UH v. Barth, NO. 08-1001 (Tex. June 11, 2010)(per curiam)(jury award in professor's whistleblower suit
against state university thrown out)
[I]n State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 883 (Tex. 2009), we held that “the elements of
section 554.002(a) can be considered to determine both jurisdiction and liability.”
Accordingly, whether Barth’s reports to University officials are good-faith reports of a
violation of law to an appropriate law-enforcement authority is a jurisdictional question.
Jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal and may not be waived by the
parties. Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex. 1993).
The University challenges whether the trial court had jurisdiction. Therefore, without
hearing oral argument, Tex. R. App. P. 59.1, we reverse and remand to the court of
appeals to determine whether, under the analysis set forth in Lueck, Barth’s claims
meet the Whistleblower Act’s jurisdictional requirements for suit against a governmental
entity and, thus, whether the trial court had jurisdiction over Barth’s suit.
THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON v. STEPHEN BARTH; from Harris County; 1st district (01‑06‑00490‑CV, 265
SW3d 607, 07‑03‑08)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing
oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs 08-1001 THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON v. BARTH
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Univ. of Houston v. Barth (Tex. 2010)(per curiam)
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PER CURIAM
Stephen Barth, a tenured professor at the University of Houston, sued the University under the
Texas Whistleblower Act. Barth claimed his dean at the University retaliated against him after Barth
reported contracting and accounting irregularities to University officials. A jury agreed and awarded
Barth damages. The University appealed, arguing the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient
evidence that Barth made a good-faith report of a violation of law to an appropriate law-enforcement
authority as required under the Texas Whistleblower Act. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.002(a). The
court of appeals affirmed in part, upholding the verdict finding liability against the University as to all
but one untimely claim. Holding that the University had waived its legal sufficiency challenge to certain
evidence supporting the verdict, the court of appeals undertook no further inquiry into some of the
elements of Barth’s Whistleblower Act claims. See 265 S.W.3d 607, 616 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2008).
However, in State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 883 (Tex. 2009), we held that “the elements of
section 554.002(a) can be considered to determine both jurisdiction and liability.” Accordingly,
whether Barth’s reports to University officials are good-faith reports of a violation of law to an
appropriate law-enforcement authority is a jurisdictional question. Jurisdiction may be raised for the
first time on appeal and may not be waived by the parties. Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd.,
852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex. 1993). The University challenges whether the trial court had jurisdiction.
Therefore, without hearing oral argument, Tex. R. App. P. 59.1, we reverse and remand to the court of
appeals to determine whether, under the analysis set forth in Lueck, Barth’s claims meet the
Whistleblower Act’s jurisdictional requirements for suit against a governmental entity and, thus,
whether the trial court had jurisdiction over Barth’s suit.
OPINION DELIVERED: June 11, 2010