### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 363 -CV

Ca r oly n Re ining e r , A ppe lla nt

v. Texas Bui ldin g and Proc urem ent Com m ission , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 261S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-G N-04 -0022 84 , HO NORAB LE MARGARET A. COO P ER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

O P I N I O N Caroly n Reininge r sued her former employ er, the Texas Building a nd Procure ment Commi ssion (“TB PC”), under the Texas Whi stleblower Ac t, s ee Tex. Gov’t C ode Ann. §§ 554.001- .010 (West 2004 & Supp. 2007), a lle gi n g t h at s h e was wrong fully terminated f

or makinga g oodfaith repor

t of a violation of law. See id . § 554.002(a) (West 2004). Specifica lly , Reininge r alleg ed that TBPC terminated he r in reta liation f or her making a g ood-fa ith report to the comptroller ’s offic e that TBPC was violatingthe law by allowing private vendors to deposit state funds in the vendor ’s bank ac counts. I n fac t, the private ve ndors had pr ovided the State with a ba nk letter of guara

ntee, and the pr ocedur e had be en pre -appr oved by the state a

uditor’s offic e. TBPC sought summa ry

j u d gm en to ntra d i t i o n al an d n o -e v i d en ce gro un d s challeng ing various ele ments of Reininge r’s claim. Among other g rounds, TBPC asser ted that the comptroller ’s office was not “a

n appropr iate law e nforc ement auth o r it y ” f o r p u r p o s es of Reining er’ s whistleblower2

c la im a nd that th e re wa s n o e vid e nc e that Re ini ng e r c ou ld h ave be lie ve d in g oo d fa ith that it w a s. The district cour

t gr anted summary

judgme nt in favor of

TBPC without specifying the g rounds on wh ic h it re lie d. Re ini ng e r a

pp e a ls. We w ill a ff

ir m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt.
STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW Under the traditional standar d, a summary -judg me nt m o ti o n is p r o p e r ly

g rante d when the m ovant establ is h e s th a t t h e r e ar e n o g e nu in e is s u e s o f mate r ia l f

a c t t o b e d e c id e d

an d th a t he is entitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. SeeTe x. R. C iv. P. 1 66 a (c ); Lear Siegler, Inc . v. Pe rez , 81 9 S.W.2 d 470 , 471 (T e x. 19 91 ); Holmstrom v. Lee , 26 S.W .3d 526, 530 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000,
no pe t.) . In r e vie wi nga

summa ry jud g me nt, we a c c e pt as tr ue a ll e vid e nc e fa

vo ri ngthe no nmo va

nt, indulgingever

y rea so n ab l e i n ference and re solving a ll doubts i n the nonmovant’s fa vor. Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co. , 690 S.W .2d 546, 548-49 (Te x . 1985). A de fenda nt moving for

summary j u d gm en t m u s t neg ate a s a matter of law at lea st one eleme nt of ea ch of the plaintiff’s theor ies of
rec overy or plea d and prove as a matter of law e ach e lement of a n aff irmative def

ense. See Ce nteq Realty, Inc . v. Siegler , 8 9 9 S.W .2d 195, 197 (Tex. 1995). I f the de fenda nt meets this burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to pre sent evidenc e ra ising a fac t issue. See id. A no-e vidence summary

judgme nt is essentially

a pre- trial direc ted verdic t, and an appellate court a

pplies the same leg al-suff iciency standard in r eviewinga n o -evidence summar y j u d gm ent. Moore v . K Mart Corp. , 9 8 1 S. W. 2 d 2 6 6 , 2 6 9 ( T e x. Ap p . — Sa nA n to n io 1 9 9 8, pet. denied)
. The appellate court views the evidenc e in the light most favora ble to the non-moving party , disreg ardingall contra ry evidenc e and inf

ere nces. Id. A no-evide nce point will be sustained when ( a) the re is a complete absenc e of evidenc e of a vital f act, (b) the court is ba

rre d by rules of la

w3

or of e vidence from g iving weig ht to the only evidenc e off

ere d to prove a

vital fac t, (c) the evidenc e of fe re d to pr ov e a

vit a l f a c t is no t mo re tha

n a me re sc int ill a , o r ( d) the e vid e nc e c on c lus ive ly establishes the opposite of the vital fac t. M e rr e ll D o w P h a rm s . , I

n c . v . Havne r , 953 S.W .2d 706, 711 ( T e x. 1 9 9 7 )
. M o r e th ana me r e s c inti ll a

o f e v id e n c e e xis ts w h e nth e e v id e n c e r is e s to a le vel that would enable rea sonable and fa ir-minded people to differ in their conc lusions. Id. L ess than a scintilla of evide nce e x ists when the evidenc e is so weak as t o d o no more than c reate a mer e surmise of suspicion. Mo or e , 981 S.W .2d at 269.

