Judge awards $6.6M to whistleblowers who were fired after reporting Texas AG Ken Paxton to FBI
A district court judge awarded $6.6 million combined to four whistleblowers who sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on claims he fired them in retaliation for reporting him to the FBI.
Blake Brickman, David Maxwell, Mark Penley and Ryan Vassar notified Paxton and his office on Oct. 1, 2020, that they had reported him to the FBI for allegedly abusing his office. The four were all fired by mid-November.
Travis County Judge Catherine Mauzy ruled Friday that by a "preponderance of the evidence," the whistleblowers proved liability, damages and attorney's fees in their complaint against the attorney general's office.
The judgment says the former aides made their reports to federal law enforcement "in good faith" and that Paxton's office did not dispute any claims or damages in the lawsuit.
Fbi Flooded With Record Number Of New Agent Applications In Kash Patel's First Month Leading Bureau
"Because the Office of the Attorney General violated the Texas Whistleblower Act by firing and otherwise retaliating against the plaintiff for in good faith reporting violations of law by Ken Paxton and OAG, the court hereby renders judgment for plaintiffs," Mauzy wrote in her judgment.
Read On The Fox News App
The court found that the four former aides of the attorney general were fired in retaliation for reporting allegations that he was using his office to accept bribes from Austin real estate developer and political donor Nate Paul, who employed a woman with whom Paxton was having an extramarital affair.
Paxton has denied allegations that he accepted bribes or misused his office to help Paul.
"It should shock all Texans that their chief law enforcement officer, Ken Paxton, admitted to violating the law, but that is exactly what happened in this case," Tom Nesbitt, an attorney representing Brickman, and TJ Turner, an attorney representing Maxwell, said in a joint statement.
Paxton said in a statement that the judge's ruling is "ridiculous" and "not based on the facts or the law." He said his office plans to appeal the ruling.
The attorney general was probed by federal authorities after eight employees reported his office to the FBI in 2020 for bribery allegations. He agreed to settle the lawsuit for $3.3 million that would be paid by the legislature, but the state House rejected his request and conducted its own investigation.
Paxton was impeached in the House in 2023 before he was later acquitted in the Senate.
Texas Ag Paxton Acquitted On All Impeachment Charges: 'The Truth Prevailed'
In November, the state Supreme Court overturned a lower-court ruling that would have required Paxton to testify in the lawsuit.
The U.S. Justice Department declined to pursue its investigation into Paxton in the final weeks of the Biden administration, according to The Associated Press.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.Original article source: Judge awards $6.6M to whistleblowers who were fired after reporting Texas AG Ken Paxton to FBI
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
33 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Senate GOP plan would sell millions of acres of Western public land
Senate Republicans have proposed selling off up to 3.3 million acres of federally owned land in 11 Western states, according to a draft legislative text offered as part of their spending and tax cut bill, prompting an outcry from conservationists and Democratic lawmakers. According to a budget blueprint released Wednesday evening by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the federal government would be required to sell off between 2.2 and 3.3 million acres of land owned by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service over the next five years. The proposal stipulates that the sold land will have to be used to develop housing or 'community development needs,' which it said could be defined by the secretaries of the Interior or Agriculture departments. The 11 states that would be affected by the proposal are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement Wednesday that the draft legislative text would turn 'federal liabilities into taxpayer value, while making housing more affordable for hardworking American families.' Current law allows BLM to sell off land in some instances, such as in a specific ring around Las Vegas, at a discount if it's developed for affordable housing. But the push to scale up these land sales has spurred pushback from not just Democratic lawmakers and environmentalists but also some House Republicans, who managed to block a similar provision from being included last month in the House's tax and spending bill. Democrats and several conservation groups sharply criticized the Senate blueprint, warning that it could deprive future generations of public access to public land and suggesting much of the land sold might not be used for affordable housing. Sen. Martin Heinrich (New Mexico), the panel's top Democrat, accused Republicans of 'taking up a sledgehammer' in a 'fire sale' of public lands, in a statement Wednesday. 'We all lose access to public lands forever, jeopardizing our local economies and who we are as a nation.' In a statement, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership said it opposed the proposed forced sale, arguing that the budget reconciliation bill was not the right process for public-land sales of this scale. 'The Senate proposal sets an arbitrary acreage target and calls for the disposal of up to six times more land than was proposed in early versions of the House budget reconciliation bill,' said Joel Pedersen, the group's president and CEO. 'If passed, sportsmen and women would lose access to large tracts of public land.' If enacted into law, the draft text would require the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service to sell between 0.5 and 0.75 percent of the 438 million acres of land that they own collectively. It does not include the sale of land with existing grazing rights, along with federally protected lands such as national parks, monuments and wildlife refuges. The committee projected that the land sales would generate between $5 billion and $10 billion of income between fiscal years 2025 and 2034, citing an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Political fights put spotlight on leader of Washington's largest public employee union
