Fort Worth ISD’s new Board of Managers has inherited a 14-year whistleblower lawsuit after the district lost its latest attempt to end the case.
Attorneys for former administrator Joseph Palazzolo are questioning whether district officials briefed the state-appointed board on the litigation or whether the board gave new instructions on how to proceed.
The Second Court of Appeals affirmed a Wise County judge’s denial of FWISD’s plea to the jurisdiction on August 13, 2026, in former administrator Joseph Palazzolo’s Texas Whistleblower Act case. The appellate court did not decide whether FWISD retaliated against Palazzolo. It held that unresolved factual disputes remain for a jury, although FWISD can still seek further appellate review.
The litigation is now under a governing body that did not exist when most of the case unfolded. As previously reported by The Dallas Express, the Texas Education Agency appointed nine managers on March 24, 2026, temporarily replacing the elected trustees’ governing authority.
Was the new board briefed?
In a May 25, 2026, filing, Palazzolo’s attorneys argued that the new managers “had not been briefed regarding the present case, nor had an opportunity to consider settlement.” The filing was a reply supporting a motion asking the appellate court to require outside attorney Thomas Brandt to brief the managers and obtain affirmative instructions from the new governing body.
Palazzolo’s reply says FWISD argued that Brandt had authority to pursue the appeal based on communications with district in-house counsel. The reply quotes FWISD Staff Attorney Alexander Athanason as stating, “I have communicated those case updates to Fort Worth ISD Leadership and Fort Worth ISD Board Counsel.” Palazzolo’s attorneys argued that the statement did not establish that the managers themselves had been briefed.
That is Palazzolo’s attorneys’ position, not a court finding. The filings dispute whether the managers themselves must provide new authorization to outside counsel. The filing does not establish whether the managers have received a briefing since then, and the August 13 appellate opinion does not address the separate authority dispute.
The former elected board had previously authorized the superintendent to pursue a settlement. On December 10, 2024, trustees voted 8-0 to authorize the superintendent to negotiate and finalize a settlement in Palazzolo v. Fort Worth ISD under terms discussed in closed session, according to official minutes.
The litigation remained unresolved when the state-appointed managers assumed control more than a year later.
A case stretching back to 2012
Palazzolo sued FWISD in July 2012, alleging that district officials retaliated against him for reporting suspected violations of law while he worked as an assistant principal at Arlington Heights High School. His reports included allegations that administrators were falsifying student attendance records.
A 2016 opinion said the Texas Education Agency’s Division of Financial Audits concluded that FWISD had erroneously over-reported days of attendance and adjusted the district’s state funding by approximately $18,000.
FWISD denied that Palazzolo’s reports drove its employment decisions and presented evidence that the district acted because of alleged misconduct unrelated to his whistleblower reports.
A jury found for Palazzolo in 2014 and awarded $2,146,352.09 in damages. In 2016, the appeals court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial because the jury charge omitted FWISD’s statutory affirmative defense that it would have taken the same action for reasons unrelated to Palazzolo’s reports.
The August 13, 2026, opinion noted that after a 2019 remand, the parties neither pushed the case to trial nor resolved it for about five and a half years before FWISD filed its latest jurisdictional plea.
“The District got what it wanted the first time around — a new trial with the jury asked the question whether it would have fired me for other reasons,” Palazzolo told The Dallas Express. “Instead it kept appealing on more and more bizarre grounds to try to make me settle for a pittance. A total waste of taxpayer dollars by a failed school board.”
How much has the case cost taxpayers?
The records reviewed by The Dallas Express do not establish how much FWISD has spent on outside attorneys, appeals and other legal expenses in the 14-year case.
The Dallas Express asked FWISD whether the Board of Managers received a briefing on the case, whether the managers have reviewed the litigation or given new instructions, and how much the case has cost taxpayers. The district did not respond before publication.
Whether the current Board of Managers has reviewed the litigation or given new instructions, and how much taxpayers have spent on the case, remain unanswered by the records reviewed by The Dallas Express.
Provided by Dallas Express
