Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton recently received a favorable ruling from the Texas Supreme Court in a whistleblower lawsuit filed against him. The lawsuit alleged that Paxton wrongfully terminated four employees after they reported him to the FBI in 2020.
The court stated that Paxton and three of his senior employees would not need to testify in the case, as the Attorney General’s Office did not contest the claims made against them earlier this year. The court deemed the depositions unnecessary, as the only relevant fact issue, the OAG’s liability under the Whistleblower Act, is now uncontested.
The plaintiffs had argued that the depositions would have also been beneficial in a previous $3.3 million settlement that was not approved by the Texas Legislature and instead settled with Paxton’s impeachment. The former employees were fired in November 2020 after filing a FBI criminal complaint against Paxton for various allegations, including bribery, harassment, tampering with government records, and abuse of office.
Despite efforts by the whistleblowers’ attorneys to push for Paxton’s deposition and a trial case over the past three years, the Attorney General has managed to avoid testifying. A Travis County judge had ordered Paxton to sit for his deposition on February 1, but the Texas Supreme Court temporarily blocked the depositions without explanation, giving the OAG time to respond with broader legal arguments.
Paxton argued that the lower court overstepped its authority by requiring his testimony and believed the case should have already concluded. However, the former employees expressed concerns that without the depositions, a potential future settlement funded by the Legislature could be in jeopardy. They also highlighted that allowing Paxton to avoid testifying could discourage future state employees from reporting improper conduct.
In response to the ruling, KERA news reached out to the Attorney General’s Office for comment and will update the story accordingly. The outcome of this case has significant implications for whistleblowers and the accountability of public officials. It remains to be seen how this decision will impact future cases of whistleblower retaliation and the protection of employees who come forward with allegations of misconduct.
