Jones violated a law. In addition, appel-lees’ good faith belief is judged based on the information they had before them when they made their report to the district attorney and Chief Brungardt, not on the potentially exonerating evidence that Parker-Jones may have later discovered. See Wichita I, 917 S.W.2d at 785 (focusing on whether reasonably prudent employee in similar circumstances would have believed that the facts as reported were a violation of law). Further, even if appellees were incorrect in their belief that Wess Jones had violat ed a law, their report was still made in good faith if a reasonable person with ap-pellees’ same level of training and experience would also have believed that a violation of law had occurred. See id. at 785-86; see also Needham, 82 S.W.3d at 320 (<HOLDING>). The evidence here supports the jury’s finding
holding that employee who reports violation of law to an agency that is not an appropriate law enforcement authority may nonetheless be entitled to whistleblower protection if he in good faith believed agency was the appropriate authority holding as a matter of law that the city is not an appropriate law enforcement authority under section 554002b for the reporting of another employees violation of federal or state sexual harassment laws holding that deference to an agency interpretation is not appropriate where a statute is administered by more than one agency holding deference to agency methodology appropriate unless agency failed to address an essential factor holding grant of authority to an agency to adopt rules necessary to carry out this chapter clearly vested in the agency authority to interpret a statute