Vicki Ward v. Lamar University, Texas State University System and James Simmons ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Affirmed in Part and Reversed and Remanded in Part and Majority and
    Dissenting Opinions filed May 12, 2015.
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    NO. 14-14-00097-CV
    VICKI WARD, Appellant
    V.
    LAMAR UNIVERSITY AND TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM,
    Appellees
    On Appeal from the 172nd District Court
    Jefferson County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. E-194,323
    MAJORITY OPINION
    Appellant Vicki Ward sued appellees Lamar University and the Texas State
    University System for retaliating against her in violation of the Texas
    Whistleblower Act. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction. Subsequently, Ward
    filed an amended petition, adding a claim for a declaratory judgment that appellees
    violated several sections of the Texas Constitution. After a hearing, the trial court
    issued an order dismissing Ward’s claims under the Whistleblower Act based on
    the plea and dismissing her constitutional claims sua sponte.
    In her first issue, Ward argues the trial court erred in dismissing her claims
    under the Whistleblower Act because her amended petition and testimony sufficed
    to defeat a plea to the jurisdiction. We hold the trial court erred in dismissing
    Ward’s whistleblower claims against Lamar University because there is evidence
    that she met the Act’s grievance requirement and that Lamar took an adverse
    personnel action against her. The court properly dismissed Ward’s whistleblower
    claims against the Texas State University System, however, because there is no
    evidence it took such an action.
    In her second issue, Ward asserts the trial court erred by dismissing her
    claims against Lamar and the System under the Declaratory Judgments Act and the
    Texas Constitution because no basis existed for the court’s dismissal.       As to
    Lamar, we agree that the trial court erred in dismissing these claims sua sponte.
    With respect to the System, however, we hold that one of these claims was
    properly dismissed on the same ground as the whistleblower claims: lack of
    evidence of an adverse personnel action. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and
    remand the case for further proceedings.
    BACKGROUND
    Appellant Vicki Ward filed a petition alleging that appellees had violated the
    Texas Whistleblower Act by taking adverse personnel action against her after she
    reported in good faith a violation of law to an appropriate law enforcement
    authority. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 554.001, et seq. Appellees filed a plea to the
    jurisdiction, seeking dismissal of Ward’s claims. Ward then filed an amended
    petition, adding a second cause of action. Specifically, Ward’s amended petition
    2
    sought a declaratory judgment that appellees had violated Sections 3, 3a, 8, and 19
    of Article One of the Texas Constitution.
    To support her claims, Ward alleged the following facts in her amended
    petition. Ward worked as an Associate Vice President for Finance at Lamar
    University Beaumont. Lamar University is a part of the Texas State University
    System.     Ward was responsible for Lamar’s finance operations, including
    procurement.     While reviewing payment requests, Ward noticed suspicious
    financial transactions within certain departments of Lamar. Ward reported her
    concerns to Lamar’s Police Chief, Jason Goodrich. Over the next several months,
    an investigation was conducted. The investigation produced a report, co-authored
    by Ward, that documented the transactions. The report was forwarded to James
    Simmons, who was at that time President of Lamar. 1 Eventually, the report was
    leaked to a television station, and the station began running stories concerning the
    contents of the report.
    Ward alleged that after the report was leaked, Simmons “indicated he was
    interested in hurting [her] as author of the report more than he was interested in
    correcting the corruption uncovered in the report.” Ward lost the ability to approve
    and review procurement documents.            When she asked Simmons about this
    limitation of her duties, he allegedly replied, “Stop looking at departments and
    their spending, [sic] you have caused enough trouble.” Ward also alleged that she
    lost authority over her department. Priscilla Parsons was named Senior Associate
    Vice President of Finance. During a meeting, Simmons allegedly stated that Ward
    had no authority in the Finance Department.
    1
    Simmons is no longer President of Lamar, though he remains employed by Lamar as a
    tenured professor.
    3
    Ward alleged that she then initiated an appeal to the Chancellor of the
    System as well as to Simmons and Dr. Cruse Melvin, whom Simmons had
    appointed as one of her superiors. No formal grievance or appeal policy was
    identified by any of the parties, either in their pleadings or at the hearing.
