurement li fe cycle to assure the objective for the procurement are met and the project adheres lo the schedule. Conduct facil itated e ion with ubject matter expert and en ure the documents are completed to meet procurement and business goals. Coordinates and articulate variou project and technological concepts, a well as meeting coordination, with all necessary employee/man agemen t levels within DIR and client agencies. In itiates and maintains partnerships and re lationships by collaborating with internal business and technical representati ves as required. Manages the execution of delivery by outside telecom and other project ent ities. Works under the supervision of the Manager of Strategic lien I olution with input and guidance from other division leads, and the leadership and guidance of the Division Director. Works under general superv ision, with moderate latitude for the use of initiative and independent judgement.

145 of 159 App. 000146

Exhibit O5 - DIR Project Manager III Job Announcement, 28APR2025, Page 5 l[) 5 of 7 • Provides direction for telecommunications procurement projects;

ensuring the project supports and aligns with the stated vision, goals and objectives • Creates a project structure that provides the appropriate level of controls on processes and changes to project objectives; develops the plan that brings together the project, resources, timclines, monitoring and controls • Assesse , develop , and recommends sound solutions that apply technology to solve client's business goals and objectives. Manages vendor relationships, internal team members, and client agency stake holders to ensure prompt sound, and feasible solution tracking • En. ures regular reviews and reporting are conducted for stakeholders, management and executives • Develops a methodology to ensure the component parts of the procurement, business and technical, integrate properly to accomplish the whole • Analyze the need f. r re ource by tracking allocated re ource again t the project pecification , make re ource recommendation · and help determine Operational ri k tolerance of a igncd Entcrpri c and Agency project .

arry out ongoing program management re pon ibiliti e of named environment or initiative · a deemed nece ary • Performs other work-related duties as assigned.

Qualifications

Education

• Graduation from a four-year college or university with major coursework in computer science, computer information systems, management infon11a1ion systems, engineeri ng, or bu iness; or re lated field . • Additional work-related experience may be substituted for education on a year-for-year basis (High-school diploma required.

Experience and Training Required

• Minimum of three (3) year of multi-di ciplined project management experience • Minimum of three (3) year of telecommunication. indu try experience • Minimum of two (2) year of procurement experience for telephony infra ·tructure

Experience and Training Preferred

• Open y ·tem Interconnection (0 I) model Layer I technologie to include fiber plant layout, copper-ha ed cabling infra trucn1re, and points of entry concepts. • Possess working knowledge of Ethernet, Internet Protocol (JP), Voice

146 of 159 App. 000147

Exhibit O6 - DIR Project Manager III Job Announcement, 28APR2025, Page 6 0 er IP, and/or Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) network management and/or network design.

Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities

• o lid understanding of project-based work • Good understanding of project managemen t theory and practice • Good understanding of procurement processes • Sufficient understanding of cabling concepts, Ethernet, IP, Vo IP, MPLS technologies and general vo ice and data network ing principle of design and operations to assess and design workable, feasible solutions with clients • Excellent analytica l kill ; trong kill in attention to detail • trong interpersona l skills, including leadership and mentorship skills • Good writing skills for reports, requiremen ts definition and other docu men tation • Demonstrated ability to plan, prioritize, and complete multiple ass ignments on time with minimal supervision • Demon tratcd ability and thoro ugh knowledge of the management and de li very oftclecom services • Demonstrated ability to work with technical le.ams to design and deliver tclecom solutions • Ability to articulate technological solutions with all levels of client executi ve • Abi lity to evaluate multiple streams of work for consistency and integrat ion in meeti ng speci fi c objectives • Abi lity to follow standard processes, and communicate effectively and cordially with program staff and management regardi ng progrcs es and critical issues • Abil ity to effectively communicate both abstract and detai led information to varied audiences • Abi lity to quickly master new subjects; ability to be creative, flex ible and resourcefu l • Abi lity to seek ass istance, advice, or direction when appropriate • Abi lity to cxerci c courtc y, tact and diplomacy in all communication • Ability to establish and maintain effective and cordial working relationships at all organizational levels, including agency management, direct supervisors, co-workers, internal and external customers. • Ability to understand, follow and convey brief oral and/or written instructions. • Ability to communicate both verbally and in writing , in a clear and concise manner. • Ability to work independently and as part of a team , and to support and contribute to a cohesive team environment. • Ability to work under pressure and exacting schedules to complete assigned tasks. • Abi lity to work a flexible schedule to meet required deadlines. • Ability to comply with all agency policy and applicable laws. • Ability to comply with all applicable safety rul es, regulations, and

147 of 159 App. 000148

Exhibit O7 - DIR Project Manager III Job Announcement, 28APR2025, Page 7

standards.

Computer Skills

• Proficiency in the use of a computer and applicable software necessary to perform work assignments e.g., Microsoft Office for word processing, spreadsheets, and Teams meeting software.

Other Requirements

• Regular and punctual attendance at the workplace. • Criminal background check.

Working Conditions

• Work is no1111ally perfonued 111 a typical interior/office wo rk cuvironme nt • Frequent use of computers, copiers, printers, and telephones. • Frequent standing , walking , sitting, listening, and talking. • Frequent work under stress, as a team member, and in direct contact with others. • Occasional out ·ide work including construction site visit • Occasional bending, stooping , lifting, and climbing .

Apply Online Add to My Job Cart

Toa .eo, J tat >\id e ear b from lhc Tc 11s l11te Librur~ I State Lillk Poli~~ I Te1:1s llorueluod e uril

Glen n Hegar, Texas urupt roller • 0111plroller.Tcx11~. ov • ontact s Pri vucy anti . ccuril}' f>oliC)' I cccssihillt y Policy I Link Policy I Public lnformu Hun Act I Co11111nct wilh Tcxu ns

148 of 159 App. 000149

Exhibit 1 - “State-Owned Property” Email from Lisa Jammer, 27AUG2024

Gmail Shamar O. Briidley <shamar,d,brndley@gmoll com:.

State-Owned Property Lisa Jammer <lisa.jammer@dir.texas.gov> Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 5:22 PM To: "Shamar.D.Bradley@gmail.com" <Sharnar. D.Bradley@gmail.com>

Shamar;

Your employment with DIR was terminated on Wednesday, August 21, 2024. As part of the offboarding process, you JllllS.1 return all state•owned property that was Issued to you by DIR. This includes, but is no t limited to, the following DIR assets :

• Latitude 7410 • MiFI 8000 • iPhone 13

If you have any DIR assets not included in the list above, you must retu rn them as we ll. Please return all DIR assets In your possession by 5:00 PM on Friday, August 30, 2024, at the WIiiiam P. Clements Building located at 300 w. 15th Street, Austin, Texas 78701 . If you fail to return this property by the stated date and time, then DIR will issue an invoice to you requi ring your fu ll repayment of all items still In your possession.

Lisa Jammer j Chief People and Cu lture Officer, PHR, SHRM-CP, CDP Human Resources Department Texas Department of Information Resources Lisa Jammer@dlr te)l'as gov 0 : (512) 475-46 12 M: (512) 426·3259 300 W. 15th Street, Suite 1300, Austin. TX 78701

IR Ot!'O Transforming How Texas Government Serves Texans #DIRislT I @TexasDIR I About DIR

TOP WORK 1\1151m Amtrican StattsmJn PLACES ~tate:i rna".tom 2021· 2022

149 of 159 App. 000150

Exhibit 2 - “DIR Equipment” Email from Randa Maldonado, 12SEP2024 Gmail Shamar D Bradley <i;hamar,d.bradley@gma1l.com>