Mike Yestramski, president of the Washington Federation of State Employees, could not get a meeting with Gov. Bob Ferguson so he "called" during a March protest in the governor's office. (Photo by Jacquelyn Jimenez Romero) Mike Yestramski has enjoyed a low profile through much of his six years leading Washington state's largest public sector union. Not anymore. His very public clashes with the governor during a contentious 2025 legislative session put a political spotlight on the president of the Washington Federation of State Employees. The union represents 54,000 state government, higher education and public service workers. Ferguson and Democratic state senators — longtime union allies — wanted to furlough workers and make them pay more for health care coverage. They also called for curtailing programs and closing Rainier School, a rehabilitation center in Pierce County for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, moves certain to trigger layoffs. Yestramski and legions of fellow union members turned out in force to oppose these moves. Clad in the union's green t-shirts, they rallied on the Capitol steps, demonstrated at the governor's office and patrolled the hallways outside the House and Senate chambers to pigeonhole lawmakers through the final hours of session. The muscular, pony-tailed labor leader was ubiquitous, rebellious and, in the end, victorious in some of the most pitched political battles of the session. And he didn't hold back with rhetorical slights against the new governor, calling Ferguson a 'pseudo Democrat' at rallies and 'Ratfink Robbie Ferguson' on Facebook. The swipes further brightened the exposure of the union's demands. Yestramski said in a recent interview in the union's Olympia headquarters that he prefers 'adult conversations' to resolve differences, though he realizes what occurred in the legislative session 'may have painted a slightly different impression.' But the gravity of the situation demanded a strong retort, he said. 'I generally believe that collaboration tends to be more successful than aggression,' he said. 'But that takes all of the parties involved to do that.' Yestramski, 45, was elected to a two-year term as federation president in 2019. Then 39, Yestramski said he was reportedly the federation's youngest ever president. Yestramski was reelected in 2021 and 2023. He plans to seek a fourth term this fall. He started his public service career as a homeless outreach social worker in Baltimore. He came to Washington in 2013, taking a job as a psychiatric social worker at Western State Hospital. An active union member, Yestramski said he pursued the leadership post because he was 'just getting really sick of seeing my friends and co-workers getting beat up, really, really bad.' 'People ended up in ICUs. People lost digits,' he said. Jobs at the hospital can still be dangerous, but Yestramski credited CEO Charlie Southerland for working collaboratively with the union to come up with solutions to bolster worker safety. The following interview was lightly edited for clarity and length. Have you had a chance to chat with or meet face-to-face with the governor? I have not. You've called him a few names. How do you feel about him now? While his rhetoric during the session I didn't love, he did ultimately sign the budget that funds our contracts and did not contain furloughs. As far as what he actually did, he didn't harm us, which was the fear based on statements that were coming out. For that, I'm thankful. You did say you felt scammed and that workers were lied to because Ferguson's proposals didn't align with his pledges to labor leaders in the 2024 campaign. Do you think WFSE members now feel they can trust him to have their backs? As a social worker — this is going to be related, I promise — the therapeutic school that I was brought up in was behaviorism. One of its basic tenets is, 'I don't really care what your motivations are, as long as you do the right thing.' To that end, whether it was genuinely in his heart or whether it was due to the political pressure of our members, whatever reason it was that got that outcome, the outcome is what was important. As far as our members trusting him, obviously, folks are going to be a little bit hesitant. This isn't just the governor. This is any elected official where we have to continue to make it known that we're paying attention, that we'll show up and that we have expectations of our elected officials. When we do that in large enough crowds, they listen and they do the right thing. In the end, did Ferguson do the right thing enough to secure the union's backing for reelection? That's three-and-a-half years away. In sports terms, there's going to be a lot more game film to review by the time that decision comes up. Enough time for a reconciliation? As far as he and I, personally, I can't say. My door is always open, even if it's to say I don't like you, right? I don't care if it's me. I believe the narrative got a little bit into a personal thing between me and Bob. I need to know that there are people in the governor's office that he will listen to, who can make sure that our main issues are being heard and addressed. Do you feel that way today? I feel that now more than I did two months ago. Would I like to have a better relationship with the governor? I don't want to be in a feud with our governor. You're probably not going to call him a 'ratfink' again. Probably not.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House GOP slashes university operational funding, penalizes U of M and MSU for large endowments
University of Michigan students walking near the Diag on Oct. 3, 2022 | Ken Coleman Cuts to DEI programming, slashed operational funding for the state's most prestigious universities with large endowments and penalties for race-based admission systems were among the items proposed in higher education budgets advanced by Michigan House Republicans on Wednesday. The GOP-controlled House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday reported its version of the school aid budget for K-12 schools, universities, community colleges, the Michigan Department of Education and the Michigan Department of Lifelong Education, Advancement and Potential. House Republicans set university funding at $2.4 billion with $461.3 million coming from the state's general fund, which would be an overall increase of $76.4 million or 3.3%. However, overall funding for university operations would see a decrease of $828.1 million. State Rep. Ann Bollin (R-Brighton), chair of the committee, said Republicans were trying to support Michigan high school graduates as they transition to adult life and encourage them to stay in the state to attend one of several public universities. State Rep. Gregg Markkanen (R-Hancock), chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher Education and Community Colleges, said in a statement issued after the bills were reported that the budget corrected the imbalance of the state funding poured into Michigan State University and the University of Michigan's Ann Arbor campus. 