    Ward subsequently received a phone call from Fernando Gomez, the Vice
    Chancellor of the System, informing her that her appeal had been received. During
    the conversation, he allegedly told her “she would have to go.” Gomez said Ward
    would be given a severance package to resign. He told her he was an attorney and
    could help “settle things” because Ward was not a “good fit.” He further told her
    that she was an employee at will. Ward asked Gomez if he was threatening to fire
    her. He replied that he was only an attorney and could not fire anyone. He
    repeated his severance package proposal, and Ward again asked Gomez if he was
    threatening to fire her. He said “no” but reiterated that Ward was an employee at
    will. Gomez said, “Remember, I can help you. If not, I will call HR and they will
    send you a letter.” Ward responded that she could not make a decision at that point
    and did not understand why she was being threatened because she was merely
    safeguarding Lamar. Gomez ended the conversation by saying, “Well, I will be
    sending you a letter and contacting HR.” He then hung up. It is undisputed that
    Ward was not terminated following this conversation and remains employed by
    Lamar as Associate Vice President for Finance.
    During a hearing on appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction, Ward testified that
    her former procurement responsibility had allowed her to identify the malfeasance.
    She also testified that the number of people under her supervision had been
    reduced. Ward had overseen between 45 and 50 employees, but after the report
    was filed, approximately 15 people were removed from her supervision.
    Furthermore, Parsons ran meetings outside Ward’s presence, and Ward now had to
    4
    report to Parsons, whereas before Ward reported directly to the Vice President for
    Finance. Ward’s job title remained the same, however, and her pay increased from
    $100,000 to $104,000.
    Because the plea to the jurisdiction was filed before Ward’s amended
    petition, it did not address Ward’s constitutional claims. At the hearing on the
    plea, appellees’ counsel declared that the court could dismiss the entirety of the
    complaint on its own motion for failing to allege a constitutional violation but
    offered to file another plea addressing Ward’s constitutional claims if the court
    desired. The court did not respond to this offer at the hearing, and no motion or
    plea seeking dismissal of those claims appears in the record.                   Following the
    hearing, the trial court issued an order dismissing Ward’s claims under the Texas
    Constitution sua sponte and granting appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction as to
    Ward’s claims under the Texas Whistleblower Act. This appeal followed.2
    ANALYSIS
    I.     The trial court erred in dismissing Ward’s whistleblower claims against
    Lamar but properly dismissed those claims against the System.
    A.      Standard of review
    In her first issue, Ward contends the trial court erred in dismissing her
    claims under the Texas Whistleblower Act because she presented both allegations
    and evidence sufficient to defeat appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction.                      If a
    governmental unit has immunity from suit, a trial court lacks subject-matter
    jurisdiction over a suit against the unit. City of Houston v. Ranjel, 
    407 S.W.3d 2
             Pursuant to its docket-equalization powers, the Supreme Court of Texas transferred this
    appeal from the Ninth Court of Appeals to this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 73.001 (West
    2013). We must decide this case in accordance with the precedent of the Ninth Court of Appeals
    under principles of stare decisis if our decision otherwise would have been inconsistent with that
    court’s precedent. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3
    5
    880, 887 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). A challenge to a trial
    court’s subject-matter jurisdiction may be asserted by a plea to the jurisdiction.
    Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 
    133 S.W.3d 217
    , 225–26 (Tex. 2004).
    We review a trial court’s decision on a plea to the jurisdiction de novo. State Dep’t
    of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Gonzalez, 
    82 S.W.3d 322
    , 327 (Tex. 2002).
    A plaintiff has the burden to allege facts demonstrating jurisdiction, and we
    construe the pleadings liberally in the plaintiff’s favor. 
    Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226
    . When the governmental unit challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts,
    and the parties submit evidence relevant to the jurisdictional challenge, we must
    consider that evidence when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised.
    
    Ranjel, 407 S.W.3d at 887
    . The court must take as true all evidence favorable to
    the nonmovant and indulge every reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in
    the nonmovant’s favor. 
    Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228
    . If the evidence raises a fact
    question on jurisdiction, the trial court cannot grant the plea, and the issue must be
    resolved by the trier of fact. 
    Id. at 227–28.
    On the other hand, if the evidence is
    undisputed or fails to raise a fact question, the trial court must rule on the plea as a
    matter of law. 
    Id. at 228.
    This standard generally mirrors that of a summary
    judgment. 
    Id. B. Applicable
    law
    Both in the trial court and on appeal, Lamar and the System advance several
    arguments to support the dismissal of Ward’s whistleblower claims. 3 First, they
    contend that Ward failed to initiate a grievance procedure before filing suit as
    3
    Because the plea to the jurisdiction did not challenge other elements of a whistleblower
    claim, such as Ward’s status a public employee who in good faith reported a violation of law, the
    status of Lamar and the System as governmental entities, or the existence of a causal link
    between the report of illegal conduct and the identified personnel actions (see City of Fort Worth
    v. Zimlich, 
    29 S.W.3d 62
    , 67 (Tex. 2000)), we do not address those issues.
