Texas Codes

Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.115 (2026)

Retaliation Against Person Prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 36.115. RETALIATION AGAINST PERSON PROHIBITED. (a) A person, including an employee, contractor, or agent, who is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment because of a lawful act taken by the person or associated others in furtherance of an action under this subchapter, including investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in an action filed or to be filed under this subchapter, or other efforts taken by the person to stop one or more violations of Section 36.002 is entitled to:

(1) reinstatement with the same seniority status the person would have had but for the discrimination; and

(2) not less than two times the amount of back pay, interest on the back pay, and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

(b) A person may bring an action in the appropriate district court for the relief provided in this section.

(c) A person must bring suit on an action under this section not later than the third anniversary of the date on which the cause of action accrues. For purposes of this section, the cause of action accrues on the date the retaliation occurs.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1153, Sec. 4.08, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Amended by:

Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 398 (S.B. 544), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2011.

Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 398 (S.B. 544), Sec. 7, eff. September 1, 2011.

Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 572 (S.B. 746), Sec. 5, eff. September 1, 2013.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case: in Re Xerox Corp. & Xerox State Healthcare, LLC F/K/A Acs State Healthcare, Llc, 555 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

in Re Xerox Corp. & Xerox State Healthcare, LLC F/K/A Acs State Healthcare, Llc, 555 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. 2018). “See Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.115. 115 Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.”

US Ex Rel. Wall v. Vista Hospice Care, Inc., 778 F. Supp. 2d 709 (N.D. Tex. 2011). “The Court found no case law providing any guidance on this issue. In the absence of case law or statutory guidance, the Court proceeds to analyze the limitations issue on the TMFPA retaliation allegation, concluding non-intervention does not bar the individual retaliation action.”

Nazari v. State, 497 S.W.3d 169 (Tex. App. 2016). “” Tex. Hum. Res.Code § 36.115(a) (emphasis added).”

In Re Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “6 Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.101(a) .........”

in Re Xerox Corp. & Xerox State Healthcare, LLC F/K/A ACS State Healthcare, LLC (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “28 Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.052(a) .........”

United States Of Am. v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc. (W.D. Tex. 2020). “29, 2012) (citing TEX. HUM. RES. CODE § 36.115 (2013)). To bring a retaliation claim for termination, an employee must show that (1) she engaged in activity protected under the statute; (2) her employer knew she engaged in protected activity; and (3) she was discharged because…”

Larry M. Gentilello M.D. v. Dallas Cnty. Hosp. Dist. D/B/A Parkand Hosp. (Tex. App. 2014). “The only issue that Gentilello argues in this appeal that he did not argue in Gentilello I is his first issue: that the trial court erred by granting Parkland’s plea to the jurisdiction because even though Parkland was not Gentilello’s employer, it is liable to Gentilello under…”

— Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.115(a) — 1 case

Nazari v. State, 497 S.W.3d 169 (Tex. App. 2016). “” Tex. Hum. Res.Code § 36.115(a) (emphasis added).”

— Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.115(a)(2) — 1 case

in Re Xerox Corp. & Xerox State Healthcare, LLC F/K/A ACS State Healthcare, LLC (Tex. App. 2015). “28 Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.052(a) .........”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.