Not sure if this has any bearing on the issues between UIL and TASO but it is interesting anyway.
http://galvestondailynews.com/story/204510School district wins appeal in Jaco lawsuit
By Evan Mohl
The Daily News
Published January 14, 2011
The Galveston school district won an appeal in a lawsuit brought by former athletic director Brent Jaco.
Jaco sued the school district claiming the Whistleblower Act should have protected him from demotion in December 2005 when he reported to University Interscholastic League officials — with district approval — that Ball High School used an ineligible football player. As a result, Ball forfeited an 8-2 season and was barred from the playoffs.
Lower courts initially ruled in Jaco’s favor.
The Houston 14th Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the UIL’s rules are not state laws as defined in the Whistleblower Act. The school district had lost at least two previous appeals along with a motion for summary judgment after Jaco filed the lawsuit in April 2006.
The UIL is the state’s governing body for high school sports. The state’s Whistleblower Act states government entities cannot suspend or fire employees who, in good faith, report violations of the law.
“Because we agree with the district that the UIL’s rules are not ‘law’ as that term is defined in the Whistleblower Act, we reverse and render judgment dismissing Jaco’s case without addressing the district’s remaining issues,” Justice Tracy Christopher wrote in her decision.
Less than a month after Jaco reported the violation and after strong community backlash toward Jaco and the district, Jaco was demoted to athletic trainer. He appealed the district’s decision but was not offered his job back.
When former Superintendent Lynn Hale fired Jaco as athletic director, she said it was because Jaco had not signed his job description.
However, no other administrators signed job descriptions, The Daily News reported.
Jaco’s lawsuit asked for back pay, lost wages, attorney’s fees and damages for emotional distress.
Christopher added in her opinion that treating all UIL rules as state law “would produce absurd results.” She cited a hypothetical example of a track meet inadvertently reversing the orders of a shot put and pole vault competition.
Interpreting UIL as state law, Christopher argues, would make that mistake an illegal act.
“We cannot agree that the legislature intended the phrase ‘violation of law’ to be read so expansively,” Christopher wrote. “We conclude that the trial court erred … we accordingly dismiss Jaco’s case with prejudice.”
