Texas Codes

Tex. Lab. Code § 21.2585 (2026)

Compensatory And Punitive Damages

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Sec. 21.2585. COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES. (a) On finding that a respondent engaged in an unlawful intentional employment practice as alleged in a complaint, a court may, as provided by this section, award:

(1) compensatory damages; and

(2) punitive damages.

(b) A complainant may recover punitive damages against a respondent, other than a respondent that is a governmental entity, if the complainant demonstrates that the respondent engaged in a discriminatory practice with malice or with reckless indifference to the state-protected rights of an aggrieved individual.

(1) back pay;

(2) interest on back pay; or

(3) other relief authorized under Section 21.258(b).

(d) The sum of the amount of compensatory damages awarded under this section for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses and the amount of punitive damages awarded under this section may not exceed, for each complainant:

(1) $50,000 in the case of a respondent that has fewer than 101 employees;

(2) $100,000 in the case of a respondent that has more than 100 and fewer than 201 employees;

(3) $200,000 in the case of a respondent that has more than 200 and fewer than 501 employees; and

(4) $300,000 in the case of a respondent that has more than 500 employees.

(e) For the purposes of Subsection (d), in determining the number of employees of a respondent, the requisite number of employees must be employed by the respondent for each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, Sec. 9.07(b), eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 872, Sec. 13, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 84 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Carleen Black v. Pan Am. Labs., 646 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Carleen Black v. Pan Am. Labs., 646 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “2001) (the THRCA “damages limitation provision,” Tex. Labor Code § 21.2585, is “identical to that in [Title VII,] § 1981a(b)(3)”).”

Wackenhut Corr. Corp. v. De La Rosa, 305 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “Wackenhut argues that Shoreline is distinguishable because Texas Labor Code section 21.2585 requires the defendant to prove the number of employees it has in order to determine the cap amounts.”

Ancira Enter., Inc. v. Fischer, 178 S.W.3d 82 (Tex. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “” 14 See Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 21.2585 . The jury answered in the affirmative, and awarded $75,000.”

Fairfield Ins. Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP, 246 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2008). · cites it 2× “TEX. LAB.CODE § 21.2585. [60] See, e.g., TEX.”

O'DELL v. Wright, 320 S.W.3d 505 (Tex. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “Texas Labor Code Section 21.2585’s statutory cap In the remainder of his fourth issue, O’Dell argues that the trial court erred by entering judgment based on the jury’s finding of an award in excess of Texas Labor Code Section 21.”

San Antonio Water Sys. v. Debra Nicholas, 441 S.W.3d 382 (Tex. App. 2013). · cites it 8× “Under both section 1981a and the Human Rights Act, a court may award compensatory damages upon finding that an employer has engaged in an unlawful intentional employment practice and may further award punitive damages when the discriminatory practice is with malice or reckless…”

Edwards v. Aaron Rents, Inc., 482 F. Supp. 2d 803 (W.D. Tex. 2006). · cites it 6× “Finally, Plaintiff argues that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s award of back pay and that Defendant failed to raise offset as an affirmative defense, thereby waiving any claim to it.”

Arismendez v. Nightingale Home Health Care, Inc., 493 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “Tex. Lab.Code § 21.2585. (1) Waiver Arismendez contends that the employer waived the statutory cap by failing to properly invoke it as an affirmative defense in district court.”

United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Brite, 161 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “064 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which provides that "[t]he period between the date of filing an action in a trial court and the date of a second filing of the same action in a different court suspends the running of the applicable statute of limitations for…”

River Oaks L-M. Inc. D/B/A West Point Lincoln Mercury v. Veronica Vinton-Duarte, 469 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “See Tex. Labor Code Ann. § 21.2585 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.”

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Brian Burnett, 552 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 21.2585 (a), (d)(4) (emphasis added).”

