Most people know that Texas is an “at-will” employment state. Essentially, that means employers or employees can terminate an employment relationship at any time for almost any reason. Almost, because federal, state, and local laws protect certain classes of individuals from employment discrimination. These are the well-known protected classes such as race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, etc. However, there are some lessor known instances when employers can be held liable for terminating Texas employees.
Refusing to Commit a Criminal Act
Texas lawyers often refer to this as the Sabine Pilot doctrine. The employee in the Sabine Pilot case was a deckhand who was ordered to pump the bilge into the water. After the employee saw a notice such activity was illegal and confirmed that fact with the coast guard, he refused the next time he was ordered to pump the bilge. The company then terminated him.
The Supreme Court created an exception to the at-will doctrine in Sabine Pilot case. However, they stressed the narrowness of the ruling in that it applied only in a instance where the sole reason for termination was the failure of the employee to commit a act which subject the employee to criminal liability. If there is any other reason for termination, the plaintiff cannot prevail. Additionally, the Sabine Pilot doctrine does not apply to governmental employees or employees who only report illegal activities.
Discussing Salaries or Benefits with Other Employees
Many employers discourage employees from openly discussing salary and benefits with coworkers. However, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) allows employees to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment, including salary and benefits. Courts have stated any workplace rule which prohibits employees from discussing salaries “patently violates” the NLRA.
After a Polygraph Test
The federal Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) limits a private employer’s use of polygraph tests. Under the EPPA, except under limited circumstances, employers cannot:
(1) directly or indirectly, to require, request, suggest, or cause any employee or prospective employee to take or submit to any lie detector test;
(2) to use, accept, refer to, or inquire concerning the results of any lie detector test of any employee or prospective employee;
(3) to discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner, or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against—
(A) any employee or prospective employee who refuses, declines, or fails to take or submit to any lie detector test, or
(B) any employee or prospective employee on the basis of the results of any lie detector test; or
(4) to discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner, or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against, any employee or prospective employee because—
(A) such employee or prospective employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter,
(B) such employee or prospective employee has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or
(C) of the exercise by such employee or prospective employee, on behalf of such employee or another person, of any right afforded by this chapter.
Exemptions for private employers include on-going investigations related to economic loss such as theft, embezzlement, or industrial espionage, security services such as armored car companies, or drug security, theft, or diversion matters. However, these exemptions contain a number of provisions related to notice to the employee before, during, and after the lie detector test.