at-will employment doctrine in Texas

2025See Austin, 967 S.W.2d at 401 .

2008Austin v. Healthtrust, Inc. , 967 S.W.2d 400, 402 (Tex. 1998).

2025However, in Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck, the Texas Supreme Court created a narrow exception to the at-will employment doctrine, providing that an employee can maintain an action for wrongful termination when he was fired solely for refusing to commit an unlawful act carrying criminal penalties. 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. 1985).

2023Although the Texas Supreme Court has recognized a “narrow exception” to the at-will employment doctrine that prohibits employers from terminating employment “for the sole reason that the employee refused to perform an illegal act,” Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. 1985), the Texas Legislature has not waived immunity for such a claim, and Leonard has not made one.

2010See Texas Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629, 634 (Tex.1995) (characterizing Sabine Pilot claim as “a cause of action for retaliatory discharge”).

2010See Texas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629, 634 (Tex.1995) (characterizing Sabine Pilot claim as "a cause of action for retaliatory discharge").

2023See Hillman, 579 S.W.3d at 358–59.

2023See Hillman, 579 S.W.3d at 358–59.

2008This would clearly violate the at-will employment doctrine — and its general prohibition against wrongful termination claims by at-will employees — by creating liability where at law none may exist (ie., by allowing monetary recovery when the employer terminates the employee for a “bad reason”). 6 See, e.g., Wiland, 216 S.W.3d at 347 ; Brown, 965 S.W.2d at 502 .

2008This would clearly violate the at-will employment doctrine C and its general prohibition against wrongful termination claims by at-will employees C by creating liability where at law none may exist ( i.e. , by allowing monetary recovery when the employer terminates the employee for a A bad reason @ ). [6] See, e.g., Wiland , 216 S.W.3d at 347 ; Brown , 965 S.W.2d at 502 .

2007In Sabine Pilot , the Texas Supreme Court recognized only one limited common-law exception to the at-will employment doctrine. (footnote: 4) See City of Midland v. O’Bryant , 18 S.W.3d 209, 215 (Tex. 2000); Sabine Pilot , 687 S.W.2d at 735 .

2003See City of Midland v. O’Bryant, 18 S.W.3d 209, 216 (Tex.2000) (discussing legislative enactments affecting the employment relationship); Montgomery County Hosp.

2006The legislature could have protected persons who assist or participate in any way in a proceeding under the workers' compensation statute, but chose to protect only *413 those persons who "testified." To apply the anti-retaliation statute to an employee who, like Griggs, has not actually engaged in activity declared by the legislature to be protected, would require this Court to "encroach on the at-will employment doctrine without express legislative action." Salay v. Baylor Univ., 115 S.W.3d 625, 627 (Tex. App.-Waco 2003, pet. denied) (construing Labor Code section 21.055(4)).

2006The legislature could have protected persons who assist or participate in any way in a proceeding under the workers’ compensation statute, but chose to protect only those persons who “testified.” To apply the anti-retaliation statute to an employee who, like Griggs, has not actually engaged in activity declared by the legislature to be protected, would require this Court to “encroach on the at-will employment doctrine without express legislative action.” Salay v. Baylor Univ., 115 S.W.3d 625, 627 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003, pet. denied) (construing Labor Code section 21.055(4)).

2003Austin v. Healthtrust, Inc. , 967 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Tex. 1998); Runge v. Raytheon E-Systems, Inc. , 57 S.W.3d 562, 566 (Tex. App.-Waco 2001, no pet.).

2003Austin v. Healthtrust, Inc., 967 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Tex.1998); Runge v. Raytheon E-Systems, Inc., 57 S.W.3d 562, 566 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, no *375 pet.).

1993See Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 , 96 S.Ct. 2074 , 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976) (affirming termination of at-will police officer).

1993See Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 , 96 S.Ct. 2074 , 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976) (affirming termination of at-will police officer).

2008This would clearly violate the at-will employment doctrine — and its general prohibition against wrongful termination claims by at-will employees — by creating liability where at law none may exist (ie., by allowing monetary recovery when the employer terminates the employee for a “bad reason”). 6 See, e.g., Wiland, 216 S.W.3d at 347 ; Brown, 965 S.W.2d at 502 .

2008This would clearly violate the at-will employment doctrine C and its general prohibition against wrongful termination claims by at-will employees C by creating liability where at law none may exist ( i.e. , by allowing monetary recovery when the employer terminates the employee for a A bad reason @ ). [6] See, e.g., Wiland , 216 S.W.3d at 347 ; Brown , 965 S.W.2d at 502 .

2021See Safeshred, Inc. v. Martinez, 365 S.W.3d 655, 659 (Tex. 2012) (“Apart from Sabine Pilot, this Court has steadfastly adhered to the employment at- will doctrine.” (citation omitted)); Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. 1985) (recognizing a narrow exception to the at-will employment doctrine allowing employees to sue their employers if they are discharged “for the sole reason that the employee refused to perform an illegal act”).

2021See Safeshred, Inc. v. Martinez, 365 S.W.3d 655, 659 (Tex. 2012) (“Apart from Sabine Pilot, this Court has steadfastly adhered to the employment at- will doctrine.” (citation omitted)); Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. 1985) (recognizing a narrow exception to the at-will employment doctrine allowing employees to sue their employers if they are discharged “for the sole reason that the employee refused to perform an illegal act”).