    6
    required by the Whistleblower Act. On appeal, they submit an appeals policy and
    ask that we take judicial notice of it. Second, they contend Ward’s identified
    personnel actions are not “materially adverse” as a matter of law. Third, they
    argue Ward’s claims against the System fail because Lamar, not the System, was
    her employer during the relevant time period, and furthermore there is no evidence
    that the System took any adverse personnel action against Ward.
    The Texas Whistleblower Act provides that a “state or local governmental
    entity may not suspend or terminate the employment of, or take other adverse
    personnel action against, a public employee who in good faith reports a violation
    of law by the employing governmental entity or another public employee to an
    appropriate law enforcement authority.”         Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 554.002(a)
    (West 2012).    A “personnel action” is one that affects a public employee’s
    compensation, promotion, demotion, transfer, work assignment, or performance
    evaluation. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 554.001(3) (West 2012).
    An adverse personnel action is one that “would be likely to dissuade a
    reasonable, similarly situated worker from making a report under the Act.”
    Montgomery County v. Park, 
    246 S.W.3d 610
    , 614 (Tex. 2007). The supreme
    court has explained that this objective materiality standard, which is derived from
    federal employment law, allows claims based on retaliatory actions “likely to
    deter” reporting of governmental violations of law while weeding out “petty
    slights” and “minor annoyances.”      
    Id. The standard
    also bars trivial claims
    resulting from a plaintiff’s unusual subjective feelings, while allowing claims
    arising from the particular circumstances of the challenged action. 
    Id. at 614–15.
    Nonexclusive factors to consider in determining materiality include whether the
    allegedly adverse personnel action negatively affected the employee’s (1) prestige;
    (2) opportunity for advancement; (3) working conditions; (4) pay or income; or (5)
    7
    ability to obtain outside employment. 
    Id. at 615.
    The presence or absence of any
    of these factors is not dispositive. 
    Id. The effects
    of a challenged action must be
    considered as a whole and in light of all the circumstances, and an act that would
    be immaterial in some situations is material in others. 
    Id. The Act
    waives the employing entity’s immunity from an employee’s suit
    alleging a violation of the Act. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 554.0035 (West 2012).
    Before filing suit, however, the Act requires an employee to “initiate action under
    the grievance or appeal procedures of the employing state or local governmental
    entity relating to suspension or termination of employment or adverse personnel
    action.” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 554.006(a) (West 2012). The employee must
    initiate the grievance procedures within 90 days after the alleged violation occurred
    or was discovered by the employee through reasonable diligence. Tex. Gov’t Code
    Ann. § 554.006(b) (West 2012). This provision affords the governmental entity an
    opportunity to correct its errors by resolving disputes before facing litigation, as
    the expense of litigation is borne ultimately by the public. Fort Bend Indep. Sch.
    Dist. v. Rivera, 
    93 S.W.3d 315
    , 318 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no
    pet.).
    An employee is not relieved of the requirement to initiate a grievance or
    appeal by the lack of a formal procedure. Berry v. Bd. of Regents of Texas S.
    Univ., 
    116 S.W.3d 323
    , 325 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied).
    The Act, however, does not dictate what actions are required to ‘initiate’ the
    appeals process. Moore v. Univ. of Houston-Clear Lake, 
    165 S.W.3d 97
    , 102 (Tex.
    App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.); see City of Austin v. Ender, 
    30 S.W.3d 590
    , 594 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.). The statute also does not require the
    use of particular words, nor require the employee to state that his grievance or
    8
    appeal is based on the Whistleblower Act. 
    Moore, 165 S.W.3d at 102
    ; 
    Ender, 30 S.W.3d at 594
    .
    In the absence of a standard created by an employee manual detailing the
    required contents of a public employee’s grievance or appeal, the notice given to
    an employer must provide fair notice that the employee desires to appeal the
    employer’s personnel decision and fair notice of the decision made by the
    employer from which the employee desires to appeal. Montgomery County Hosp.
    Dist. v. Smith, 
    181 S.W.3d 844
    , 850 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.). By
    being given such a notice, the employer will be aware that its employee has
    appealed from its disciplinary decision and will know which of its employment
    decisions are being made the subject of its appeal process. 
    Id. C. There
    is a fact issue regarding whether Ward initiated a grievance
    as required by the Act.
    To support their contention that Ward failed to initiate the required
    grievance or appeal procedures before filing suit, Lamar and the System first
    present a policy that they contend details the steps Ward was required to take in
    order to initiate a grievance. They argue that we may take judicial notice of the
    policy on appeal despite their failure to introduce the policy in the trial court in
    support of their plea to the jurisdiction. By its express terms, however, this alleged
    policy does not apply to administrative staff members such as Ward. Accordingly,
    we need not decide whether this inapplicable policy is a proper subject for judicial
    notice.
    Appellees also point to an affidavit—filed with their plea—of Bertha Fregia,
    Lamar’s Vice President for Human Resources, in which she states that Ward never
    filed a grievance or appeal. Appellees contend this assertion is uncontroverted
    evidence of the existence of a grievance procedure and Ward’s failure to comply.
    9
    But Ward’s amended petition, which was filed after appellees’ plea, asserts that
    she initiated an appeal to the Chancellor of the System, Simmons, and Dr. Cruse
    Melvin. Furthermore, Ward testified about her appeal and stated that in her appeal
    letter, which is not part of the record, she asked the Chancellor to intervene in
    Simmons’ retaliatory acts. She argues that the complaints in her letter and the
    return phone call from System official Gomez suffice to fulfill the requirement to
    initiate an appeals process before filing suit.
    The record lacks information regarding the relationship between the System
    and Lamar, so it is unclear whether addressing an appeal to the Chancellor of the
    System suffices to comply with the requirement that the employee provide notice
    to the employer. Given that Simmons—the subject of Ward’s grievance—was
    president of Lamar, a letter to the System may have been the best informal avenue
    available to Ward to initiate a grievance. See Upton County, Tex. v. Brown, 
    960 S.W.2d 808
    , 813–14 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, no pet.) (holding in absence of
    formal procedure a county employee’s phone call to the county commissioner
    sufficed to fulfill Whistleblower Act’s requirement to initiate a grievance
    procedure before filing suit). In any event, appellees did not offer evidence that
    the Chancellor is an improper recipient of a grievance or appeal. Considering
    Ward’s testimony regarding the letter to the System Chancellor and the phone call
    she received from a System official in response, we conclude there is some
    evidence that appellees had fair notice of Ward’s desire to appeal her employer’s
    personnel decision and fair notice of the decision made by the employer from
    which the employee desires to appeal. 
    Smith, 181 S.W.3d at 850
    .
    As noted above, Ward contended that she also directed her appeal to
    Lamar’s then-President Simmons and to Dr. Cruse Melvin, who was operating as
    her direct superior at Lamar. “To the extent the steps in such a [grievance or
    10
    appeal] procedure are unclear, as in this case, an employee’s request to ranking
    officials of the employer to invoke the procedure (i.e., whatever it may be) can
    hardly be denied effect.” 
    Berry, 116 S.W.3d at 325
    . For these reasons, we
    conclude there is a fact issue regarding whether Ward initiated an appeal before
    filing suit, and therefore the plea cannot be sustained based on Ward’s failure to
    satisfy the Act’s grievance requirement.
    D.    There is a fact issue regarding whether Lamar took materially
    adverse personnel action against Ward, but a lack of evidence
    that the System took such action.
    We next consider appellees’ argument that the plea was properly granted
    because the personnel actions alleged by Ward are not materially adverse as a
    matter of law. In City of El Paso v. Parsons, a firefighter was transferred from his
    position at the training academy after he reported the fire chief’s submission of
    false reports concerning employee continuing-education requirements.              
    353 S.W.3d 215
    , 220–21 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, no pet.). The firefighter lost his
    responsibility as training chief, and other firefighters were removed from his
    supervision. 
    Id. at 21.
    He retained his job title, however, and received pay
    increases. 
    Id. The court
    of appeals held the evidence legally sufficient for a jury
    to conclude the firefighter’s transfer constituted an adverse personnel action. 
    Id. at 228.
    In her amended petition and testimony, Ward alleged that Lamar removed
    her procurement responsibility, 15 people from her supervision, and her authority
    over the department. While her pay and job title remained the same, as Parsons
    shows, such factors are not dispositive. See also Harrison v. Corr. Corp. of Am.,
    476 F. App’x 40, 45 n.23 (5th Cir. 2012) (collecting Fifth Circuit cases
    acknowledging that lateral reassignment to a position with equal pay could amount
    to a materially adverse action in some circumstances); Kessler v. Westchester
    11
    Although the trial court stated the ground for its ruling dismissing these
    claims, we may consider in the interest of judicial economy other grounds for
    dismissal that were preserved for review. 6 As discussed in the previous section,
    one of the grounds for dismissal raised in appellees’ plea was that Ward did not
    suffer an adverse employment action. Thus, we consider whether this ground
    could provide a basis for dismissing Ward’s constitutional claims. See City of
    Dallas v. Turley, 
    316 S.W.3d 762
    , 774 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. denied)
    (analyzing whether grounds raised in plea to jurisdiction supported dismissal of
    claims added in amended petition filed after plea).
    order dismissing her claims under the Declaratory Judgments Act sua sponte. Similarly,
    although the second issue in Ward’s brief mentions her free speech right, it also asks broadly
    “Was the trial court’s dismissal of her claim erroneous?” Her argument heading regarding this
    issue shows that the claim to which she refers is her “claim for declaratory judgment under the
    Texas Constitution.” The discussion following the heading also refers to her claim under the
    Declaratory Judgments Act, not solely to the subsidiary free-speech claim.
    Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(f) provides that “[t]he statement of an issue or
    point will be treated as covering every subsidiary question that is fairly included.” Tex. R. App.
    P. 38.1(f). “[I]t is our practice to construe liberally points of error in order to obtain a just, fair
    and equitable adjudication of the rights of the litigants.” Speck v. First Evangelical Lutheran
    Church of Hous., 
    235 S.W.3d 811
    , 819 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (citing
    Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 
    767 S.W.2d 686
    , 690 (Tex.1989)); see also Tex. R. App. P. 38.9
    (“Because briefs are meant to acquaint the court with the issues in a case and to present argument
    that will enable the court to decide the case, substantial compliance with this rule is sufficient
    . . . .”); Tex. Mexican Ry. Co. v. Bouchet, 
    963 S.W.2d 52
    , 54 (Tex. 1998) (“Courts should
    liberally construe briefing rules.”); Anderson v. Gilbert, 
    897 S.W.2d 783
    , 784 (Tex. 1995)
    (same). Our Court routinely follows this practice, and we conclude it is appropriate to do so
    here. E.g., Thu Binh Si Ho v. Saigon Nat. Bank, 
    438 S.W.3d 871
    , 873 (Tex. App.—Houston
    [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (“We must construe appellate briefs reasonably, yet liberally, so that
    the right to appellate review is not lost by waiver.”) (citing Perry v. Cohen, 
    272 S.W.3d 585
    , 587
    (Tex. 2008) (per curiam)).
    6
    Cf. Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Cates, 
    927 S.W.2d 623
    , 626 (Tex. 1996) (holding in
    summary judgment context that appellate court “may consider other grounds that the movant
    preserved for review and trial court did not rule on in the interest of judicial economy”); City of
    Mont Belvieu v. Enter. Prods. Operating, LP, 
    222 S.W.3d 515
    , 519 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
    Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (limiting appellate review of order sustaining plea to jurisdiction to matters
    presented to trial court); Britton v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 
    95 S.W.3d 676
    , 681 (Tex. App.—
    Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (looking to summary judgment practice for guidance in
    reviewing pleas to jurisdiction based on multiple grounds).
    15
    do not constitute actionable adverse employment decisions. Elgaghil v. Tarrant
    County Junior Coll., 
    45 S.W.3d 133
    , 143 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000,
    pet. denied); see also Ajayi v. Aramark Bus. Servs., Inc., 
    336 F.3d 520
    , 531 (7th
    Cir. 2003) (“An unfulfilled threat, which results in no material harm, is not
    materially adverse.”). 4 Accordingly, we hold the trial court properly dismissed
    Ward’s whistleblower claim against the System. We therefore sustain Ward’s first
    issue in part and overrule it in part.
    II.    The trial court erred in dismissing sua sponte appellant’s claims against
    Lamar under the Declaratory Judgments Act and the Texas
    Constitution, but it properly dismissed one of those claims against the
    System.
    In her second issue, Ward contends the trial court erred in dismissing sua
    sponte her claim under the Declaratory Judgments Act and the Texas Constitution
    because no ground existed for dismissal. As noted above, Ward amended her
    petition after Lamar and the System filed their plea to the jurisdiction. Ward’s
    amended petition added allegations that, among other things, both Lamar and the
    System retaliated against her for exercising her right to free speech under the Texas
    Constitution. Invoking the Declaratory Judgments Act, Ward seeks declarations
    including that appellees violated Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution, as
    well as an injunction requiring appellees to restore her former job duties and
    refrain from violating her constitutional rights and retaliating against her. Ward
    also alleges that appellees violated Article I, Sections 3, 3a, and 19 of the Texas
    Constitution, which guarantee equal rights, equality based on sex, and due course
    of law.
    4
    Because Ward failed to allege an adverse employment action committed by the System,
    we need not consider appellees’ argument that the Texas Whistleblower Act does not apply to
    the System because it was not the employing entity.
    13
    In their briefs on appeal, both parties look to federal decisions addressing the
    elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim for guidance on the elements of
    Ward’s free speech retaliation claim under the Texas Constitution. One of those
    federal elements is an adverse employment decision. See, e.g., Juarez v. Aguilar,
    
    666 F.3d 325
    , 332 (5th Cir. 2011). Because the parties have not argued that the
    elements of the claim differ under the Texas Constitution, we will analyze Ward’s
    claim using the federal requirement of an adverse employment decision. See Price
    v. Tex. Alcoholic Bev. Comm’n, No. 01-12-1164-CV, 
    2014 WL 3408696
    , at *5
    (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 10, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
    As we explained in the previous section, the pleadings and testimony are
    sufficient to raise a fact question regarding whether Ward suffered an adverse
    employment decision at the hands of Lamar, but Ward has not alleged any
    actionable adverse employment decision by the System. Accordingly, we affirm
    the trial court’s dismissal of Ward’s declaratory judgment claim against the System
    under Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution. The parties do not address
    whether any ground raised in the plea (including the lack of an adverse
    employment decision) would defeat Ward’s other constitutional claims, and we
    therefore do not consider that issue.
    Because appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction does not support dismissal of all
    of Ward’s constitutional claims, we next examine the trial court’s stated non-
    jurisdictional reason for dismissing those claims. The trial court’s order specifies
    that the dismissal was for failure to plead facts supporting the claims. 7 But there
    7
    Our dissenting colleague contends the trial court’s order is “subject to more than one
    interpretation,” and that the court may have dismissed Ward’s constitutional claims based on a
    conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims. Post, at 3 n.1. We disagree that the order
    may be interpreted in this manner. The trial court stated that the “claims under the Texas
    Constitution contained in the Amended Petition fail to articulate facts which, if believed, would
    support such a claim.” In other words, the trial court concluded that Ward’s petition failed to
    16
    Although the trial court stated the ground for its ruling dismissing these
    claims, we may consider in the interest of judicial economy other grounds for
    dismissal that were preserved for review. 6 As discussed in the previous section,
    one of the grounds for dismissal raised in appellees’ plea was that Ward did not
    suffer an adverse employment action. Thus, we consider whether this ground
    could provide a basis for dismissing Ward’s constitutional claims. See City of
    Dallas v. Turley, 
    316 S.W.3d 762
    , 774 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. denied)
    (analyzing whether grounds raised in plea to jurisdiction supported dismissal of
    claims added in amended petition filed after plea).
    order dismissing her claims under the Declaratory Judgments Act sua sponte. Similarly,
    although the second issue in Ward’s brief mentions her free speech right, it also asks broadly
    “Was the trial court’s dismissal of her claim erroneous?” Her argument heading regarding this
    issue shows that the claim to which she refers is her “claim for declaratory judgment under the
    Texas Constitution.” The discussion following the heading also refers to her claim under the
    Declaratory Judgments Act, not solely to the subsidiary free-speech claim.
    Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(f) provides that “[t]he statement of an issue or
    point will be treated as covering every subsidiary question that is fairly included.” Tex. R. App.
    P. 38.1(f). “[I]t is our practice to construe liberally points of error in order to obtain a just, fair
    and equitable adjudication of the rights of the litigants.” Speck v. First Evangelical Lutheran
    Church of Hous., 
    235 S.W.3d 811
    , 819 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (citing
    Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 
    767 S.W.2d 686
    , 690 (Tex.1989)); see also Tex. R. App. P. 38.9
    (“Because briefs are meant to acquaint the court with the issues in a case and to present argument
    that will enable the court to decide the case, substantial compliance with this rule is sufficient
    . . . .”); Tex. Mexican Ry. Co. v. Bouchet, 
    963 S.W.2d 52
    , 54 (Tex. 1998) (“Courts should
    liberally construe briefing rules.”); Anderson v. Gilbert, 
    897 S.W.2d 783
    , 784 (Tex. 1995)
    (same). Our Court routinely follows this practice, and we conclude it is appropriate to do so
    here. E.g., Thu Binh Si Ho v. Saigon Nat. Bank, 
    438 S.W.3d 871
    , 873 (Tex. App.—Houston
    [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (“We must construe appellate briefs reasonably, yet liberally, so that
    the right to appellate review is not lost by waiver.”) (citing Perry v. Cohen, 
    272 S.W.3d 585
    , 587
    (Tex. 2008) (per curiam)).
    6
    Cf. Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Cates, 
    927 S.W.2d 623
    , 626 (Tex. 1996) (holding in
    summary judgment context that appellate court “may consider other grounds that the movant
    preserved for review and trial court did not rule on in the interest of judicial economy”); City of
    Mont Belvieu v. Enter. Prods. Operating, LP, 
    222 S.W.3d 515
    , 519 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
    Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (limiting appellate review of order sustaining plea to jurisdiction to matters
    presented to trial court); Britton v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 
    95 S.W.3d 676
    , 681 (Tex. App.—
    Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (looking to summary judgment practice for guidance in
    reviewing pleas to jurisdiction based on multiple grounds).
    15
    In their briefs on appeal, both parties look to federal decisions addressing the
    elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim for guidance on the elements of
    Ward’s free speech retaliation claim under the Texas Constitution. One of those
    federal elements is an adverse employment decision. See, e.g., Juarez v. Aguilar,
    
    666 F.3d 325
    , 332 (5th Cir. 2011). Because the parties have not argued that the
    elements of the claim differ under the Texas Constitution, we will analyze Ward’s
    claim using the federal requirement of an adverse employment decision. See Price
    v. Tex. Alcoholic Bev. Comm’n, No. 01-12-1164-CV, 
    2014 WL 3408696
    , at *5
    (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 10, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
    As we explained in the previous section, the pleadings and testimony are
    sufficient to raise a fact question regarding whether Ward suffered an adverse
    employment decision at the hands of Lamar, but Ward has not alleged any
    actionable adverse employment decision by the System. Accordingly, we affirm
    the trial court’s dismissal of Ward’s declaratory judgment claim against the System
    under Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution. The parties do not address
    whether any ground raised in the plea (including the lack of an adverse
    employment decision) would defeat Ward’s other constitutional claims, and we
    therefore do not consider that issue.
    Because appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction does not support dismissal of all
    of Ward’s constitutional claims, we next examine the trial court’s stated non-
    jurisdictional reason for dismissing those claims. The trial court’s order specifies
    that the dismissal was for failure to plead facts supporting the claims. 7 But there
    7
    Our dissenting colleague contends the trial court’s order is “subject to more than one
    interpretation,” and that the court may have dismissed Ward’s constitutional claims based on a
    conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims. Post, at 3 n.1. We disagree that the order
    may be interpreted in this manner. The trial court stated that the “claims under the Texas
    Constitution contained in the Amended Petition fail to articulate facts which, if believed, would
    support such a claim.” In other words, the trial court concluded that Ward’s petition failed to
    16
    was no motion or other procedural vehicle available to the trial court authorizing it
    to dismiss these claims, and neither the trial court nor appellees identify any
    authority for dismissing a claim sua sponte on this basis. Cf. Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a.1
    (requiring motion to dismiss cause of action on the grounds that it has no basis in
    law or fact); Porras v. Jefferson, 
    409 S.W.3d 804
    , 807 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
    Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (“Inherent power does not permit a trial court to dismiss a
    party’s claims on the merits without a pending motion.”).
    In the absence of such authority, courts should rely on the adversary system
    of justice, which depends on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assigns
    to courts the role of neutral arbiter of the matters that the parties present.
    Greenlaw v. United States, 
    554 U.S. 237
    , 243 (2008). 8 One rationale for this
    system is that the parties and their counsel usually know far better than the courts
    what is best for them, and thus they are responsible for advancing the facts and
    arguments entitling them to relief. 
    Id. at 244.9
    Resolving disputes only on grounds
    raised by the parties also serves judicial economy, 10 keeps courts within their
    state a claim, which is not the same as a failure of jurisdiction. E.g., Dubai Petrol. Co. v. Kazi,
    
    12 S.W.3d 71
    , 75–77 (Tex. 2000). The trial court did not say that the petition failed to allege
    facts demonstrating the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, nor did it say why any such failure
    could not be remedied by affording Ward an opportunity to amend. Cf. 
    Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226
    –27.
    8
    See also United States v. Burke, 
    504 U.S. 229
    , 246 (1992) (Scalia, J., concurring in the
    judgment) (“The rule that points not argued will not be considered is more than just a prudential
    rule of convenience; its observance, at least in the vast majority of cases, distinguishes our
    adversary system from the inquisitorial one”); McNeil v. Wisconsin, 
    501 U.S. 171
    , 181 n.2
    (1991) (“What makes a system [of justice] adversarial rather than inquisitorial is . . . the presence
    of a judge who does not (as an inquisitor does) conduct the factual and legal investigation
    himself, but instead decides on the basis of facts and arguments pro and con adduced by the
    parties.”).