Be cause the t rial court g rante d TBPC’s motion without specifying the g rounds, the summary judgme nt will be upheld if any of the g rounds ar e mer itorious. Provident Life &Acc ident In s. Co. v . Kn ott , 128 S.W .3d 211, 216 (Tex. 2003).
TEXAS WHI STL EBL OWER ACT Se cti on 55 4. 00 2 o f t he gov ernm ent cod e pro hi bi ts a st ate or l ocal govern men tal e nti ty from ter minating or

taking other a dverse employ ment action ag ainst a public employ ee “ who in g ood faith re ports a violati o n of law by the employing g overnme ntal entity or anothe r public employ ee to a n a pp ro pr iate law en for cem ent autho ri ty .” Te x. Go v’ t Co de Ann. § 5 54 .0 02 (a ). An e nti ty is considere d an “a

ppropriate law enf

orce ment authority ,” if: the authority

is a part of

a state or

local g overnme ntal entity or of the f

eder al g overnme nt that the employ ee in g ood faith believe s is authorized to: (1) r egulate under

or enf orce the law a lleg ed to be violated in the r eport; or (2) investig ate or

prosec ute a violation of c riminal law.4

Id . § 554.002(b). The deter mination of whether

an entity

is an appropr iate law-en fo rc ement authority is a question of law. Texas De p’t of Transp. v. Needham , 82 S.W .3d 314, 318 (Tex. 2002). I nNeedham , the supreme court c larified the standard for dete rmining whether or not an entity is “an a ppropriate law enf

orce ment authority ” under the whistleblower a ct. Id . at 318-321. I n that case , the question befor e the co u rt was whe ther the Te x as De partment of T ranspor tation (“TxDOT”) was a

n appropr iate law- enfor ceme nt au t h o rity to which an e mploy ee ma y repor t an alleg ed driving -while-intoxicated incident involving a Tx DOT e mploy ee. Id
. at 319. In deciding the iss ue , the c ourt

no te d “ it i s c le arl y

no t e no ug h th a t a

g ov e rn me nt e nti ty

ha s general

a uth or ity to
re gu l ate, enforc e, investig ate, or prosec ute.” Id . at 319 (e mphasis in origina l). Rather, the court observe d, the cr itical inquiry is whether the entity

had author ity

to regulate or enforc e the particular law that the employ ee repor ted had been violate d. Id. at 320 (empha sis added) . Noting that Tx DOT ha s n o a uth or ity to r e g ulate or e nf

or c e Te xas’ s d

ri vin g wh ile int oxic a te d la ws , th e Court

he ld t hat,
as a m at ter of la

w, TxDOT was “not a

n appropr iate law e nforc ement author ity under se ction 55 4. 00 2( b) fo r a pub lic e mpl oy e e to re po rt ano the r em plo y e e ’s vio latio n o f T e xas’ s d ri vin g wh ile intox icated la

ws.” Id . at 320. Th e pa rt ic ula r l aw that Re ini ng e r ide nti fi e s in su pp or t of he r whis tle blo we r c la im i s
se c tio n 4 04 .0 94 of

the g ov e rnme nt c od e , w hic h r e qu ire s “ fu nd s c oll e c te d o r r e c e ive d b y a state ag ency under la w” to be de posited in the treasur y “at the e arliest possible time” but “not later than the third business day

afte r the date of re ceipt.” T ex. Gov’t C ode Ann. § 404.094(a) (West 2004). Section 404.094 specific ally char g es the state auditor’s office , not the comptroller’ s office , with the authority to investigate non-c ompliance. See id. (“I f the sta te au ditor finds that an ag ency has not5

complied with this subsection, . .
. .”) (empha sis a dded). Acc ording ly , we hold that, as a matter of law, the c omptroller’s off ice is not an a

