the officers brought “outsiders” to the meeting. Had they reported an illegal act to the city manager and had they proved that there was, in fact, a suspension, discharge or discrimination caused by their report, the Whistleblower Act would have provided the officers with an adequate remedy. Tex.Rev.Giv.Stat.Ann. art. 6252-16a, § 3. Under these facts, however, the officers’ meeting with the City Manager does not bring their complaint within the realm of the Whistleblower Act. The court of appeals concluded that the jury could have found that the officers had been retaliated against for reporting a violation of the law. We disagree. First, as a matter of law, the W gn immunity scheme cuts against the creation of a state cause of action); Livingood v. Meece, 477 N.W.2d 183 (N.D.1991) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, other courts have based their
holding that state could not assert sovereign immunity defense where the state had waived immunity in state court and agreed to remove suit to federal court holding agencies of state government are part of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity holding that state sovereign immunity bars state constitutional claims holding that sovereign immunity bars an attorneys lien against the united states holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity