wrongful discharge claim in Texas

2021In deciding whether the Act “clearly and unambiguously” waived immunity, the court outlined five considerations to answer that question: (1) “whether the statutory provisions, even if not a model of clarity, waive immunity without doubt”; (2) resolve any “ambiguity as to waiver . . . in favor of retaining immunity”; (3) generally, find waiver “if the Legislature requires that the [governmental] entity be joined in a lawsuit even though the entity would otherwise be immune from suit”; (4) whether the Legislature “provided an objective limitation on the governmental entity’s potential liability”

2018Feemster , 873 F.2d at 92 , 93-94 .

2018Feemster observed that the categories of potential public-policy exceptions to permit a wrongful-discharge claim despite the default rule of at-will employment include: "(1) refusal to commit an unlawful act, (2) performance of an important public obligation, or (3) exercise of a statutory right or privilege." Id. (citing Note, Protecting Employees at Will Against Wrongful Discharge: The Public Policy Exception , 96 HARV.

2010The lawyer must take reasonable affirmative steps, however, to avoid unnecessary disclosure and limit the information revealed. 423 F.3d at 500 (quoting ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 01-424 (2001)).

2007Tilton, 925 S.W.2d at 681 ; Ortiz v. Collins, 203 S.W.3d 414, 422-23 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (holding that where summary judgment was proper on underlying fraud claim due to lack of justifiable reliance, summary judgment was also proper on conspiracy to defraud claim); RTLC AG Prods., Inc. v. Treatment Equip.

2004The Fifth Circuit affirmed, noting that "to warrant recovery under this narrow common law cause of action, the refusal to perform an illegal act must be the sole reason advanced for the plaintiff’s discharge.” Id. at 953 .

2002But again, Appellants did not object to the damages question as required by Rule 274, and therefore they cannot complain on appeal that incorrect measures of damages may have been considered by the jury. ( See cases cited id. ).

1999However, the Bouchet court disapproved of Texas Health Enterprises, Inc. v. Kirkgard, 882 S.W.2d 630 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1994, writ denied), and Hodge v. BSB Investments, Inc., 783 S.W.2d 310 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990, writ denied), to the extent that they held that an employee could assert a wrongful discharge claim against an employer who did not subscribe to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act.

1999However, the Bouchet court disapproved of Texas Health Enterprises, Inc. v. Kirkgard, 882 S.W.2d 630 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1994, writ denied), and Hodge v. BSB Investments, Inc., 783 S.W.2d 310 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990, writ denied), to the extent that they held that an employee could assert a wrongful discharge claim against an employer who did not subscribe to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act.

1997Clear Creek, 589 S.W.2d at 678 . , Application of Law to Facts The carriers deny that they offered to defend Lemke in the wrongful discharge claim because they were prohibited by rule from doing so.

1994As support for this contractual estoppel argument, Tranter relies heavily on this court’s opinion in Swanson v. American Manufacturing Co., 511 S.W.2d 561 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1974, writ refd n.r.e.), and other similar cases.

1993Id., at 960-61 .

1991This court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for trial, holding that McClendon’s allegations were sufficient to state a wrongful discharge claim against Ingersoll-Rand under a public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. 779 S.W.2d 69 .