CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck

Michael Andrew Hauck, a deckhand, was fired by Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. for refusing to illegally pump bilges into the water, an act he verified as unlawful with the U.S. Coast Guard. Sabine, however, claimed his termination was due to other derelictions of duty. The case, a wrongful discharge suit, saw the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Sabine reversed by the court of appeals. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision, establishing a narrow public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. This exception applies exclusively when an employee is discharged solely for refusing to perform an illegal act that carries criminal penalties, with the burden of proof resting on the plaintiff.

Wrongful DischargeEmployment At WillPublic Policy ExceptionIllegal ActSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipTexas LawCriminal PenaltiesWhistleblower
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1991

Casas v. Wornick Co.

Diana Casas appealed a summary judgment in her wrongful termination lawsuit against Right Way Foods Corporation, its parent Womick Company, and individuals Wornick, Barth, and Woerner. Casas alleged four causes of action: a claim under the Texas Equal Rights Amendment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, a Sabine Pilot claim for refusal to perform an illegal act, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for the Equal Rights Amendment, Sabine Pilot claim, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, adhering to the employment at-will doctrine and finding no state action or refusal to perform an illegal act. However, the court reversed and remanded the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding the outrageousness of the conduct and the severity of emotional distress. The case was also remanded for a determination of vicarious liability concerning the corporate entities and individuals.

Wrongful TerminationSummary Judgment AppealIntentional Infliction Emotional DistressEmployment At-Will DoctrineTexas Equal RightsSabine Pilot ExceptionGood Faith and Fair DealingVicarious LiabilityCorporate AgencyEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diamond v. World News Corp.

Muriel Diamond attempted to publish an anti-smoking advertisement in The Star, but it was refused. Diamond alleged that The Star's refusal stemmed from an illegal agreement with tobacco companies, violating the Sherman Act, Robinson-Patman Act, and New York's Donnelly Act, along with a tortious breach of contract. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the absence of such an agreement. The court, presided over by District Judge Lasker, found no significant probative evidence of a conspiracy, dismissing Diamond's claims as speculative. The Robinson-Patman Act was deemed inapplicable to newspaper ads, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed with costs.

AntitrustSherman ActRobinson-Patman ActDonnelly ActSummary JudgmentRefusal to DealAdvertisingTobacco IndustryConspiracyContract Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

Glenn Wesby was injured while working on Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.'s premises, employed by Labor Express Temporary Services. He sued Act Pipe for negligence. Act Pipe sought summary judgment, arguing that Wesby's claims were barred by Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes under either the Staff Leasing Services Act or the borrowed servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wesby was Act Pipe’s borrowed servant and Act Pipe's workers’ compensation insurance applied, thus barring his common law claims, irrespective of whether notice of coverage was provided.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineStaff Leasing Services ActWorkers' Comp ExclusivityTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimsAppellate AffirmationEmployer Affirmative DefenseTexas Labor Law
References
28
Case No. Docket Entry No. 1
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2015

Dodds v. Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Keith Dodds, an at-will employee, was terminated by Terracon Consultants for his refusal to work a weekend shift, citing a U.S. Department of Transportation regulation regarding driving hours. Dodds initiated a wrongful discharge lawsuit against Terracon under Texas' Sabine Pilot doctrine, asserting he was fired solely for declining to perform an illegal act. Terracon sought summary judgment, contending that no illegal act was required and that Dodds had an alternative statutory remedy under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act. The court denied Terracon's motion, concluding that a genuine factual dispute exists regarding the nature of the employer's instruction and finding the STAA does not preclude the Sabine Pilot claim. The case is now set for a pretrial scheduling conference.

Wrongful DischargeAt-Will EmploymentSabine Pilot DoctrineDOT RegulationsHours of ServiceSurface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA)Summary JudgmentFactual DisputeStatutory RemedyPreemption
References
40
Case No. 14-12-00991-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Joseph Peine v. HIT Services L.P., Wood Group USA, Inc., John Wood Group PLC, Wood Group Power GP, LLC and Wood Group Management Services, Inc.

