University of Houston v. Stephen Barth, 403 S.W.3d 851

Barth, a professor at the University of Houston, sued the University for retaliation under the Texas Whistleblower Act.
The trial court initially found jurisdiction based on the SAM’s internal policies being “law” under the Act, which the court of appeals later questioned.
This Court holds the SAM policies are not “law” because they were not enacted by the Board of Regents under the Education Code’s authority.
The Whistleblower Act requires the “law” to be enacted under a statute or ordinance and the SAM lacks evidence of such enactment.
Barth’s good-faith belief that he reported a violation of law was insufficient for objective reasonableness given his legal training and experience.
The Court reverses the court of appeals and dismisses Barth’s suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.]
Note: The Court addresses alternative reports of civil/criminal law and confirms no appropriate law-enforcement authority was identified for those reports.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are SAM policies “law” under the Whistleblower Act?	Barth: SAM policies are “law” because adopted under Regents’ authority.	University: SAM policies are not law unless enacted by Regents under Education Code §111.35.	No; SAM policies are not “rule adopted under a statute or ordinance.”
Was Barth's good-faith reporting to an appropriate law-enforcement authority satisfied?	Barth believed contracting violations were violations of law.	Barth failed objective prong given his training and familiarity.	Unmet; lack of objective good-faith belief defeats jurisdiction.
Did Barth report to an appropriate external law-enforcement authority?	Reports to internal University officials could qualify under internal processes.	Internal reports do not satisfy external law-enforcement authority requirement.	Untethered internal reports fail; no appropriate external authority identified.

Harris County Precinct Four Constable Dept. v. Grabowski, 922 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. 1996) (internal policies not law for Whistleblower Act purposes; reasonableness standard)
Mullins v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 357 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (agency policies internal to an entity do not support whistleblower claim)
City of Houston v. Kallina, 97 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (Whistleblower Act does not protect reports of department internal policies)
Ruiz v. City of San Antonio, 966 S.W.2d 128 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998) (internal policies; not whistleblower-protected law)
Needham v. Texas Dept. of Transportation, 82 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. 2002) (objective prong requires external enforcement authority; internal compliance insufficient)
Lueck v. State, 290 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. 2009) (elements of Whistleblower Act claims are jurisdictional and non-waivable)
Foley v. Benedict, 55 S.W.2d 805 (Tex. 1932) (Board of Regents enactment compared to UT system precedent)