'Michigan's largest universities have been getting way more than their fair share for far too long,' Markkanen said. 'Our plan sets things right by trimming the fat off MSU and U of M and distributing that funding amongst our 13 other remarkable universities.' But, much like its counterpart in the K-12 budget, the university budget has a series of cuts to operational grants and aims to restrict university diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The budget raised questions for universities who stand to see their funding reduced if they do not obey certain requirements spelled out in boilerplate language, and the inconsistency of billions in one-time funding without a plan for years later. Universities with an endowment fund between $1 billion and $5 billion would lose 50% of those funds, impacting Michigan State University, in particular. Those with endowments of $5 billion to $10 billion would lose 65% of their funds, and universities with endowments of $10 billion would lose 75% of their funds, which would affect the University of Michigan. The sum total of campus investment funds, support payments and ending tuition waiver payments would be subject to a 31% cap on increases above what was appropriated to universities last year. When paired with estimated new Michigan Achievement Scholarship payments, the appropriations to universities would be conditioned on holding back undergraduate tuition and fee increases to 3% or $489, whichever is greater. Projected funding decreases in that case could range from 5.1% to 91.6%. New boilerplate language would require universities to report on information related to the current university president, provide a list of the number of out-of-state students by state origin, provide a list of the number of international students categorized by citizenship, certify that all enrolled students are lawful residents, and provide the contact information of students who are not lawful residents to the director of Michigan Department of Lifelong Education, Advancement and Potential. Universities would have 5% of their campus investment funds withheld for disobeying those requirements, the same penalty if they allow transgender women to participate in women's sports. Vamping on a theme, the House also added language that restricts public universities from having any common area spaces that are restricted by sex or race, and restricts institutions from having any public ceremonies or gatherings restricted by sex or race and authorizes the state budget director to withhold 5% of monthly campus investment funds payments until an institution complies. The House plan also mandates universities abide by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that held Harvard University's limited race-based affirmative action program violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Michigan House Republicans' university budget includes language that states 25% of campus investment funds would be taken from any institution that violates the court's holding. State Rep. Matt Madodock (R-Milford) extolled the budget as making cuts to the 'woke' universities and giving the money to 'non-woke' universities. In an interview with Michigan Advance, Dan Hurley, CEO of the Michigan Association of State Universities, said the association was still analyzing the budget, but said it was 'certainly comprehensive in its approach to reframing how the state funds its public universities and the students they enroll.' 'There are a lot of provisions that are not minor in their potential impact on allocations to universities and their long-term implications,' Hurley said. Hurley noted as Markkanen did during the committee that attention will now go toward negotiating with the House, Senate and the governor's office. He said the goal was, as a set of 15 public universities, to improve and to allow students the ability to afford a university degree. 'I think the litmus test on a final budget is how it will affect the universities' abilities to produce a talent pipeline that the state desperately needs at this moment,' Hurley said. One of his top-line observations is the more than a billion dollars in one-time funding monies to support the overall budget framework. As huge enterprises that have been around for hundreds of years, Hurley said they need predicability and sustainability. 'We need to have a much better understanding of what the thinking is, what the plan is to maintain a healthy, vibrant public university ecosystem,' Hurley said. 'In year two, in year three and year four down the road. To me, that is not clear at the moment.' Bollin said the House was providing a roughly flat investment in higher education, which she said would make universities compete for the students they have. Although the move was characterized during the committee meeting as positively impacting some universities' bottom lines over others, Bollin later said it was a move to support students wherever they end up going to attain a higher education. When it was noted that the budget changes the way some universities would receive money from the state, Bollin doubled down and said universities will have the same opportunity to receive funding. 'Maybe they ought to mind their budgets just like the rest of us. Everybody's budget is getting tighter,' Bollin said. Bollin was asked about the DEI cuts and more specifically the language targeting transgender women in women's sports. It was noted that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender were tenants of the state's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. Bollin was asked how the various budgets' boilerplate language were not blatant violations of the state's civil rights law. Bollin said she didn't see it that way, using language that essentially denies the very nature of transgender individuals. 'Frankly, I want to get away from focusing on those parts in the bill and in our policy statements. We are talking about educating and we want everybody to feel welcome; to come in and get a good education. And, frankly, we don't want to see boys in girls' sports. That's universal. I don't want to go into the restroom with a man,' Bollin said.
