In the wake of the state Senate’s acquittal of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on allegations of corruption and unfitness to serve, former employees in the Attorney General’s Office are asking the state Supreme Court to lift the suspension of their lawsuit against Paxton.
James Blake Brickman, J. Mark Penley, David Maxwell and Ryan M. Vassar this week filed a motion to lift the high court’s abatement of legal proceedings in February to allow the parties to formalize and fund a settlement agreement. The employees were dismissed by Paxton after disagreeing with several of the attorney general’s actions and later told the FBI and other agencies that Paxton had engaged in bribery, records tampering, abusive behavior, bank fraud and obstructing criminal probes, according to an October 2021 state appeals court ruling.
The impeachment proceedings in the Legislature focused on many of the same allegations made by the dismissed high-ranking officials.
The employees said in their motion to lift the abatement in the case that a mediated settlement agreement (MSA) required the Attorney General’s Office to pay them $3.3 million, provide Vassar with a state retirement plan credit and apologize for calling them “rogue employees.”
“After seven months and after the positions taken at the impeachment trial, there is no reason to believe a final settlement agreement is achievable at this point,” the motion to lift the abatement states.
The state Legislature adjourned without providing funds to fulfill the MSA, with some legislators expressing hostility to approving the funds, according to the motion.
Central to the dispute is whether the former employees’ actions against Paxton were protected by the state’s Whistleblower Act. Texas’ Third District Court of Appeals found that plaintiffs properly pleaded claims under the act, but attorneys for Paxton contend he was within his rights to fire the political appointees.
“The Office of the Attorney General enjoys sovereign immunity and the right to fire its employees – especially employees whose political appointments require they act on behalf of the duly elected attorney general – at will,” a petition filed with the Supreme Court by Paxton’s attorneys in 2022 says.
Paxton also argues that the appeals court’s interpretation of the Whistleblower’s Act flies in the face of separation-of-power principles defining the roles of the state’s governmental branches.
“If left undisturbed, the (appeals) court’s decision will authorize judicial interference into the staffing decisions of not only the attorney general, but every other elected officer of this state – from the governor to the land commissioner, from county clerks to the members of this tribunal,” the petition says.