pp ro priate la

w-e nforc ement author ity under se ction 554.002(b) f

or re porting a violation of sec tion 404.094. Neve rtheless, Reining er ma y still obtain whistleblower a ct protec tion if she in good faith believe d that the co m p troller wa s an appr opriate la w-e nforc ement author ity as def ined in section 554.002(b). In Needham the s upreme court defined “good faith” for purposes of section 55 4. 00 2( b) to m e an: “ (1 ) t he e mpl oy e e be lie ved th e g ov e rnme nta l e nti ty wa s a uth or ize d to (a) r e g u late u n d e r o r e n f o r c e th e la

w a ll e g e d to b e v io late d in th e r e p o rt, o r ( b ) inv e s tig ate or prosec ute a violation of c riminal law; and (2) the employ ee’ s beli ef w as re asonable in light of the employ ee’ s training and experienc e.” Id. at 321.

Her e, the summary -judg ment evide n ce show s that Reininge r first ema iled the comptroller’ s office asking for “written documentation or l eg al [ c]ite that prohibits t he comming ling of state a nd private c ompany

funds or re quirement that a ll fund s co l l ected for sa le of state g oods be dire ctly

d ep o s i t ed t o State Trea sury .” In response , a re prese ntative of the c omptroller’s off ice
e ma il e d Re in in g e r

ane le c tr o n ic v e r s io no f

s e c ti o n4 0 4
. 0 9 4 o f th e T e xa s G o v e r n me n t Co d e . T h e te xt of that provision, ag ain, expli citly states that it is t he state a uditor who has the a

uthority to determine noncompliance : “I f the sta te au ditor finds that an ag ency has not complied with this subsection, the state auditor s h al l m ake an estimate of a ny resulting financ ial loss to the state, . . . and re port the amount to the l eg islative audit committee, t he g overnor , and the c omptroller.” Te x . Gov’t Code Ann. § 404.094(a ) (e mphasis added) . I n fa ct , i twas undisputed that the state auditor had pr ea pp rove d th e ve ry

pr oc e dure Re ini ng e r c omp la ine d o f. Th e summa ry -j ud g me nt e vid e nc e a lsoWe a lso ne ed not addre ss a cr oss-point that TBPC raised c ontending that the district court 1 abused its discre tion in considering what it argues is Re i n i ng er’ s late-f iled summary -judg ment ev i d en ce . I nan o t h er

“c ro s s -p o i n t , ” T BP C urge s th at th e d i s tri ct co urt erre d b y n o tal s o gra n t i n g a ple a to t he j urisdic tio n th a t T B PC ha d a sse rt e d c ha lle ng ingwh e the r R e ini ng e r h a d p le d a c la im within t h e whi stleblower a ct. TB PC’s plea cha lleng ed the same eleme nts of Reininge r’s whistleblower c laim that it attacked in its summary -judg ment motion, but focused only on Reininge r’s plea dings a

nd did not attach evidenc e. As TBPC is se eking to modify the district court’s judgme nt, it would ordinarily be re quired to file a

notice of a

ppeal to ra ise this c o n t en t i o n . See Tex. R. App. P . 25.1(c) . I n any event, we cannot conclude that the district court would have er red in o ve rr uli ngTB PC’ s juri sd ic tio na l c ha lle ng e to R e ini ng e r’ s p le a din g s. 6 e sta bl is hed that Re ini ng e r h a d 3 1 y e ars ’ e xpe ri e nc e in t he a c c ounti ngfi e ld, inc lud ing19 y e ars ’ experience in g overnme nt acc ounting, three of which were spent working as a financ ial analy st at the comptroller’ s office
.

After rec eiving the text of section 404.094, Reininge r proc eede d to send additional emails to the comptroll er ’s o ff ice a ccusingTBPC personne l of violating the law. Given he r
e x p e r i e n c e an d t h e t e x t o f s e c t i o n4 0 4
. 0 9 4 s h e w a s f ur n i s h e d , w e c o n c l u d e , g u i d e d b y Needham , that there is no evidence that Reininge r could have believed in g ood faith that the c omptroller’s off ice
was a n appropr iate law- enfor ceme nt authority for purposes of reporting TBPC’s allege d violation of sec tion 404.094. The district cour t did not err in g rantingTBPC’s summary -judg ment motion on this ground.
CO NC LU SION

We need not re ach Re ininge r’s c halleng es to TB PC’s other summary -judg ment g ro un ds
. Provident Life & Acc ident Ins. Co. , 128 S.W .3d at 216. We affir m the judgme nt of the 1 dis tr ic t c ourt
.7 __________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: Jul y

3, 2008