2021Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444, 453 (Tex. 1996); see, e.g., Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. 1985) (creating the at-will employment exception prohibiting employers from terminating employees for refusing to commit illegal acts) see also Word v. N. Jones Reg’l Health Sys., No. 05-06-00881-CV, 2007 WL 2421500 , at *4 (Tex. App.— Dallas Aug. 28, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Statutes protecting workers from retaliatory discharge are exceptions to the common law doctrine of employment at will.”).

2018See, e.g. , Double Ace, Inc. v. Pope , 190 S.W.3d 18 , 28 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2005, no pet.) ; Crow v. Rockett Special Util.

2017Marsh USA Inc. v. Cook, 354 S.W.3d 764, 776 (Tex. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see Sawyer, 430 S.W.3d at 399 .

2017Marsh USA Inc. v. Cook, 354 S.W.3d 764, 776 (Tex. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see Sawyer, 430 S.W.3d at 399 .

2014See Watley, 216 S.W.3d at 376 ; Salazar, 88 S.W.3d at 353 ; Hohman, 6 S.W.3d at 777 ; Carroll, 938 S.W.2d at 134–35.

2002See also Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 882 F.Supp. 612, 616 (S.D.Tex.1995); Brown v. City of Galveston, 870 F.Supp. 155, 160 (S.D.Tex.1994) (citing Reynolds Mfg.

2002See also Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 882 F.Supp. 612, 616 (S.D.Tex.1995); Brown v. City of Galveston, 870 F.Supp. 155, 160 (S.D.Tex.1994) (citing Reynolds Mfg.

2002See Bird, 868 S.W.2d at 769 (considering, among other factors, the consequences of imposing a duty on a party).

2002See Figueroa v. West, 902 S.W.2d 701, 706 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1995, no writ) (holding that an at-will employee has no negligent-termination claim); Shell Oil Co. v. Humphrey, 880 S.W.2d 170, 175-76 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (observing that there is no negligence exception to the at-will employment doctrine); see also Theisen, 636 N.W.2d at 82 (explaining that allowing a negligent-investigation claim would not only contradict the court’s refusal to recognize a negligent-discharge claim but would also “swallow[ ]” the at-will-employment rule).

2002See Figueroa v. West, 902 S.W.2d 701, 706 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1995, no writ) (holding that an at-will employee has no negligent-termination claim); Shell Oil Co. v. Humphrey, 880 S.W.2d 170, 175-76 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (observing that there is no negligence exception to the at-will employment doctrine); see also Theisen, 636 N.W.2d at 82 (explaining that allowing a negligent-investigation claim would not only contradict the court’s refusal to recognize a negligent-discharge claim but would also “swallow[ ]” the at-will-employment rule).

2002See Figueroa v. West, 902 S.W.2d 701, 706 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1995, no writ) (holding that an at-will employee has no negligent-termination claim); Shell Oil Co. v. Humphrey, 880 S.W.2d 170, 175-76 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (observing that there is no negligence exception to the at-will employment doctrine); see also Theisen, 636 N.W.2d at 82 (explaining that allowing a negligent-investigation claim would not only contradict the court’s refusal to recognize a negligent-discharge claim but would also “swallow[ ]” the at-will-employment rule).

2002See Figueroa v. West, 902 S.W.2d 701, 706 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1995, no writ) (holding that an at-will employee has no negligent-termination claim); Shell Oil Co. v. Humphrey, 880 S.W.2d 170, 175-76 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (observing that there is no negligence exception to the at-will employment doctrine); see also Theisen, 636 N.W.2d at 82 (explaining that allowing a negligent-investigation claim would not only contradict the court’s refusal to recognize a negligent-discharge claim but would also “swallow[ ]” the at-will-employment rule).

2002See Figueroa v. West, 902 S.W.2d 701, 706 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1995, no writ) (holding that an at-will employee has no negligent-termination claim); Shell Oil Co. v. Humphrey, 880 S.W.2d 170, 175-76 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (observing that there is no negligence exception to the at-will employment doctrine); see also Theisen, 636 N.W.2d at 82 (explaining that allowing a negligent-investigation claim would not only contradict the court’s refusal to recognize a negligent-discharge claim but would also “swallow[ ]” the at-will-employment rule).

2002See Figueroa v. West, 902 S.W.2d 701, 706 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1995, no writ) (holding that an at-will employee has no negligent-termination claim); Shell Oil Co. v. Humphrey, 880 S.W.2d 170, 175-76 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (observing that there is no negligence exception to the at-will employment doctrine); see also Theisen, 636 N.W.2d at 82 (explaining that allowing a negligent-investigation claim would not only contradict the court’s refusal to recognize a negligent-discharge claim but would also “swallow[ ]” the at-will-employment rule).

2002See also Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 882 F.Supp. 612, 616 (S.D.Tex.1995); Brown v. City of Galveston, 870 F.Supp. 155, 160 (S.D.Tex.1994) (citing Reynolds Mfg.

2002See also Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 882 F.Supp. 612, 616 (S.D.Tex.1995); Brown v. City of Galveston, 870 F.Supp. 155, 160 (S.D.Tex.1994) (citing Reynolds Mfg.