have been violated in her reports, or that she made her reports to any authority capable of prosecuting her allegations. Therefore, only two questions remain: (1) whether Connally made her reports to an appropriate law enforcement authority authorized to investigate her allegations; and (2) whether her reports contained sufficient allegations that criminal law violations had been committed by DISD employees. ANALYSIS Appropriate Law Enforcement Authority The question whether an employee has made a report in “good faith” to an appropriate law enforcement authority under the Whistleblower Act has both objective and subjective elements. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Gentilello, 398 S.W.3d 680, 683 (Tex. 2013); see also Texas Dept. of Human Servs. v. Okoli, 440 S.W.3d 611, 614 (Tex. 2014) (<HOLDING>). Thus, a plaintiffs bélief that he or she
recognizing drug traffickers will commonly possess firearms to protect their product to protect their drugs to protect their cash to protect their life and even to protect their turf alteration in original internal quotation marks omit ted holding that the good faith requirement of the whistleblower statute was not met where the purpose of the employee at the time of the making of reports was not to protect the public but to protect the jobs of himself and his coworkers recognizing the courts consistent refusal to remove the objective element and protect internal reports to workplace supervisors who lacked the acts specified powers holding that the district courts refusal to grant a downward departure was discretionary and not because it believed it lacked the authority to depart where the court assessed the facts of the case and concluded that the departure requested does not seem  to have a basis recognizing claims as ones in which a plaintiff proves that her refusal to submit to a supervisors demands for sex resulted in a tangible employment action