violation of the Act. Id. at § 554.006(a). The purpose of this prerequisite is to give the employer “the opportunity to correct its errors by resolving disputes before being subjected to the expense and effort of litigation.” City of San Antonio v. Marin, 19 S.W.3d 488, 441 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000, no pet.), disapproved on other grounds by 159 S.W.3d 631 (Tex.2005) (citing House Research Organization, Bill Analysis, Tex. H.B. 1405, 71st Leg., R.S. (1989)); Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch v. Hohman, 6 S.W.3d 767, 774 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. dism’d w.o.j.). Section 554.006 does not require exhaustion of the employer’s grievance or appeal procedures, but merely timely initiation, before suit may be filed. Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch v. Barrett, 159 S.W.3d 631, 632 (Tex.2005) (<HOLDING>). The statutory prerequisites to filing suit
holding that there is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure recognizing effect of 1995 amendment that requires only initiation of grievance by employee not full exhaustion and a 60day waiting period for employers final decision on grievance holding if employees suit is filed prematurely proper remedy is abatement holding that because plaintiffs were reasonable in interpreting defendants grievance procedure to apply only to active employees plaintiffs did not act in bad faith when they alleged that no applicable grievance procedure existed holding that employees grievance regarding the nonrenewal of his appointment was not precluded from grievance procedure as appointment referred only to initial appointment holding that not only the employees testimony at the grievance hearing but also the affidavit that he filed and his agreement to be listed as a potential witness were entitled to protection