at-will doctrine in Texas

2011The Texas Supreme Court has recognized only one common-law exception to the employment-at-will doctrine: a “narrow exception” that “covers only the discharge of an employee 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). 1 *892 After Sabine Pilot, Texas courts have rebuffed many attempts to enlarge the number of exceptions to the at-will doctrine.

2010In Sabine Pilot the supreme court created an exception to the at-will doctrine for situations in which an employee is fired for refusing "to perform an illegal act." See Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. 1985).

2011See Winters v. Houston Chronicle Publ’g Co., 795 S.W.2d 723 , 724 & n. 1 (Tex.1990) (noting the many statutory exceptions to the at-will doctrine, and refusing to create a new common-law exception for whistleblowers). *895 D.

1997See Winters v. Houston Chronicle Publishing Co., 795 S.W.2d 723, 724 (Tex.1990)(the Act is one of several legislative restrictions upon the at-will doctrine); Knowlton v. Greenwood Indep.

2010See Ed Rachal Found, v. D’Unger, 207 S.W.3d 330, 333 (Tex.2006); see also Austin, 967 S.W.2d at 403 (leaving to legislature task of “crafting remedies for retaliation by employers”); Salay v. Baylor Univ., 115 S.W.3d 625, 627 (Tex.App.Waco 2003, pet. denied) (refusing to “encroach on the at-will doctrine without express legislative action”).

2010See Ed Rachal Found. v. D'Unger, 207 S.W.3d 330, 333 (Tex.2006); see also Austin, 967 S.W.2d at 403 (leaving to legislature task of "crafting remedies for retaliation by employers"); Salay v. Baylor Univ., 115 S.W.3d 625, 627 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003, pet. denied) (refusing to "encroach on the at-will doctrine without express legislative action").

2005There is a “generalized rejection [by Texas courts] of the claim that employment manuals issued unilaterally by an employer can per se constitute written employment contracts and create specific limitations which take the cases out of the at-will doctrine.” Aiello v. United Air Lines, Inc., 818 F.2d 1196, 1198 (5th Cir. 1987).

2005There is a “generalized rejection [by Texas courts] of the claim that employment manuals issued unilaterally by an employer can per se constitute written employment contracts and create specific limitations which take the cases out of the at-will doctrine.” Aiello v. United Air Lines, Inc., 818 F.2d 1196, 1198 (5th Cir.1987).

2010See Ed Rachal Found, v. D’Unger, 207 S.W.3d 330, 333 (Tex.2006); see also Austin, 967 S.W.2d at 403 (leaving to legislature task of “crafting remedies for retaliation by employers”); Salay v. Baylor Univ., 115 S.W.3d 625, 627 (Tex.App.Waco 2003, pet. denied) (refusing to “encroach on the at-will doctrine without express legislative action”).

2010See Ed Rachal Found. v. D'Unger, 207 S.W.3d 330, 333 (Tex.2006); see also Austin, 967 S.W.2d at 403 (leaving to legislature task of "crafting remedies for retaliation by employers"); Salay v. Baylor Univ., 115 S.W.3d 625, 627 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003, pet. denied) (refusing to "encroach on the at-will doctrine without express legislative action").

2010See O’Bryant, 18 S.W.3d at 216 ; see, e.g., Tex. Agric.

2010See O'Bryant, 18 S.W.3d at 216 ; see, e.g., Tex. Agric.

2010See Ed Rachal Found, v. D’Unger, 207 S.W.3d 330, 333 (Tex.2006); see also Austin, 967 S.W.2d at 403 (leaving to legislature task of “crafting remedies for retaliation by employers”); Salay v. Baylor Univ., 115 S.W.3d 625, 627 (Tex.App.Waco 2003, pet. denied) (refusing to “encroach on the at-will doctrine without express legislative action”).

2010See Ed Rachal Found. v. D'Unger, 207 S.W.3d 330, 333 (Tex.2006); see also Austin, 967 S.W.2d at 403 (leaving to legislature task of "crafting remedies for retaliation by employers"); Salay v. Baylor Univ., 115 S.W.3d 625, 627 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003, pet. denied) (refusing to "encroach on the at-will doctrine without express legislative action").

2003Under Sabine Pilot, the narrow exception to the at-will doctrine exists only where the employee is discharged because "the employee refused to perform an illegal act." Because Hawthorne did not contend in the trial court and does not argue here that the motion did not comply with Rule 166a(i) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, or that it failed to give him fair notice, see Roth v. FFP Operating Partners, 994 S.W.2d 190,194 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1999, pet. denied), we conclude Star's motion was sufficient to impose the burden on Hawthorne to respond with summary judgment evidence showing the

2003Under Sabine Pilot, the narrow exception to the at-will doctrine exists only where the employee is discharged because “the employee refused to perform an illegal act.” Because Hawthorne did not contend in the trial court and does not argue here that the motion did not comply with Rule 166a(i) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, or that it failed to give him fair notice, see Roth v. FFP Operating Partners, 994 S.W.2d 190,194 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1999, pet. denied), we conclude Star’s motion was sufficient to impose the burden on Hawthorne to respond with summary judgment evidence showing the

2011See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Portilla, 879 S.W.2d 47, 51-52 (Tex. 1994) (concluding employer expressly contracted not to terminate otherwise at-will employee for violation of anti-nepotism policy); Air America Jet Charter, Inc. v. Lawhon, 93 S.W.3d 441, 443 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (explaining contract did not contain an at-will clause); Larson v. Family Violence & Sexual Assault Prevention Ctr. of S. Tex., 64 S.W.3d 506, 518-19 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied) (affirming summary judgment and holding employment was at will); Demunbrun v. Gray, 986 S.W

1998See Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Portilla, 879 S.W.2d 47, 51 (Tex.1994) ("The at-will doctrine only applies absent a specific contractual provision to the contrary.") (emphasis in original); Dutschmann, 846 S.W.2d at 283 .

