Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck

Citation687 S.W.2d 733
Decision Date03 April 1985
Docket NumberNo. C-3312,C-3312
Parties119 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2187, 102 Lab.Cas. P 55,493, 1 IER Cases 733 SABINE PILOT SERVICE, INC., Petitioner, v. Michael Andrew HAUCK, Respondent.
CourtSupreme Court of Texas

Orgain, Bell & Tucker, Gilbert I. Low and Robert J. Hambright, Beaumont, Long, Parker, Doyle & Cichowaki, Carl A. Parker, Port Arthur, for petitioner.

Provost, Umphrey, McPherson & Swearingen, Greg Thompson, Port Arthur, for respondent.

WALLACE, Justice.

This is a suit for wrongful discharge brought by an employee, Michael Andrew Hauck. The trial court rendered summary judgment for Sabine Pilot Service, Inc., the employer. The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause for trial. 672 S.W.2d 322. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Hauck was a deckhand for Sabine. He testified in deposition that he was instructed that one of his duties each day was to pump the bilges of the boat on which he worked. He observed a placard posted on the boat which stated that it was illegal to pump the bilges into the water. He called the United States Coast Guard and an officer confirmed that pumping bilges into the water was illegal; therefore, he refused to do so. He further testified that he was fired for refusing to illegally pump the bilges into the water.

Sabine testified through one of its officers that Hauck was discharged because he refused to swab the deck, man a radio watch and other derelictions of duty.

In reviewing the granting of a summary judgment we must accept as true the non-movant's version of the evidence and make every reasonable inference in the non-movant's favor. Gulbenkian v. Penn, 151 Tex. 412, 252 S.W.2d 929 (1952). To sustain the summary judgment the movant must establish as a matter of law that no genuine issue of material fact exists. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1979).

The sole issue for our determination is whether an allegation by an employee that he was discharged for refusing to perform an illegal act states a cause of action. This court in East Line & R.R.R. Co. v. Scott, 72 Tex. 70, 75, 10 S.W. 99, 102 (1888), held that employment for an indefinite term may be terminated at will and without cause. The courts of Texas have steadfastly refused to vary from that holding. However, in the last 30 years the courts of 22 states have made exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine and numerous commentators have advocated exceptions to the doctrine. The exceptions advocated by the commentators and adopted by various courts range from very liberal and broad exceptions to very narrow and closely defined ones. See Comment, The At-Will Doctrine: A Proposal to Modify the Texas Employment Relationship, 36 Baylor L.Rev. 667 (1984) for a thorough discussion of the reasoning and decisions of other states concerning this issue.

Sabine contends that any exception to the employment-at-will doctrine should be statutorily created. The Legislature has created exceptions to this doctrine. TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 8307c (discharge for filing a worker's compensation claim); TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 5207a (discharge based on union membership or nonmembership); TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 5765 § 7A (discharge because of active duty in the State Military Forces); TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 5207b (discharge because of jury service); TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 5221k § 1.02, Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (discharge based on race, color, handicap, religion, national origin, age or sex). Although the Legislature has created those exceptions to the doctrine, this court is free to judicially amend a judicially created doctrine.

Upon careful consideration of the changes in American society and in the employer/employee relationship during the intervening 97 years since the East Line & R.R.R. Co. v. Scott decision, we hold that the situation which led to that decision has changed in certain respects. We now hold that public policy, as expressed in the laws of this state and the United States which carry criminal penalties, requires a very narrow exception to the employment-at-will doctrine announced in East Line & R.R.R. Co. v. Scott. That narrow exception covers only the discharge of an employee for the sole reason that the employee refused to perform an illegal act. We further hold that in the trial of such a case 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.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

KILGARLIN, J., files a concurring opinion in which RAY, J., joins.

KILGARLIN, Justice, concurring.

I concur with this judgment which gives Michael Hauck an opportunity to prove to a trier of fact that he was discharged for refusing to violate a law. Moreover, I heartily applaud the court's acknowledgement of the vital need for a public policy exception to the employment at will doctrine. Absolute employment at will is a relic of early industrial times, conjuring up visions of the sweat shops described by Charles Dickens and his contemporaries. The doctrine belongs in a museum, not in our law. As it was a judicially promulgated doctrine, this court has the burden and the duty of amending it to reflect social and economic changes. Our duty to update this doctrine is particularly urgent when the doctrine is used as leverage to incite violations of our state and federal laws. Allowing an employer to require an employee to break a law or face termination cannot help but promote a thorough disrespect for the laws and legal institutions of our society.

The court admittedly carves out but one exception to employment at will, but I do not fault the court for the singleness of its exception. The issue before the court was whether a cause of action existed under this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
389 cases
  • Haigh v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • December 28, 1987
    ... ... that Haigh had applied for employment with Luskin's, Inc., but that "Luskin's would not give him the time of day." ... In Exhibitors' Service, Inc. v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 788 F.2d 574, 580 ... 's request to ask for excuse from jury duty); Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex.1985) ... ...
  • Norris v. Housing Authority of City of Galveston
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • November 3, 1997
    ... ... See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 ... employees are presumed to be hired "at-will." See Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 734 ... ...
  • Patton v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • December 21, 1995
    ... ... See id. at 253 (citing Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex.1985)). Accordingly, there is no evidence in ... ...
  • Farias v. Bexar County Bd. of Trustees for Mental Health Mental Retardation Services
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • March 11, 1991
    ... ... Mangum, David Garcia, Jr., Mangum & White, Inc., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant ...         "Within ten days after service of the notice of filing of the removal petition" Farias was ... Information Sys., 793 F.2d 113, 114 (5th Cir.1986); Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 734 (Tex.1985) ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 books & journal articles
  • Constructive Discharge
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2017 Part I. The employment relationship
    • August 9, 2017
    ...he was constructively discharged in violation of the Sabine Pilot doctrine. The Sabine Pilot case ( Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck , 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985)) created an exception to the at-will doctrine; it held that employers are prohibited from firing an employee who refuses to perf......
  • Summary Judgment Practice
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2017 Part VIII. Selected litigation issues
    • August 19, 2017
    ...an employment contract, and that the plainti൵ is an at-will employee. D. Sൺൻංඇൾ Pංඅඈඍ Eඑർൾඉඍංඈඇ In Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck , 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985), the Texas Supreme Court recognized a very narrow exception to the employment-at-will doctrine, covering the discharge of an empl......
  • Wrongful Discharge
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2017 Part I. The employment relationship
    • August 9, 2017
    ...sense Texas law does not recognize a separate, distinct cause of action for “wrongful discharge.” See Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck , 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985). See generally Ch. 1 (Employment Relationship Defined). This chapter discusses those situations in which a promise or contract......
  • Wrongful Discharge
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2016 Part I. The Employment Relationship
    • July 27, 2016
    ...sense Texas law does not recognize a separate, distinct cause of action for “wrongful discharge.” See Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985). See generally Ch. 1 (Employment Relationship This chapter discusses those situations in which a promise or contract—express or......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT