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

Tex. Lab. Code § 21.125 (2026)

Clarifying Prohibition Against Impermissible Consideration Of Race, Color, Sex, National Origin, Religion, Age, Or Disability In Employment Practices

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 21.125. CLARIFYING PROHIBITION AGAINST IMPERMISSIBLE CONSIDERATION OF RACE, COLOR, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN, RELIGION, AGE, OR DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES. (a) Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, an unlawful employment practice is established when the complainant demonstrates that race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability was a motivating factor for an employment practice, even if other factors also motivated the practice, unless race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability is combined with objective job-related factors to attain diversity in the employer's work force.

(b) In a complaint in which a complainant proves a violation under Subsection (a) and a respondent demonstrates that the respondent would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor, the court may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief except as otherwise provided by this subsection, and attorney's fees and costs demonstrated to be directly attributable only to the pursuit of a complaint under Subsection (a), but may not award damages or issue an order requiring an admission, reinstatement, hiring, promotion, or back pay.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, Sec. 9.05(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1126, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 79 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Quantum Chem. Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Quantum Chem. Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2001). · cites it 8× “However, because the federal courts are closely divided on the issue, we follow the plain meaning of Texas Labor Code section 21.125. This section provides that a plaintiff establishes an unlawful employment practice by showing that discrimination was "a motivating factor" for…”
Kokes v. Angelina Coll., 148 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. App. 2004). · cites it 10× “See TEX. LAB.CODE ANN. § 21.125 (Vernon Supp.”
Lorenzo Pineda, III v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 360 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “055; Tex. Lab.Code § 21.125 (defining its purpose as clarifying prohibition against employment discrimination based on race, col- or, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability).”
Arismendez v. Nightingale Home Health Care, Inc., 493 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “Tex. Lab.Code § 21.125(a). Nonetheless, as previously set forth, if an employer can show that it would have taken the same action in the absence of any discriminatory animus, then no damages may be awarded.”
Coastal Mart, Inc. v. Hernandez, 76 S.W.3d 691 (Tex. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “" Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 21.051(1) (Vernon Supp.”
Texas Parks & Wildlife Dep't v. Dearing, 240 S.W.3d 330 (Tex. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Laws 1285 , 1887 (current version at Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 21.120 (West 2006)); cf.”
David Peterson v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 806 F.3d 335 (5th Cir. 2015). · cites it 3× “Further: In a complaint in which a complainant proves a violation under Subsection (a) and a respondent demonstrates that the respondent would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor, the court may grant declaratory relief, injunctive…”
Ronald Reed v. Neopost USA, Inc., 701 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2012). “at 285 ; see Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 21.125(a). We reached the same conclusion in an unpublished opinion.”
Gold v. Exxon Corp., 960 S.W.2d 378 (Tex. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “First, Gold counters Exxon’s claim his performance was poor by his sworn statement that such allegation is false.”
Little v. Texas Dep't of Crim. Just., 177 S.W.3d 624 (Tex. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “125(a) provides: “Except as *631 otherwise provided by this chapter, an unlawful employment practice is established when the complainant demonstrates that race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability was a motivating factor for an employment practice, even if…”
Hawkins v. Grinnell Reg'l Med. Ctr., 929 N.W.2d 261 (Iowa 2019). “at 857 (alterations in original) (quoting Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 21.125 (b) (Vernon 2006)).”
Bartosh v. Sam Houston State Univ., 259 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. App. 2008). “3d at 475, 480; see Tex. Labor Code Ann. § 21.125 (Vernon 2006).”
Show all 79 citing cases →
— Tex. Lab. Code § 21.125(a) — 43 cases
Quantum Chem. Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2001). “However, because the federal courts are closely divided on the issue, we follow the plain meaning of Texas Labor Code section 21.125. This section provides that a plaintiff establishes an unlawful employment practice by showing that discrimination was "a motivating factor" for…”
Lorenzo Pineda, III v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 360 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2004). “055; Tex. Lab.Code § 21.125 (defining its purpose as clarifying prohibition against employment discrimination based on race, col- or, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability).”
Coastal Mart, Inc. v. Hernandez, 76 S.W.3d 691 (Tex. App. 2002). “" Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 21.051(1) (Vernon Supp.”
Ronald Reed v. Neopost USA, Inc., 701 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2012). “at 285 ; see Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 21.125(a). We reached the same conclusion in an unpublished opinion.”
Little v. Texas Dep't of Crim. Just., 177 S.W.3d 624 (Tex. App. 2005). “125(a) provides: “Except as *631 otherwise provided by this chapter, an unlawful employment practice is established when the complainant demonstrates that race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability was a motivating factor for an employment practice, even if…”
— Tex. Lab. Code § 21.125(b) — 11 cases
Arismendez v. Nightingale Home Health Care, Inc., 493 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2007). “Tex. Lab.Code § 21.125(a). Nonetheless, as previously set forth, if an employer can show that it would have taken the same action in the absence of any discriminatory animus, then no damages may be awarded.”
David Peterson v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 806 F.3d 335 (5th Cir. 2015). “Further: In a complaint in which a complainant proves a violation under Subsection (a) and a respondent demonstrates that the respondent would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor, the court may grant declaratory relief, injunctive…”
Padilla v. Flying J, Inc., 119 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. App. 2003).
Reber v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 248 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. App. 2008).
David Peterson v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 807 F.3d 650 (5th Cir. 2015).
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.