Wrongful Termination Lawyer Austin: What Has to Be True for a Claim to Exist

A wrongful termination lawyer Austin workers consult after a firing usually starts somewhere other than fairness. The opening questions are threshold questions. There are four, they come in order, and a claim that fails any one does not exist — however badly the firing was handled. Texas has no general rule against unjust dismissal. It has a short list of reasons an employer may not fire you for, and each reason carries its own proof standard and its own clock.

The four questions a wrongful termination lawyer Austin workers meet will ask

Who is your employer. What were you fired for. Was that reason the only reason. Which deadline governs. Each question narrows the field, and the order is not decorative. Question one can end the analysis before question two is reached.

Question one: is your employer public or private?

The Texas Whistleblower Act, Chapter 554 of the Government Code, is the statute readers have most often heard of and the one most of them cannot use. Section 554.002(a) says a “state or local governmental entity may not suspend or terminate the employment of, or take other adverse personnel action against, a public employee who in good faith reports a violation of law by the employing governmental entity or another public employee to an appropriate law enforcement authority.”

Look at the subject of that sentence. It is a governmental entity. Section 554.001(4) defines a public employee as someone “paid to perform services for a state or local governmental entity,” independent contractors excluded.

A worker at a private Austin company therefore has no Chapter 554 claim. Not a weak one — none. That fork is invisible to most people who report wrongdoing and lose a job. It goes first for a reason.

Question two: what were you fired for?

Private-sector claims come from categories the Legislature or the courts have actually named. Four are statutory. The fifth comes from a 1985 Texas Supreme Court decision. A wrongful termination lawyer Austin employees hire works down that list, not down a list of grievances.

Section 21.055 of the Labor Code makes it an unlawful employment practice when an employer “retaliates or discriminates against a person who, under this chapter: (1) opposes a discriminatory practice; (2) makes or files a charge; (3) files a complaint; or (4) testifies, assists, or participates in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing.” The protected thing is the complaint itself.

Section 451.001 says a person “may not discharge or in any other manner discriminate against an employee because the employee has: (1) filed a workers’ compensation claim in good faith; (2) hired a lawyer to represent the employee in a claim; (3) instituted or caused to be instituted in good faith a proceeding under Subtitle A; or (4) testified or is about to testify in a proceeding under Subtitle A.” Hiring a lawyer sits on that list by itself. Most people assume only the claim counts.

Jury service, printed twice

Chapter 122 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code protects jurors, and it does so twice over. Section 122.001 prints two versions that were never harmonized. Both took effect September 1, 2019, and each cross-references the other. The S.B. 370 version reads: an “employer may not discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce any permanent employee because the employee serves as a juror.” The H.B. 504 version reads: a “private employer may not terminate the employment of a permanent employee because the employee serves as a juror or grand juror.”

They are not the same rule. One reaches threats and coercion. The other is narrower on conduct and explicit about private employers. Both are on the books. Section 122.002 provides damages of one to five years’ compensation plus attorney’s fees.

State military service

Section 437.204 of the Government Code bars terminating an employee who is a member of the state military forces “because the employee is ordered to authorized training or duty by a proper authority.” A violation is an unlawful employment practice. The injured person may complain to the Texas Workforce Commission civil rights division under Subchapter I.

Question three: was it the sole reason, or merely a reason?

The fifth category is not statutory, and it is the one that fails most often. Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck describes itself in the language of limits: “That narrow exception covers only the discharge of an employee for the sole reason that the employee refused to perform an illegal act.” The public policy behind it lives in “the laws of this state and the United States which carry criminal penalties.” So the act refused has to carry criminal penalties. Merely unethical instructions do not fit.

Then comes the harder half. The court put the burden on the employee: “it is the plaintiff’s burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his discharge was for no reason other than his refusal to perform an illegal act.” No reason other than. Not a substantial reason, not a motivating factor — the only one.

An employer who can point to a documented performance problem alongside the refusal is arguing about the word “sole.” Under Sabine Pilot, the employee carries that argument.

Question four: the clock a wrongful termination lawyer Austin claim runs against

Here the theories stop resembling one another, because each keeps its own deadline.

Chapter 554 is the shortest. Section 554.005 requires suit “not later than the 90th day” after the violation occurred or was discovered through reasonable diligence. Section 554.006 adds a step. Grievance or appeal procedures must be invoked by the 90th day too, and if no final decision arrives before the 61st day after they start, the employee may exhaust them and sue within 30 days.

Chapter 21 runs on a different scale. A complaint to the Texas Workforce Commission civil rights division must be filed “not later than the 180th day after the date the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” The federal window is longer. The EEOC states the limit as 180 calendar days, “extended to 300 calendar days if a state or local agency enforces a law that prohibits employment discrimination on the same basis.” That division enforces such a law. Section 21.256 then caps everything at two years from the complaint date.

Chapter 122 is the plainest. Section 122.002(c) requires the damages action “not later than the second anniversary of the date on which the person served as a juror or grand juror.”

Chapter 451 is the strange one. It states no limitations period anywhere on its face. The two-year figure repeated everywhere is judicial gloss borrowing the general limitations statute, not a number the workers’ compensation chapter itself sets out.

What a wrongful termination lawyer Austin workers hire cannot change

Local rules will not lengthen that list. Labor Code section 1.005, added by H.B. 2127 in 2023, says a municipality or county “may not adopt, enforce, or maintain an ordinance, order, or rule regulating conduct in a field of regulation that is occupied by a provision of this code.” Employment leave, hiring practices, breaks, benefits and scheduling are named as occupied fields. A 2025 Texas Third Court of Appeals decision reversed a challenge to that law on standing grounds, without reaching the merits. Austin saw the narrower version earlier: its 2018 paid sick leave ordinance was held preempted by the Texas Minimum Wage Act, review was declined in 2020, and it never took effect.

The bottom line

Two of the four questions do most of the killing. The sole-reason rule ends cases where the employer has any second story to tell. The deadlines end cases where the answer was right and the calendar was not. Ninety days under Chapter 554 can pass before many people finish being angry. Chapter 451 cuts the other way. A statute that names no deadline still has one, borrowed from elsewhere, and nothing in the text warns you.

Keep reading: Wrongful Termination Arizona: The Narrow Legal Definition and At Will Employment Arizona: What It Means and Its Real Exceptions.

---

This article is general information about Texas wrongful termination law and is not legal advice. Statutes and deadlines change, and the facts of a particular termination matter a great deal. For guidance on your own situation, consult a licensed Texas attorney.

More guides on Employment Law

• Workplace Discrimination Lawyer Austin: Which Agency, and What Changes If It’s Harassment
• Can Your Employer Change Your Job Duties Without Telling You?
• At Will Employment Arizona: What It Means and Its Real Exceptions
• Can You Get Fired for a Social Media Post?
• Wrongful Termination Arizona: The Narrow Legal Definition
• Employee or Independent Contractor? How to Tell Which You Are

All Employment Law guides →