    9
    See also Castro v. United States, 
    540 U.S. 375
    , 386 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and
    concurring in judgment); Dennis v. United States, 
    384 U.S. 855
    , 875 (1966) (“In our adversary
    system, it is enough for judges to judge. The determination of what may be useful to [a party]
    can properly and effectively be made only by an advocate.”).
    10
    See Martinez v. State, 
    91 S.W.3d 331
    , 336 n.12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
    17
    constitutionally-assigned role as impartial and “neutral arbiter[s],” 
    id. at 243,11
    and
    enables courts to make well-informed decisions based on full adversary
    presentation and testing of the arguments on either side of the issue at hand.
    The parties have not addressed—either in the trial court or on appeal—
    whether Texas courts recognize the causes of action pleaded by Ward, nor have
    they addressed whether appellees are immune from suit on most of those causes of
    action. 12 The trial court should have allowed the parties to develop these issues
    through the adversary process; it erred by dismissing Ward’s remaining
    constitutional causes of action sua sponte without a legal basis for doing so. 13 We
    11
    See also 
    Greenlaw, 554 U.S. at 244
    (“‘[Courts] do not, or should not, sally forth each
    day looking for wrongs to right. We wait for the cases to come to us, and when they do we
    normally decide only questions presented by the parties.’” (quoting United States v. Samuels,
    
    808 F.2d 1298
    , 1301 (8th Cir. 1987) (R. Arnold, J., concurring in denial of reh’g en banc));
    Smith v. Horn, 
    120 F.3d 400
    , 409 (3d Cir. 1997) (explaining that when courts decide cases on
    grounds they raise sua sponte, they “come dangerously close to acting as advocates for [a party]
    rather than as impartial magistrates”). The Due Process Clause of the Federal Constitution and
    the Due Course of Law Clause of the Texas Constitution require judges to be neutral and
    detached. U.S. Const. amend. V; Tex. Const. art. I, § 19; Tex. Const. art. I, § 13; see Concrete
    Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 
    508 U.S. 602
    , 617–18
    (1993); Earley v. State, 
    855 S.W.2d 260
    , 262 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1993, no pet.).
    12
    We are aware that courts have allowed public employees to sue their employers for
    damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the employees suffer adverse employment consequences
    for exercising their First Amendment right to speak on matters of public concern. E.g., Connick
    v. Myers, 
    461 U.S. 138
    (1983); Baker v. Gregg County, 
    33 S.W.3d 72
    , 79 (Tex. App.—
    Texarkana 2000, pet. dism’d). But Ward has not sued under section 1983, Texas has no
    comparable state statute, and there is no implied private right of action for damages arising under
    the free speech provision of the Texas Constitution. See City of Beaumont v. Bouillion, 
    896 S.W.2d 143
    , 147 (Tex. 1995). The trial court and the parties have not addressed whether
    injunctive relief is available in this circumstance to remedy violations of the Texas Constitution,
    cf. City of Elsa v. M.A.L., 
    226 S.W.3d 390
    , 392 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam), or whether appellees’
    sovereign immunity is waived in this circumstance under the Declaratory Judgments Act. Cf.
    City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 
    284 S.W.3d 366
    , 372–73 (Tex. 2009) (“[Under the Declaratory
    Judgments Act], the governmental entities themselves—as opposed to their officers in their
    official capacity—remain immune from suit.”). We therefore do not decide those questions here.
    13
    Our dissenting colleague contends that because the parties have not briefed on appeal
    the merits of whether Ward has stated declaratory judgment claims under Article I, Sections 3,
    3a, and 19, it is unfair and unwise for us to address those claims. Post, at 4–9 & n.11. But we
    18
    sustain Ward’s second issue in part and, with one exception, we reverse the trial
    court’s dismissal of her claims against Lamar and the System under the
    Declaratory Judgments Act and the Texas Constitution. We affirm the dismissal of
    Ward’s free speech retaliation claim against the System under the Declaratory
    Judgments Act and Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution.
    CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Ward’s
    whistleblower claims and her free speech retaliation claim against the Texas State
    University System, reverse the trial court’s dismissal of Ward’s whistleblower
    claims against Lamar University and the trial court’s sua sponte dismissal of
    Ward’s remaining constitutional claims against both Lamar and the System, and
    remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this
    opinion.
    /s/            J. Brett Busby
    Justice
    Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Busby (Frost,
    C.J., dissenting).
    are not addressing the merits of those claims and holding that Ward pled sufficient facts to
    support them. Instead, we are reversing the trial court’s decision to dismiss those claims without
    allowing the parties to take the lead in addressing them in the trial court. As discussed in
    footnote 5 above, Ward’s brief gives fair notice that she is complaining of the latter error.
    19