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

Tex. Lab. Code § 21.106 (2026)

Sex Discrimination

✓ laws through the 89th Legislature (2025)
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., 832 F.3d 224 (5th Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cynthia Heinsohn v. Carabin & Shaw, P.C., 832 F.3d 224 (5th Cir. 2016). “Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 21.106 (a). 37 . Id.”
KIPP, Inc. v. Kimberly Whitehead, 446 S.W.3d 99 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014). · 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 Trs. of Bastrop Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Toungate, 958 S.W.2d 365 (Tex. 1998). · 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, 38 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000). · 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, 773 F. Supp. 2d 674 (W.D. Tex. 2011). “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, 296 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009). “” Tex.Labor Code Ann. § 21.051 (Vernon 2006).”
Baehler v. Fritz Indus., Inc., 993 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999). “Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 21.106 (Vernon 1996).”
Cynthia Heinsohn v. Carabin & Shaw, P.C., No. 15-50300 (5th Cir. July 29, 2016). “” 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., No. 15-50300, 2016 WL 4011160 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2016). “36 TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 21.106(a). 37 Id. 38Mission Consol.”
Jubilee Academies, Inc. v. Brenda McKinnon, No. 13-24-00206-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg May 1, 2025). “” 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…”
Jones, No. 4:24-cv-01226 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2026). “” Tex. Lab. Code § 21.106. Discrimination based on pregnancy constitutes discrimination based on sex.”
Low-Income Women of Texas v. Bost, No. 03-98-00209-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 7, 2000). · 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, 446 S.W.3d 99 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014). “” 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, 296 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009). “” Tex.Labor Code Ann. § 21.051 (Vernon 2006).”
Cynthia Heinsohn v. Carabin & Shaw, P.C., No. 15-50300 (5th Cir. July 29, 2016). “” 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., No. 15-50300, 2016 WL 4011160 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2016). “36 TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 21.106(a). 37 Id. 38Mission Consol.”
Jubilee Academies, Inc. v. Brenda McKinnon, No. 13-24-00206-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg May 1, 2025). “” 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.