Joseph Peiner, a former CFO, sued his employer and related entities for wrongful termination, alleging he was fired for refusing to commit a crime (inflating profits). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees. On appeal, Peiner argued there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether his refusal was the sole cause of his termination, as required by the Sabine Pilot exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that the evidence conclusively proved Peiner was terminated, at least in part, for breaching his confidentiality duties by sending company documents to a reporter. The court rejected Peiner's arguments, emphasizing that Sabine Pilot requires the illegal act refusal to be the sole cause of termination and does not protect employees for reporting illegal activities.

Wrongful TerminationEmployment LawSabine Pilot ExceptionSummary JudgmentConfidentiality BreachWhistleblower ProtectionRetaliatory DischargeTexas Appellate CourtCorporate GovernanceFinancial Misconduct
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ed Rachal Foundation v. D'UNGER

Claude D’Unger sued his former employer, the Ed Rachal Foundation, and its CEO, Paul Altheide, alleging breach of contract, wrongful termination, and tortious interference with a contract. D’Unger claimed he was terminated for refusing to conceal alleged illegal activities involving the mistreatment of undocumented immigrants on the Foundation's ranch and Altheide's self-dealing. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on D’Unger’s wrongful termination claim against the Foundation, finding sufficient evidence that he was fired for refusing to perform an illegal act. However, the court reversed the breach of contract and tortious interference claims, as well as the award of attorney’s fees. Consequently, the case was affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part.

Employment LawWrongful TerminationBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceAt-Will EmploymentCorporate GovernanceIllegal Act RefusalLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyAppellate Review
References
84
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Symetra Life Insurance v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd.

This case involves the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) seeking a permanent injunction against Rapid Settlements, Ltd., a factoring company. NASP alleged that Rapid Settlements improperly uses arbitration and enforces rights of first refusal and security interests in structured settlement payment rights without state-court approval, thereby circumventing state Structured Settlement Protection Acts (SSPAs). The court found that Rapid Settlements' practices illegally circumvent the SSPAs, cloud title to annuitants' payment rights, raise transaction costs for NASP members, and place them at a competitive disadvantage. The court rejected Rapid Settlements' defenses, including preemption by the Federal Arbitration Act and an 'unclean hands' argument against NASP. The court granted NASP's application, permanently enjoining Rapid Settlements from using arbitration or enforcing unapproved rights of first refusal and security interests to effectuate transfers of structured settlement payment rights.

Structured SettlementsFactoring CompaniesAnnuity PaymentsArbitrationInjunctionState LawFederal LawStructured Settlement Protection ActsRights of First RefusalSecurity Interests
References
33
Case No. M2012-02423-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. City of Burns

Plaintiff Captain Larry D. Williams was discharged by the City of Burns after reporting his police chief, Jerry D. Sumerour, Jr., for pressuring him into illegally fixing a traffic ticket for the chief's stepson. The defendant municipality claimed Williams was terminated for violating the chain of command and undermining the chief's authority. The Tennessee Supreme Court found that disciplining Williams for reporting illegal activity to the mayor was an admission of retaliatory motive and that other reasons for termination were pretextual. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, concluding Williams was discharged solely in retaliation for refusing to participate in and remain silent about illegal activities under the Tennessee Public Protection Act.

Retaliatory DischargeWhistleblower ProtectionIllegal Ticket FixingChain of Command ViolationPolice Officer TerminationEmployment At-WillPublic Policy ExceptionPretext for RetaliationCausation in Employment LawMunicipal Employment
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nguyen v. Technical and Scientific Application, Inc.

Nguyen, a network engineer for TSA, refused to load software he believed violated federal criminal copyright laws. He was subsequently demoted and experienced intolerable working conditions, leading to his resignation in February 1997, which he considered a constructive discharge. Appellants (Nguyen) sued for wrongful termination under the Sabine Pilot exception, traditionally applied to employees fired for refusing an illegal act. The trial judge initially struck the claim and later granted summary judgment, asserting the Sabine Pilot exception did not apply to constructive discharges. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the Sabine Pilot exception extends to employees constructively discharged for refusing to commit a crime, thereby preventing employers from evading liability by coercing resignations.

Constructive DischargeWrongful TerminationSabine Pilot ExceptionEmployment-at-WillIllegal ActRefusal to Commit CrimeTexas LawAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentCopyright Infringement
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 8,262 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational