Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; July 26, 2012; Texas; State Appellate Court
Christopher Koustoubardis sued the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) for violating the Texas Whistleblower Act and section 64.102 of the Texas Human Resources Code after his termination. TYC claimed sovereign immunity regarding the section 64.102 claim, which the trial court conditionally denied. The case went to trial, resulting in a jury verdict in favor of Koustoubardis on both claims. The trial court awarded damages for the whistleblower claim but upheld TYC's plea concerning the section 64.102 claim. TYC appealed, challenging the trial court's denial to dismiss the section 64.102 claim pre-trial and arguing insufficient evidence for parts of the damages award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Koustoubardis, employed by TYC as an Administrative Law Judge since 2002, conducted parole revocation hearings. During a hearing preparation on February 14, 2008, he overheard his supervisor, Chief ALJ Kaci Sohrt, coaching a police officer on hearsay rules. Koustoubardis believed this was an attempt to introduce inadmissible evidence due to the absence of a key witness, the youth's sister. After being instructed by Sohrt to allow the excited utterance testimony, Koustoubardis expressed concern about the fairness of the hearing. Ultimately, he ruled against the State's case due to insufficient evidence. Following the hearing, Koustoubardis reported Sohrt's actions to the TYC Abuse Hotline. Soon after, TYC's General Counsel informed him that any investigation into Sohrt would cease and prohibited him from further contacting the Ombudsman’s office. Subsequently, Sohrt filed a performance complaint against Koustoubardis, which did not lead to any disciplinary action. Koustoubardis believed this complaint was retaliatory for his report to the hotline.
In August 2008, Koustoubardis was approached by TYC assistant ombudsman Shalonda Richardson-Grant regarding an investigation into potential misconduct by another ALJ, specifically concerning record tampering and double jeopardy risks. Despite the possibility of termination for speaking with the Ombudsman’s office, Koustoubardis cooperated and expressed his concerns. He anticipated termination following his conversation with Richardson-Grant. On September 18, 2008, he was terminated and subsequently filed a lawsuit against TYC, citing violations of the Texas Whistleblower Act and section 64.102 of the Human Resources Code.
In the legal analysis, TYC argued that the trial court erred by not dismissing the section 64.102 claim before trial, claiming this inclusion lowered the causation standard for the whistleblower claim. However, TYC did not adequately preserve this argument for appeal, as its objections did not alert the trial court to the specific concern regarding the causation standard. Furthermore, TYC contended that the trial court's decision to allow testimony about Koustoubardis’ cooperation with Richardson-Grant was erroneous since it was relevant only to the dismissed section 64.102 claim. However, TYC failed to object to this testimony at trial, which also precluded them from raising this issue on appeal. Ultimately, TYC's arguments were overruled.
Compensatory damages were defined by the jury instruction to include emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other noneconomic losses. TYC did not object to the jury's instructions during the charge conference and later claimed on appeal that there was insufficient evidence for the mental anguish damages awarded to Koustoubardis. Challenges to a broad-form damages question require addressing all damage elements, which TYC failed to do, leading to waiver of its sufficiency challenge. TYC did not contest the evidence supporting other elements of the compensatory damages.
Regarding front pay, an equitable remedy for future lost wages and benefits, the trial court awarded $464,792 without TYC contesting the decision to grant front pay but arguing the amount was unsupported by evidence. Expert testimony projected front pay between $421,254 and $587,540, while TYC’s former supervisor indicated that Koustoubardis would have been terminated due to a reduction-in-force approximately one year after his termination. TYC claimed front pay should reflect only one year’s wages of $71,468.88 based on this testimony. However, the trial court, as the judge of witness credibility, could disregard this testimony and determine the front pay amount independently.
The trial court awarded Koustoubardis $464,792 for front pay based on evidence presented at trial, including expert witness testimony that supported this amount. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in this award and affirmed the trial court’s judgment, overruling TYC's third issue. Koustoubardis raised a cross-issue arguing that the trial court incorrectly sustained TYC’s plea to the jurisdiction, but this was not addressed since it only needed consideration if the whistleblower claim was reversed. TYC conceded that the Chief ALJ regularly provides legal advice to parole officers. During oral arguments, TYC’s counsel confirmed that discussions between the Chief Judge and parole officers regarding trial issues were common and did not create a conflict of interest. Additionally, Koustoubardis had previously communicated events related to the case via email to TYC officials. TYC contested the trial court's jurisdiction over the section 64.102 claim, asserting it lacked a waiver of sovereign immunity, but the appellate opinion did not evaluate this argument's merits.
