College of the Mainland v. Douglas Meneke, 420 S.W.3d 865

Meneke was the College of the Mainland’s Information Security Officer; he reported concerns about improper employee access to the college’s computer system and possible inflation of nursing-student counts to college supervisors and to Coordinating Board auditors.
Auditors initially raised a preliminary finding about inappropriate access but later withdrew it and issued a final report concluding the college complied with reporting requirements and recommending a formalized security policy.
The college terminated Meneke on July 12, 2010; Meneke sued under the Texas Whistleblower Act alleging retaliatory discharge for reporting legal violations to auditors.
The college filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity; the trial court denied the plea and the college appealed the denial interlocutorily.
The key legal question was whether Meneke’s reports alleged a “violation of law” (as required by Tex. Gov’t Code §554.002) such that immunity was waived under the Whistleblower Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Meneke alleged a report of a "violation of law" under the Whistleblower Act	Meneke argued he reported falsification/alteration of governmental records and other illegal computer access (invoking Penal Code §37.10 and other statutes)	College argued the complained conduct was not prohibited by law and therefore did not invoke the Act’s waiver of immunity	Held: Meneke failed to show the conduct was prohibited by §37.10; no valid allegation of a violation of law, so no waiver of immunity
Whether internal college policies can supply the required "law"	Meneke relied in part on violations of college policy and the Texas Administrative Code	College argued internal policies are not statutes/rules adopted under statute and thus not "law" for the Act	Held: Internal policies cannot form the basis of a Whistleblower claim unless adopted under statute; Meneke’s policy-based claims fail
Whether Meneke reasonably believed criminal intent (required for §37.10)	Meneke points to evidence of improper access and testimony suggesting changing records could be a crime	College showed evidence that access was authorized (Schutz had approval and duties gave her access) and Meneke’s own deposition admitted he did not know of intentional falsification	Held: Record lacks evidence of knowing, intentional conduct or a reasonable belief such conduct occurred; §37.10 does not cover Meneke’s allegations

State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. 2009) (plaintiff must actually allege a violation of the Whistleblower Act for waiver of immunity)
Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (sovereign immunity and standard for jurisdictional review)
Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for plea to the jurisdiction and consideration of evidence)
Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2006) (political subdivisions entitled to governmental immunity absent waiver)
Wichita Cnty. v. Hart, 917 S.W.2d 779 (Tex. 1996) (good-faith report requires belief and reasonableness aligned with training and experience)
Univ. of Houston v. Barth, 403 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. 2013) (internal policies are not "law" under the Whistleblower Act)
Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice v. McElyea, 239 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007) (employee need not identify a specific law, but some statute/ordinance/rule must prohibit the conduct)
Mullins v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 357 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (elements of the Act may be considered jurisdictional facts)
Llanes v. Corpus Christi Indep. Sch. Dist., 64 S.W.3d 638 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001) (alleged internal policy violations do not support a Whistleblower claim)