A UH professor who has been engaged in a decade-long court battle with UH has six days to request a rehearing at the Texas Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the University last month.

On June 14 the Court ruled on the grounds that university policies are not the same as state law when it comes to reported violations to be protected under the Texas Whistleblower Act.

Barth

The case began in 1999 when a financial officer approached Stephen Barth, who still teaches in the Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management, with allegations that University funds were being mishandled by the college’s then-dean Alan Stutts, Barth said.

“He came to me because I was tenured; a staff person doesn’t have that kind of protection.”

Barth reported the irregularities to the former vice president of finance, Randy Harris. After he made the report, Stutts was informed and a series of what Barth described as retaliations, such as denying him merit raises, occurred, according to Barth.

On Aug. 25, 2011, the Texas Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Barth, concluding that the University’s retaliation violated the Texas Whistleblower Act, which made the Supreme Court’s ruling sad for the UH community and for the citizens of Texas, Barth said.

“(It was) certainly disappointing because we felt like the trial court had certainly found retaliation, the (Texas) Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the verdict. For the Supreme Court to take this step, they really had to stretch to come up with the opinion that they did,” Barth said. “They essentially said, ‘people in Texas in a public entity cannot rely upon the entities’ internal policies in order to file a complaint and receive protection under the Whistleblower Act.’”

According to the Texas Whistleblower Act, it “protects public employees who make good faith reports of violations of law by their employer to an appropriate law enforcement authority. An employer may not suspend or terminate the employment of, or take other adverse personnel action against, a public employee who makes a report under the Act.”

Despite Barth’s objection of the decision, the University is accepting of the courts favor.

“The University is pleased with the ruling,” said Richard Bonnin, interim vice president for marketing and communication.

Barth has remained involved in the Faculty Senate, won two or three teaching awards since the litigations and was a facilitator to begin the intiative to make the campus smoke-free.

“I think one of the key things that we all learned from this decision is that it’s really hard to win the game when you’re the only team playing by the rules,” Barth said. “I’m hopeful they’ll take a look and realize after devoting so much time and energy and resources to it, that it really wasn’t worth the effort and because at the end of the day effective organizations are transparent and they do hold people accountable.”

Check out The Daily Cougar archives, http://archive.thedailycougar.com/, for more information on how the case began, but here a few to get you started:

http://archive.thedailycougar.com/vol66/129/news/news1.html

http://archive.thedailycougar.com/vol66/152/news/news1.html

http://archive.thedailycougar.com/vol66/131/news/news1.html

http://thedailycougar.com/2008/07/10/barth-claim-faces-appeal/

http://thedailycougar.com/2011/09/01/court-rules-on-whistleblower-appeal/

news@thedailycougar.com