DIR Equipment Randa Maldonado <randa.maldonado@dir.texas.gov> Thu , Sep 12, 2024 at 9:49 AM To: "Shamar.D.Bradley@gmail.com• <Shamar.D.Bradley@gmall.com> Cc: Lisa Jammer <llsa.jammer@dlr.texas.gov>

Good Morning Shamar,

Please return all state-owned property that was issued to you by DIR. This includes. but is not limiled to. Iha following DIR assets:

• Latitude 7410 • MiFi 8000 • !Phone 13

If you have any DIR assels nol Included in the list above, you must return them as well . Please follow the Jnstructjons listed below to ship and return an DIB assets in your possession by..5ali)pm on Monday...S.eotember 16, .20.li. If you !all to return this property by the stated date and time , then DIR will issue an invoice to you requiring your full repayment of all items still in your possession.

Shipping Instructions

Go to the nearest FedEx location.

• Have FedEx package the laptop/equlpment. utilize the DIR FedEx Account No. 1108-8402 -8 and create a shipping label to the following address:

Department of lnformatkln Resources (DIR)

Attn ITS Issac Wilcher

300 W 15th Streel, Suite 1300

Austin Texas 78701

• Send email to me with the FedEx tracking number.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Randa Maldonado I People & Cultu re Director, PHR People & Culture Office Texas Department of Information Resources (512) 483-5920 I randa.maldonado@dirtexas.gov 300 W. 15th Street. Suite 1300. Austin. TX 78701

IROGO Transforming How Texas Government Serves Texans #DIRis lT I @TexasDIR I About DIR

150 of 159 App. 000151

Exhibit 3 - Request for Invoice Email to Lisa Jammer, 20SEP2024

Gma1I Shamar D. 81".adley < ham r.d.bradley@gmail.com>

Re: DIR Equipment Shamar D. Bradley <shamar.d.bradley@gmail.com> Fri, Sep 20 , 2024 at 11 :46 AM To: Randa Maldonado <randa .maldonado@dir.texas.gov> Cc: Lisa Jamme-r <lisa .jammer@dir.texas .gov>, "issac.wilcher@dir.texas.gov" <issac.wilcher@dir.texas .gov>

Invoice me. Who's handling my appeal?

Exhibit 4A - DIR Whistleblower Appeal Email, 23SEP2024, Page 1

Gmail Shamar D. Bradley< hamar.d.bradley@ginall.com>

DIR Whistleblower Appeal Shamar D. Bradley <shamar.d.bradley@gmail.com> Mon , Sep 23 , 2024 at 10:30 AM To: Randa Maldonado <randa .maldonado@dir.texas .gov> Cc: Lisa Jammer <lisa .jammer@dir.texas.gov>, "josh.godbey@dir.texas.gov" <josh.godbey@dir.texas.gov>

Hello,

I am formally invoking action under the DIR grievance/appear procedure relating lo the cause for termination of public employment at DIR as set forth in Texas Government Code§ 554 .006(b)(1 ).

The PDF attachment has add itional 1nfo. Please advise as to the DIR employee responsible for handling the intern-al DIR whistleblower grievance.

Regards, S a ar

~ appeal • Copy.pdf ,3335K

151 of 159 App. 000152

Exhibit 4B - DIR Whistleblower Appeal Email, 23SEP2024, Page 2

Petition for Redress

The Texas Department of Information Resources ("DIR") is a state of Texas governmental entity. See Texas Government Code § 554.001(5)(A)i _ Shamar D. Bradley began employment at DIR on November 13th, 2023 .ii Bradley was employed as a Database Administrator.iii Bradley was wrongfully terminated on August 21st, 2024.iv The total time of Bradley's employment at DIR was 9 months and 8 days. Therefore, he successfully completed the mandatory 9-month probationary period and is a "public employee." See Texas Government Code§ 554.001(4JV.

