By Mary Alice Robbins
In a whistle-blower suit filed against a state judge, a prosecutor and others, a woman alleges she was terminated as a community supervision officer because she had "gone outside the chain of command" with her complaints about alleged violations of state law.
On Sept. 20, Glenda Spoon filed Spoon v. Fannin County Community Supervision and Corrections Department, et al. in the 336th District Court in Bonham. Defendants in the suit are 336th District Judge Laurine Blake, Fannin County Criminal District Attorney Richard Glaser, the Fannin County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (FCCSCD) and its director, Debra Roberts. Spoon sued Blake, Glaser and Roberts individually and in their official capacity.
Sherman solo David Stagner, Spoon's attorney, says his client reported to Glaser "in good faith" alleged violations of the law she had witnessed at the FCCSCD and she was terminated shortly thereafter.
"The reason given for good cause for firing her [Spoon] was she went outside the chain of command," Stagner says.
However, Glaser says that very little in Spoon's petition is factual. "I think it's a frivolous lawsuit," he says.
In her original petition, Spoon alleges the following: Spoon went to work at the FCCSCD as a community supervision officer in 2008 after working a number of years as a community supervision officer in Grayson County. Blake and Roberts supervised Spoon. Prior to her termination on June 23, Spoon had never received any adverse employment decisions or reprimands. On June 18, Spoon made several allegations to Glaser that "relevant legal documents" in probationers' files were being destroyed, Blake was ordering the "community supervisors" to engage in what Spoon believed were "illegal acts"; the department's "officer manager" was engaging in "political activity" while at work and utilizing FCCSCD property in those endeavors; certain "criminal conduct" by department personnel was being "covered up"; and official documentation concerning mandatory training for department personnel "was being falsified." As alleged, Glaser reported Spoon's allegations to Blake, who conspired with Glaser and Roberts to "silence" Spoon. On June 23, Spoon was called to Roberts' office and told to resign or she would be terminated. Spoon alleges that when she refused to resign, she was immediately terminated.
As alleged in her petition, Spoon reported "in good faith" FCCSCD employees' violations of state and/or federal law to Glaser, whom she believed was the law enforcement authority who should investigate. Spoon further alleges that Blake and Roberts were "deliberately indifferent to Spoon's disclosure and made a conscious choice not to act or investigate the alleged violations."
In the petition, Spoon alleges that when she tried to appeal her termination, she was informed that the FCCSCD did not have a process in place for appealing adverse employment decisions. Her alleged unlawful discharge from her employment has caused Spoon to suffer humiliation, loss to reputation, emotional distress and retaliation, she alleges in her petition. [See the petition.]
Glaser says, "As far as the allegations against me, they're baseless and frivolous." Although Glaser says he had one "very short meeting" with Spoon, he says she did not report any violations of law to him.
Roberts says she "absolutely denies" all the allegations in Spoon's petition but declines further comment.
Patty Kreider, Blake's court coordinator, says Blake cannot talk about the case and refers questions about the suit to the Texas Office of the Attorney General (OAG).
Tom Kelley, an OAG spokesman, says that Peter Plotts, an assistant attorney general, represents Blake and Roberts. However, Kelley says the OAG cannot comment on the case at this time.
Spoon alleges claims against Blake and Roberts under the Texas Whistleblower Act, state Government Code §554.001. She also alleges First Amendment violations by Blake and Roberts. As alleged in the petition, defendants Blake and Roberts took action against Spoon for exercising her constitutional rights to free speech on "matters of legitimate public concern" and are liable to Spoon for damages under 42 U.S.C. §1983. In addition, Spoon alleges that Blake, Glaser and Roberts, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985, conspired to silence Spoon and deprive her of her civil rights.
As noted in her petition, Spoon seeks compensatory damages for lost wages; future wages; and past, present and future psychological and mental anguish.
Martin A. Shellist, a founding partner of Shellist Lazarz Slobin in Houston, represents plaintiffs in whistle-blower suits but is not involved in Spoon. Shellist says he would expect the defendants to seek to remove Spoon's suit to federal court.
"If they do get removed to federal court, it'd be very likely that the defendants are going to go to that federal judge and say, 'You need to make them replead with greater specificity,' " Shellist says.
Shellist says Spoon will have to prove she made a good-faith effort to report a violation of law to an appropriate law enforcement authority. Under state whistle-blower law, if an individual is terminated within 90 days of making such a report, there is a presumption - subject to rebuttal - that the termination was due to retaliation, Shellist says.
Shellist notes that the state whistle-blower law caps certain damages, with the limits tied to the number of employees at the defendant agency.
But Shellist says the defendants have an affirmative defense if they can prove they would have terminated Spoon "solely based on information not related to the report."
With regard to the free-speech claim, Shellist says Spoon must show that she made the report on a matter of public concern as a citizen. "If she would normally say these things as part of her job, she loses," he says.
