the University of Houston v. Stephen Barth, 365 S.W.3d 438

Barth, a tenured professor at UH, reported Dean Stutts’s alleged fiscal improprieties to multiple UH officials, including the CFO and general counsel, in 1999.
Barth knew UH System policy SAM required reporting suspected irregularities and warned of disciplinary action for failure to report criminal conduct.
Stutts’s actions included entering into a public-relations contract without proper procurement, contributing to college deficits and procedural violations later found in an audit.
Barth’s reports were followed by adverse actions: downgraded grantsmanship rating, denial of travel funds, withdrawal of Stutts’s symposium participation, and eventual cancellation of the 2000 symposium.
Barth filed grievances (2000) alleging retaliation; internal processes failed to resolve the disputes; Barth then sued UH in 2001, alleging Whistleblower Act retaliation.
A prior appeal held there were factual questions about timeliness and adverse actions; after remand in light of Lueck, court determined jurisdiction existed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Barth’s SAM violation report constitutes a good-faith law report	Barth reported a SAM violation to an enforceable authority.	SAM is not a 'law' under the Whistleblower Act, and report to Harris may not be to an appropriate authority.	Yes; SAM is a 'law' and Harris is an appropriate authority; jurisdiction exists.
Whether SAM violations constitute a 'law' under the Whistleblower Act	SAM, as promulgated by the Board of Regents, functions as a law for purposes of the Act.	SAM may not have been properly adopted as a governing law capable of support under the Act.	SAM is a 'law' under the Whistleblower Act; Barth reported a SAM violation as a protected disclosure.
Whether Barth reported to an appropriate law enforcement authority	Harris had authority to enforce SAM provisions and Barth reported to him for that enforcement.	Authority to enforce SAM provisions was not clearly shown for Harris.	Barth’s report to Harris constitutes reporting to an appropriate authority; jurisdiction attaches.

Lueck v. State, 290 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. 2009) (elements determine both jurisdiction and liability for whistleblower claims)
Barth v. Univ. of Houston, 313 S.W.3d 817 (Tex. 2010) (remanded to determine jurisdiction under Lueck framework)
Barth v. Univ. of Houston, 265 S.W.3d 607 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (addressed timeliness and sufficiency of whistleblower grounds prior to remand)
Fazekas v. Univ. of Houston, 565 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1978) (Board-enacted rules may function as law)
Needham v. Texas Dep’t of Transp., 82 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. 2002) (good-faith standard for reporting violations)
Wichita County v. Hart, 917 S.W.2d 779 (Tex. 1996) (two-part good-faith standard for belief and reasonableness)
Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (jurisdictional questions may be raised on appeal)