Bradley hereby timely invokes action under the DIR grievance/appeal procedure relating to the cause for termination of public employment at DIR. See Texas Government Code § 554.006(b)(J) vi_ Bradley was wrongfully terminated in illegal retaliation vii for refusing to engage in illicit activity and for the good faith report of a violation of a lawviii by public employees at DIR. Bradley refused to be complicit in and reported criminal violations of software copyright infringementix by another public employee of DIR; shortly thereafter, he was terminated thus satisfying the knowledge-timing test. See 17 United States Code§ 506(0)(1)(8), (e): see also 18 United States Code§ 2319(b)(1).

DIR failed to display notice of whistleblower rights in the recently acquired Adult Day Care (ADC) facility.x See Texas Government Code § 554.009(0) . Notwithstanding aforementioned lack of notice, Bradley's burden of proof has been met with clear and convincing evidencexi and the allegation of retaliatory termination is presumed to be true. See Texas Government Code§ 554.004(a) _xii

In the event that the DIR grievance procedure fails to reinstate Bradley with backpay and extra benefits, DIR sovereign immunityxiii will be waived and abolished and reliefXiv will be sought in the appropriate jurisdiction.xv See Texas Government Code § 554.0035. See also Texas Government Code§ 554.003(0)-(c). See also Texas Government Code § 554.007(0). This will also result in additional civil penaltiesxvi for the public employees responsible for the violation and an auditxvii of DIR. See Texas Government Code§ 554.008. See also Texas Government Code§ 554.070.

152 of 159 App. 000153

Exhibit 5 - Information Request for Invoice for DIR Property, 08NOV2024

Gmail Sha mar 0. Bradley <shamar.d.bradley@gmail cam>

[Records Center] Public Information Request:: R003958-102724 Texas DIR Public Records Center <texasdir@mycusthelp.net> Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 5:43 PM To: "shamar.d.bradley@gmail .com" <shamar.d.bradley@gmail.com;:,

- Please respond above this line -

11 /08/2024

RE: PUBLI RE ORD REQUEST of October 27. 2024. Reference ti R00 958-102724

Dea· l1amar Bradley:

DlR received a public information request from you on October 27, 2024. You requested:

" Inv i e ,f; r -tate property formerly a signed to hamar bradley who wa • fired for reporting hi c w rker for criminal copyright infringement''

Thank you for your req ue t. DIR doe not have any re ponsi e docume nt to your reque t.

Regard .

Gloria C. Rivera Legal Ass istant

To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the Public Records Center

153 of 159 App. 000154

Exhibit 6 - Police Presence at DIR Board Meeting, 29MAY2025

154 of 159 App. 000155

Exhibit 7 - Report of Criminal False Report to Peace Officer, 30MAY2025

Amanda Crawford Executive Director and State Chief Information Officer 300 We t 15 th Street Suite 1300 Austin, TX 7870 I Delivered via email to amanda.crawford@dir.texas.gov

May 301h, 2025

Dear Director Crawford,

As you may or may not be aware, I have been falsely arrested numerous times; therefore.

I exercise an abundance of caution to safeguard my personal and professional reputation for my personal afety and wellbeing, which i why I am appealing my termination to the Supreme ou1t.

After I was falsely accused of and tenninated for "unacceptable conduct" the day after reporting my coworker for repeatedly sleeping at work and engaging in criminal copyright infringement, l received an email from Lisa Jammer on August 27 th 2024 at 5:22 PM, ·ta.ting: " D[R will issue an invoice to you requiring your full repayment of all items still in your possession." See Exhibit 1 - "Slate-Owned Property" Email from Lisa Jammer. 27 AUG2024. Then I received an email from Randa Maldonado on September 12 1\ 2024 at 9:49 AM , tating: "DTR will issue an invoice to you requiring your full repayment of all items still in your possession.'' See Exh1b1I 2 - "DIR Egu1pmenL" Email from Randa Maldonado, 12SEP2024.

On September 20111, 2024 at 11 :46 AM , I ent Li a and Randa an email, tating: "Invoice me. Who's handling my appeal ?" See xhibit 3 - Request for Invoice Email to Lisa Jammer. 20 EP2024. I did not receive a response or an invoice for DIR equipment so I filed a Public Records Request for the invoice. On November 81", 2024 at 5:43 PM, I received the following response from Gloria C. Rivera : ''You requested: " Invoice for state property formerly assigned to Shamar bradley who was fired for reporting his coworker for criminal copyright infringement" Thank you for your request. DIR does not have any respon ive document to your reque t. " See Exhibit 4 - Public Information Request for Inv ice for DIR Prope11y, 01{ OV2024.

Yesterday, May 29 1\ 2025 I made an appearance at the DIR Quarterly Board Meeting to retrieve my personaJ property that was seized after I was retaliated against for blowing the whistle on my coworker 's criminal activity. Shortly after I arrived at the Board meeting. a police presence was requested. After the meeting concluded, I confirmed with the officer that my presence was the cause of his appearance. I reque ted that tbe officer contact DIR to retrieve my personal property and the invoice for the DIR equipment: fortunately. l was able to retrieve my personal property, but unfortunately l was advised by the State Police Officer that it is DIR's contention that the DIR prope1ty as igned to me is designated as stolen, whicb is false, as evidenced above and below. Please be advised that it is a criminal offense to knowingly make a false statement to a peace officer with intent to deceive by claiming a crime occurred when in reality, it did not, as set forth in Tex. Pen. Code§ 37.08. Thank you for you attention to this matter, and it wa nice seeing you.

------ ISi- - - -

Shamar D. Bradley, MS, MBA EIT IO I09 Lake Creek Parkway, # 170682 Austin, TX 78717 shamar.d.bradleyfa. ginail.com 210-425-5464

155 of 159 App. 000156

Exhibit 8 - Email from Lisa Jammer, 30MAY2025

Gmail Shamar D. Bradley <shamar.d.bradley@gmail.com>

Invoice for State Equipment Lisa Jammer <lisa.jammer@dir.texas.gov> Fri , May 30, 2025 at 5:56 PM To: "Shamar D. Bradley" <shamar.d.bradley@gmail.com> Cc: Josh Godbey <josh .godbey@dir.texas .gov>

Dear Shamar,

Please see the attached document.

Regards ,

Lisa Jammer

Lisa Jammer I Chief People and Culture Officer, PHR, SHRM-CP, CDP Human Resources Department Texas Department of Information Resources Lisa .Jammer@dir.texas.gov 0 : (512) 475-4612 M: (512) 426-3259 300 W. 15th Street, Suite 1300, Austin , TX 78701

IROOO Transforming How Texas Government Serves Texans #DIRislT I @TexasDIR I About DIR

TOP WORK Auslm ;\mrm,111·5tatrsman PLACES states man com 2021·2022

t:J Invoice for State Equipment.pdf 152K

156 of 159 App. 000157

Exhibit 9 - Defendants’ Threat of Any Legal Action, 30MAY2025 ([) ·, oi 1

IR Texas Department of Information Resources Transforming How Texas Government Serves Texans

May 30, 2025

Shamar D. Bradley

Mr. Bradley,

Upon your termination on August 21 , 2024, DIR requested the return of state equipment in your possession. Our records reflect that, as of May 30, 2025, you have not returned the following agency assets.

PROPERTY TAG ' ASSET DESCRIPTION I ACQUISITION COST

313-8338 LATITUDE 7410 1,379.01

313 -8815 IPHONE 13, MIDNIGHT, 128GB 629.99

NA MIFI DEVICE 99 .00

TOTAL ASSETS VALUE $ 2,108.00

Within ten calendar days of May 30, 2025, please resolve this situation by either:

• Returning all of the above equipment to the Department of Information Resources by shipping it at agency expense by the method outlined below; or • Remitting a money order or cashier's check, payable to the "Department of Information Resources " in the amount of $2,108.00, the details of which are broken out in the above table.