1990Benoit v. Polysar Gulf Coast, Inc., 728 S.W.2d 403, 406 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Vallone v. Agip Petroleum Co., 705 S.W.2d 757, 759 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Totman v. Control Data Corp., 707 S.W.2d 739, 744 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1986, no writ); Reynolds Mfg.

1989The rule is that employment is at-will “absent a specific contract term to the contrary.” Vallone v. Agip Petroleum Co., Inc., 705 S.W.2d 757, 758 (Tex.App.1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

2013See id.

2001Id.

2018See id. at 1064-65 .

2012See Martin v. Clinical Pathology Labs., Inc., 343 S.W.3d 885, 892 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, pet. denied) (“After Sabine Pilot, Texas courts have rebuffed many attempts to enlarge the number of exceptions to the at-will doctrine.”); Johnson v. Waxahachie Indep.

2011See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Portilla, 879 S.W.2d 47, 51-52 (Tex. 1994) (concluding employer expressly contracted not to terminate otherwise at-will employee for violation of anti-nepotism policy); Air America Jet Charter, Inc. v. Lawhon, 93 S.W.3d 441, 443 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (explaining contract did not contain an at-will clause); Larson v. Family Violence & Sexual Assault Prevention Ctr. of S. Tex., 64 S.W.3d 506, 518-19 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied) (affirming summary judgment and holding employment was at will); Demunbrun v. Gray, 986 S.W

2011See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Portilla, 879 S.W.2d 47, 51-52 (Tex. 1994) (concluding employer expressly contracted not to terminate otherwise at-will employee for violation of anti-nepotism policy); Air America Jet Charter, Inc. v. Lawhon, 93 S.W.3d 441, 443 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (explaining contract did not contain an at-will clause); Larson v. Family Violence & Sexual Assault Prevention Ctr. of S. Tex., 64 S.W.3d 506, 518-19 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied) (affirming summary judgment and holding employment was at will); Demunbrun v. Gray, 986 S.W

2011See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Portilla, 879 S.W.2d 47, 51-52 (Tex. 1994) (concluding employer expressly contracted not to terminate otherwise at-will employee for violation of anti-nepotism policy); Air America Jet Charter, Inc. v. Lawhon, 93 S.W.3d 441, 443 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (explaining contract did not contain an at-will clause); Larson v. Family Violence & Sexual Assault Prevention Ctr. of S. Tex., 64 S.W.3d 506, 518-19 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied) (affirming summary judgment and holding employment was at will); Demunbrun v. Gray, 986 S.W

2011See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Portilla, 879 S.W.2d 47, 51-52 (Tex. 1994) (concluding employer expressly contracted not to terminate otherwise at-will employee for violation of anti-nepotism policy); Air America Jet Charter, Inc. v. Lawhon, 93 S.W.3d 441, 443 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (explaining contract did not contain an at-will clause); Larson v. Family Violence & Sexual Assault Prevention Ctr. of S. Tex., 64 S.W.3d 506, 518-19 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied) (affirming summary judgment and holding employment was at will); Demunbrun v. Gray, 986 S.W

2011See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Portilla, 879 S.W.2d 47, 51-52 (Tex. 1994) (concluding employer expressly contracted not to terminate otherwise at-will employee for violation of anti-nepotism policy); Air America Jet Charter, Inc. v. Lawhon, 93 S.W.3d 441, 443 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (explaining contract did not contain an at-will clause); Larson v. Family Violence & Sexual Assault Prevention Ctr. of S. Tex., 64 S.W.3d 506, 518-19 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied) (affirming summary judgment and holding employment was at will); Demunbrun v. Gray, 986 S.W

2011See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Portilla, 879 S.W.2d 47, 51-52 (Tex. 1994) (concluding employer expressly contracted not to terminate otherwise at-will employee for violation of anti-nepotism policy); Air America Jet Charter, Inc. v. Lawhon, 93 S.W.3d 441, 443 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (explaining contract did not contain an at-will clause); Larson v. Family Violence & Sexual Assault Prevention Ctr. of S. Tex., 64 S.W.3d 506, 518-19 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied) (affirming summary judgment and holding employment was at will); Demunbrun v. Gray, 986 S.W

2007Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Canchola , 121 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex. 2003); Sears , 84 S.W.3d at 609 .

2007App.—Amarillo 1917, no writ) (addressing misconduct in a breach of employment contract case), Measday v. Kwik-Kopy Corp ., 713 F.2d 118 (5th Cir. 1983) (same), and Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Ross Jewelers, Inc ., 362 F.2d 985, 988 (5th Cir. 1966) (addressing breach of insurance contract).

2007See Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Solomon , 106 S.W.3d 705, 715 (Tex. 2003) (noting that the Sears court refused to limit the scope of the at-will doctrine by declining to recognize a cause of action for negligent investigation of an at-will employee’s alleged misconduct ); Sabine Pilot Serv.

2007At his deposition, Appellant identified the letter and testified that he signed it, indicating that he accepted its conditions and that at-will employment was a condition he had agreed to, and that to his knowledge, Appellee had never given him anything in writing to change his status from employee at will to something else. 6: Specifically, Appellant contends that it should be an exception to the at-will doctrine of employment law where an employer falsely accuses an employee of being a thief, terminates the employee based on the false accusation, and then, after the termination of the employ

2002Butt Grocery Co., 932 F.2d 469, 471 (5th Cir.1991) (emphasis added) (quoting Aiello v. United Air Lines, Inc., 818 F.2d 1196, 1198 (5th Cir.1987)).

2002Zimmerman, 932 F.2d at 472 .