Cont'l Coffee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. 1997). “1335(b)(3) (resident of “institution” under Nursing and Convalescent Homes Chapter who is retaliated or discriminated against by an institution when the resident, his guardian, or any other person reports abuse or neglect is entitled to sue for exemplary damages); Tex.Lab.Code §…”

Show all 84 citing cases →

— Tex. Lab. Code § 21.2585(a) — 4 cases

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Davis, 979 S.W.2d 30 (Tex. App. 1998).

San Antonio Water Sys. v. Debra Nicholas, 441 S.W.3d 382 (Tex. App. 2013). “Under both section 1981a and the Human Rights Act, a court may award compensatory damages upon finding that an employer has engaged in an unlawful intentional employment practice and may further award punitive damages when the discriminatory practice is with malice or reckless…”

Jefferson Cnty., Texas v. Donna Davis (Tex. App. 2014).

Jefferson Cnty., Texas v. Donna Davis (Tex. App. 2015).

— Tex. Lab. Code § 21.2585(a)(2) — 3 cases

Tammie Ackelson v. Manley Toy Direct, L.L.C. & Toy Network, L.L.C. v. Manley Toy Direct, L.L.C.. & Toy Network, L.L.C., 832 N.W.2d 678 (Iowa 2013).

Safeshred, Inc. v. Martinez, 310 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. App. 2010).

— Tex. Lab. Code § 21.2585(b) — 7 cases

Tarrant Cnty. Hosp. Dist. v. Henry, 52 S.W.3d 434 (Tex. App. 2001).

Safeshred, Inc. v. Martinez, 365 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. 2012).

Shear Cuts, Inc. v. Littlejohn, 141 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. App. 2004).

West Telemarketing Corp. Outbound v. McClure, 225 S.W.3d 658 (Tex. App. 2006).

Texas Dep't of Ins. v. Som Thomas (2026).

— Tex. Lab. Code § 21.2585(c) — 2 cases

Haggar Apparel Co. v. Leal, 100 S.W.3d 303 (Tex. App. 2002).

Texas Comm'n on Human Rights v. Morrison, 346 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. App. 2011).

— Tex. Lab. Code § 21.2585(c)(1) — 1 case

— Tex. Lab. Code § 21.2585(c)(3) — 1 case

— Tex. Lab. Code § 21.2585(d) — 18 cases

Carleen Black v. Pan Am. Labs., 646 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2011). “2001) (the THRCA “damages limitation provision,” Tex. Labor Code § 21.2585, is “identical to that in [Title VII,] § 1981a(b)(3)”).”

Mirta Zorrilla v. Aypco Constr. II, LLC & Jose Luis Munoz, 469 S.W.3d 143 (Tex. 2015).

Arismendez v. Nightingale Home Health Care, Inc., 493 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2007). “Tex. Lab.Code § 21.2585. (1) Waiver Arismendez contends that the employer waived the statutory cap by failing to properly invoke it as an affirmative defense in district court.”

Edwards v. Aaron Rents, Inc., 482 F. Supp. 2d 803 (W.D. Tex. 2006). “Finally, Plaintiff argues that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s award of back pay and that Defendant failed to raise offset as an affirmative defense, thereby waiving any claim to it.”

Shear Cuts, Inc. v. Littlejohn, 141 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. App. 2004).

— Tex. Lab. Code § 21.2585(d)(1) — 3 cases

Williams-Pyro, Inc. v. Rhonda Barbour, 408 S.W.3d 467 (Tex. App. 2013).

in Re Solid Software Solutions, Inc., D/B/A Edible Software (Tex. App. 2015).

THF Hous. Mgmt. Corp. v. Kathleen Gideon (Tex. App. 2021).

— Tex. Lab. Code § 21.2585(d)(4) — 5 cases

United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Brite, 161 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. App. 2005). “064 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which provides that "[t]he period between the date of filing an action in a trial court and the date of a second filing of the same action in a different court suspends the running of the applicable statute of limitations for…”

Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Gonzales, 72 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. App. 2002).

Union Pac. R.R. v. Loa, 153 S.W.3d 162 (Tex. App. 2004).

Napier v. Humana Marketpoint, Inc., 826 F. Supp. 2d 984 (N.D. Tex. 2011).

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.