On Thursday, May 29, 2025, you indicated that the equipment in your possession was in San Antonio. The letter you submitted to Amanda Crawford indicated an Austin address. As DIR does not have a return address for a pre-paid label, please follow the below instructions to return the equipment:

• Go to the nearest FedEx location. • Have FedEx package the laptop/equipment and, use the DIR FedEx Account No. 1108-8402-8, to create a shipping label to the following address:

Department of Information Resource s (DIR) Attn: ITS Issac Wilcher 300 W. 15th Street, Suite 1300 Austin Texas 78701

Absent resolution of this matter within ten calendar days of May 30, 2025, by either returning the equipment or remitting payment as described above, DIR will consider any appropriate legal action available to the agency for your failure to return the state's property.

P.O. Box 13564, Austin, TX 78711 - 3564 I (512) 475-4700 I dir.texas.gov I @TexasDIR

157 of 159 App. 000158

Cause No. D-1-GN-25-001373

SHAMAR D. BRADLEY § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff § v. § TEXAS OFFICE OF THE § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL, § TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF § INFORMATION RESOURCES, § and all other Defendants § 261ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT similarly situated §

ORDER GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RULE 2.6 ASSIGNMENT

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the Motion for Local Rule 2.6 Assignment filed by

Plaintiff Shamar D. Bradley. After due consideration of the law and the filings of the parties, the

Court finds said plea meritorious. It is therefore.

ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Local Rule 2.6 Assignment is GRANTED.

SIGNED this ____ day of ______ 2025

________________________

Judge Presiding

158 of 159 App. 000159

Cause No. D-1-GN-25-001373

SHAMAR D. BRADLEY § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff § v. § TEXAS OFFICE OF THE § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL, § TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF § INFORMATION RESOURCES, § and all other Defendants § 261ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT similarly situated §

ORDER GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the Motion for Injunctive Relief filed by Plaintiff Shamar

D. Bradley. After due consideration of the law and the filings of the parties, the Court finds said

plea meritorious. It is therefore.

ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion Injunctive Relief is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that the defendant reinstate the plaintiff to the equivalent position of Project Manager

III, effective immediately, at the Texas Department of Information Resources.

SIGNED this ____ day of ______ 2025

________________________

Judge Presiding

159 of 159 App. 000160

Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Envelope ID: 102484817 Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee) Filing Description: Motion for injunctive relief Status as of 7/7/2025 8:29 AM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Shamar Bradley shamar.d.bradley@gmail.com 6/26/2025 2:59:42 PM SENT

Denver Burris denver.burris@oag.texas.gov 6/26/2025 2:59:42 PM I I SENT

App. 000161

Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Michelle Elliott on behalf of Denver Burris Bar No. 24138940 michelle.elliott@oag.texas.gov Envelope ID: 108131279 Filing Code Description: Brief Not Requesting Oral Argument Filing Description: 20251117_Brief_final Status as of 11/17/2025 2:55 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Jennifer Foster Jennifer.Foster@oag.texas.gov 11/17/2025 2:50:12 PM SENT

Rosalind Hunt ROSALIND.HUNT@OAG.TEXAS.GOV 11/17/2025 2:50:12 PM SENT

Denver Burris denver.burris@oag.texas.gov 11/17/2025 2:50:12 PM SENT

Josh Godbey JOSH.GODBEY@OAG.TEXAS.GOV 11/17/2025 2:50:12 PM ERROR

Associated Case Party: TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION RESOURCES

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Denver Burris Denver.Burris@oag.texas.gov 11/17/2025 2:50:12 PM SENT

Michelle Elliott Michelle.Elliott@oag.texas.gov 11/17/2025 2:50:12 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: SHAMARD.BRADLEY

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Shamar D.Bradley shamar.d.bradley@gmail.com 11/17/2025 2:50:12 PM SENT