Tex. Codes » Labor Code · TITLE 2. PROTECTION OF LABORERS · SUBTITLE A. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION · CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

Tex. Lab. Code § 21.106

Sex Discrimination

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

Sec. 21.106. SEX DISCRIMINATION. (a) A provision in this chapter referring to discrimination because of sex or on the basis of sex includes discrimination because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.

(b) A woman affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition shall be treated for all purposes related to employment, including receipt of a benefit under a fringe benefit program, in the same manner as another individual not affected but similar in the individual's ability or inability to work.

Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 269, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Cynthia Heinsohn v. Carabin & Shaw, P.C.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cynthia Heinsohn v. Carabin & Shaw, P.C. (2016) ca5 “Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 21.106 (a). 37 . Id.”
KIPP, Inc. v. Kimberly Whitehead (2014) texapp · cites it 2× “” Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 21.106(a). Women who were pregnant at, or very near the time of, an adverse employment action are members of the protected class, as are women who were on maternity leave, or who had recently returned to work at the time of the adverse action.”
BD. OF TRUSTEES OF BASTROP INDEPENDENT SCH. DIST. v. Toungate (1998) tex · cites it 2× “See TEX. LAB.CODE § 21.106. There was and is no mention of grooming or dress codes.”
Low-Income Women Ex Rel. Prince v. Bost (2000) texapp · cites it 4× “" Tex.Lab.Code Ann. § 21.106 (West 1996). The Texas Supreme Court has also indicated that discrimination based on pregnancy is a form of sex-based discrimination prohibited by section 106.”
Muniz v. EL PASO MARRIOTT (2011) txwd “056 and sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or other related medical condition in violation of Texas Labor Code § 21.106. PL’s First Am.”
Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Martinez (2009) texapp “” Tex.Labor Code Ann. § 21.051 (Vernon 2006).”
Baehler v. Fritz Industries, Inc. (1999) texapp “Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 21.106 (Vernon 1996).”
Cynthia Heinsohn v. Carabin & Shaw, P.C. (2016) ca5 “” 39 Although the employee’s burden of proof remains the same regardless of which evidence the employee uses, the parties’ respective burdens of production differ.”
Cynthia Heinsohn v. Carabin & Shaw, P.C. (2016) ca5 “36 TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 21.106(a). 37 Id. 38Mission Consol.”
Jubilee Academies, Inc. v. Brenda McKinnon (2025) texapp “” TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 21.106(a). To establish a claim of retaliation under the TCHRA, a plaintiff must plead and prove: “(1) she engaged in an activity protected by the statute, (2) she experienced a material adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link exists between the…”
Kristin Jones v. Nima Goharkhay PLLC, doing business as Pregnancy Specialty Center of Texas (2026) txsd “” Tex. Lab. Code § 21.106. Discrimination based on pregnancy constitutes discrimination based on sex.”
the Low-Income Women of Texas, as Represented by Robert Prince, M.D. Curtis Boyd, M.D. William Watkins West, Jr., M.D. T (2000) texapp · cites it 2× “" Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 21.106 (West 1996).”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Tex. Lab. Code § 21.106(a) — 6 cases
KIPP, Inc. v. Kimberly Whitehead (2014) texapp “” Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 21.106(a). Women who were pregnant at, or very near the time of, an adverse employment action are members of the protected class, as are women who were on maternity leave, or who had recently returned to work at the time of the adverse action.”
Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Martinez (2009) texapp “” Tex.Labor Code Ann. § 21.051 (Vernon 2006).”
Cynthia Heinsohn v. Carabin & Shaw, P.C. (2016) ca5 “” 39 Although the employee’s burden of proof remains the same regardless of which evidence the employee uses, the parties’ respective burdens of production differ.”
Cynthia Heinsohn v. Carabin & Shaw, P.C. (2016) ca5 “36 TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 21.106(a). 37 Id. 38Mission Consol.”
Jubilee Academies, Inc. v. Brenda McKinnon (2025) texapp “” TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 21.106(a). To establish a claim of retaliation under the TCHRA, a plaintiff must plead and prove: “(1) she engaged in an activity protected by the statute, (2) she experienced a material adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link exists between the…”
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.