Texas is an “at will” employment state.  The general rule is that employees are hired “at will” which means they can be fired at any time without good cause.  Of course we have both federal and state laws that prohibit terminating employment on the basis of certain protected characteristics, like race, sex, religion, age, disability.  But other than that, most employees in Texas serve at the pleasure of their employers.  Teachers with contracts are a notable exception to the general rule.

Another exception was created by the Texas Supreme Court in the case of Sabine Pilot, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985).  In the Sabine Pilot case our Supreme Court held that the employer may not fire an employee for refusing to perform an illegal act.

But a recent decision from Beaumont ISD demonstrates that the Sabine Pilot case does not mean the same thing in the public sector as it does in the private sector.  An at-will employee of a school district does not have the same protection as his or her counterpart in the private sector.  In the Beaumont case, Mr. George Thomas, Jr. asserted that the district fired him for refusing to perform an illegal act.  He alleged that the district was keeping false records regarding student attendance. He alleged that he refused to go along with this, and for this he got canned.

Is this a valid claim under the Sabine Pilot case? We will never know. The district filed a “Plea to the Jurisdiction” asserting that the court should dismiss the case from the get-go because the court had no jurisdiction.  BISD pointed out that it enjoyed governmental immunity—immunity from suit, not just from liability—and this claim was barred by that immunity.

The state district court did not agree with that, but the Court of Appeals did.  Citing six earlier cases, the court held that Sabine Pilot did not waive BISD’s governmental immunity.  Indeed, governmental immunity can only be waived by the legislature—not a court.  Thus in practical terms, the Sabine Pilot case means that a private employer cannot fire someone for refusing to perform an illegal act.  As for a governmental employer….no liability for doing the same thing.

The case of Beaumont ISD v. Thomas was decided by the Court of Appeals in Beaumont on January 28, 2016.

DAWG BONE: “AT WILL” IN AN ISD IS MORE “AT WILL” THAN IT IS AT WAL-MART.

I’ve heard people say it.  I’ve heard lawyers say it. You’ve heard it too.  It goes like this: “An at-will employee can be terminated for good reasons, bad reasons or no reason at all.”

Don’t believe it.

The statement does have a good pedigree.  The Texas Supreme Court discussed at-will employment in the case of Matagorda County Hospital District v. Burwell, 189 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. 2006).  The court actually said that the at-will employee could be let go for “good cause, bad cause or no cause at all.”

But I still say don’t believe it.

First of all, no one is ever let go for no reason.  Just imagine calling in to your office the custodian who has worked for your district for 17 years and telling her, “we are letting you go.  No reason for it—I just decided to fire you.”  I don’t think you are going to do that.

People are terminated from employment for a reason. There is always a reason.  And even though the Texas Supreme Court says that at-will folks can be terminated for “bad reasons” you have to keep in mind that some reasons are so bad that they are illegal.  If an employee is terminated because of his or her race, or gender, or disability or age, or for some other reason that violates federal law or state law, the employee has avenues of legal recourse.

The more accurate thing to say is this: at-will employees can be terminated without “good cause.” They can be terminated for any job-related reason that is non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory and does not violate state or federal law.

DAWG BONE: YOU CAN’T REALLY FIRE SOMEONE FOR “NO REASON AT ALL.”