Yes, but only in a narrow situation. Under Sabine Pilot, Texas law lets you sue an employer that fired you for the sole reason that you refused to perform an illegal act. That means an act that would break a state or federal law carrying criminal penalties. The Texas Supreme Court created what’s now called the Sabine Pilot exception in 1985 in Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck. You carry the burden of proving that your refusal, and nothing else, is why you lost your job.
Outside that exception, Texas employment law follows the at-will rule. A job with no fixed term can generally be ended at will and for any reason. That’s why this exception, and its limits, matter so much. Here’s what the case says, what you’d have to prove, and where the line falls between refusing to break the law and reporting someone who did.
What did the Texas Supreme Court decide in Sabine Pilot v. Hauck?
It created a narrow exception to at-will employment for employees fired for refusing to break the law. Michael Hauck worked as a deckhand for Sabine Pilot Service. He testified that one of his daily duties was to pump the bilges of his boat. A placard on board said pumping bilges into the water was illegal, so he called the United States Coast Guard. An officer confirmed it was illegal, and Hauck refused. He said the company fired him for refusing. The company said it fired him for refusing to swab the deck, man a radio watch and other derelictions of duty.
Texas courts had followed the at-will rule since an 1888 decision, East Line & R.R.R. Co. v. Scott. In the Sabine Pilot opinion, issued April 3, 1985, the Court noted that 22 states had carved out exceptions over the prior 30 years. It then held 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 at-will doctrine. That exception covers only a firing for the sole reason that the employee refused to perform an illegal act.
The Court didn’t decide whether Hauck’s version was true. It held that his allegation stated a claim, so his case went back for trial.
Can I sue my employer for firing me for refusing to break the law?
You can if your facts fit the Sabine Pilot exception. A Sabine Pilot claim is a wrongful termination lawsuit, and the Texas Supreme Court has described it as a cause of action for retaliatory discharge. It comes from a court decision, not a statute, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to widen it.
The fit is narrow in three ways. What you were asked to do has to be illegal under a law with criminal penalties. You have to have refused. And the refusal has to be the only reason for the firing. Being treated unfairly isn’t enough by itself. Neither is a petty or unexplained firing, which at-will employment allows.
If your situation doesn’t fit, other legal protections may still apply, and the broader rules on wrongful termination in Texas are the next place to look.
What do you have to prove in a Sabine Pilot claim?
Drawn from the 1985 holding and later Supreme Court cases, you must show:
- Your employer asked or required you to commit an illegal act.
- The act would violate a state or federal law that carries criminal penalties.
- You refused to commit it.
- Your employer fired you.
- Your refusal was the sole reason you were fired.
You prove all of it by a preponderance of the evidence, which means more likely true than not. The 1985 opinion put that burden on the employee: it’s “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.” In practice, you’re proving a negative. You have to show there was no other reason, not just that the refusal was one of them.
Why does the sole reason requirement matter so much?
Because a mixed motive ends the claim. In Texas Department of Human Services v. Hinds (1995), the Supreme Court said it plainly: “An employer who discharges an employee both for refusing to perform an illegal act and for a legitimate reason or reasons cannot be liable for wrongful discharge.” The Court described Sabine Pilot as imposing “a very strict standard of causation.”
Hinds arose under the Texas Whistleblower Act, and the Court used Sabine Pilot as the contrast. Under the Act, the Court held, a public employee’s report need not be the employer’s sole motivation. It’s enough that without the report, the employer’s action “would not have occurred when it did.” A Sabine Pilot plaintiff gets no such room.
Look at how Hauck’s own case started. The employer’s answer was a list of other reasons: the deck, the radio watch, other derelictions of duty. In a case like yours, expect the employer’s file to point to something similar, such as a late arrival, a missed task or a write-up. The fight is usually over whether those reasons were real, or whether they showed up only after you said no. Testing those reasons against the timeline and the paper trail is the core work of a Texas retaliation attorney.
What counts as an illegal act under the Sabine Pilot exception?
An illegal act, for Sabine Pilot purposes, is one that would violate a state or federal law carrying criminal penalties. The test is about criminal penalties, not about what feels wrong. An order that’s unethical, unfair or against company policy doesn’t meet it on that basis alone.
The Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Safeshred, Inc. v. Martinez shows what a qualifying refusal can look like. Louis Martinez drove a commercial truck. A Department of Public Safety officer cited him for numerous violations, including improperly secured cargo, and told him not to drive the truck again until the defects were fixed. Safeshred kept asking him to haul loads he believed were still illegally secured. On October 17, 2007, after he took his concerns up the chain of command, he was told to drive the truck or go home. He went home, and Safeshred fired him.
The line runs the other way, too. In Ed Rachal Foundation v. D’Unger (2006), the Court wrote: “Sabine Pilot protects employees who are asked to commit a crime, not those who are asked not to report one.” D’Unger had been told to drop his concerns about a ranch foreman. He was never asked to do anything criminal himself, and the Court rendered judgment that he take nothing.
Is an employee who reports a crime covered by Sabine Pilot?
Not by itself. The Sabine Pilot exception covers refusing to commit a crime, and reporting someone else’s crime is a different thing under Texas law. The Ed Rachal opinion noted that the Court had twice rejected invitations to create common law claims for all whistleblowers, in Winters v. Houston Chronicle (1990) and Austin v. HealthTrust (1998). It chose to defer to the Legislature’s narrower whistleblower statutes instead.
If you work for a state agency, county, city, public school district or other governmental entity, the statute to read is Chapter 554 of the Texas Government Code, the Whistleblower Act. It bars a governmental employer from suspending, firing or taking other adverse personnel action against a public employee for a protected report. That’s a good faith report of a violation of law by the employing entity or another public employee to an appropriate law enforcement authority.
Its deadlines are tight, and the causation rule is looser than Sabine Pilot’s. If the firing comes within 90 days after the report, the law presumes, subject to rebuttal, that the report caused it.
| Rule | Sabine Pilot | Whistleblower Act |
|---|---|---|
| Protected conduct | Refusing to commit an illegal act | A good faith report of a violation of law |
| Who is covered | An employee fired for the refusal | A public employee |
| Causation | Refusal must be the sole reason | Report need not be the sole reason |
| Deadline | A short deadline applies | Grievance within 90 days; suit within 90 days, excluding grievance time |
Hauck called the Coast Guard before refusing, and that raises an open question. Texas appellate courts have disagreed about whether Sabine Pilot also protects an employee fired for asking law enforcement whether an order was legal. The Supreme Court noted that split in Ed Rachal and expressly left it undecided.
What damages can a Sabine Pilot claim recover?
The 1985 opinion didn’t address damages. Safeshred did. The Court held that a Sabine Pilot claim sounds in tort, not contract, and that punitive damages are available with a showing of malice surrounding the firing.
Martinez’s own case shows how demanding that proof is. The jury awarded $7,569.18 in lost wages, $10,000 for mental anguish and $250,000 in exemplary damages, which the trial judge cut to $200,000 under the statutory cap. The court of appeals found the mental anguish evidence factually insufficient. The Supreme Court then reversed the exemplary award for legally insufficient evidence of malice and affirmed in all other respects. Every case turns on its own evidence.
What should you do after being fired for refusing to commit a crime?
Start building the record while your memory is fresh. Hauck’s claim rested on his testimony about the placard and the Coast Guard call. Martinez’s rested on a DPS citation and his warnings up the chain of command. You need the same detail:
- Write down the order: who gave it, when, the words used and who else heard it.
- Note the law you believed it would break and how you learned that.
- Keep the texts, emails, schedules, citations and pay records you already have.
- List every reason your employer has given for the termination, and when each one first appeared.
A short deadline applies to Sabine Pilot claims, and public employees under Chapter 554 face the 90-day limits above.
If you were fired after refusing to break the law, talk with the employment team at Key Trial Lawyers about whether your facts fit Sabine Pilot, the Whistleblower Act or another retaliation rule. We’ll look at the order you refused, the law behind it and every reason your employer has offered since.
Frequently asked questions
What is a Sabine Pilot claim in Texas?
It’s a wrongful termination lawsuit based on Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck (1985). It lets an employee sue if the employer fired them for the sole reason that they refused to perform an act that would violate a law carrying criminal penalties. It’s the Texas Supreme Court’s narrow exception to at-will employment.
What does it mean that Texas is an at-will state?
It means a job with no fixed term can generally be ended by the employer at will and for any reason. The rule dates to an 1888 Texas Supreme Court decision. Statutes and the Sabine Pilot exception carve out specific reasons an employer can’t use.
Do I have to be asked to break the law myself?
Generally, yes. The Supreme Court has said Sabine Pilot protects employees asked to commit a crime, not employees asked not to report one. The Court noted the exception could reach a whistleblower only if failing to report would itself be a criminal act.
What if my employer says I was fired for poor performance?
Then the case turns on whether that reason is real. Under Sabine Pilot, an employer that fired you both for refusing to commit an illegal act and for a legitimate reason can’t be liable. You’d need evidence that the stated reason wasn’t a true reason for the firing, such as timing, records or how others were treated.
Can you get punitive damages in a Sabine Pilot case?
Yes, with the right proof. In 2012 the Texas Supreme Court held in Safeshred, Inc. v. Martinez that the claim sounds in tort and allows punitive damages on a showing of malice surrounding the firing. In that case, it reversed a punitive award because the malice evidence was legally insufficient.
How long do I have to bring a Sabine Pilot claim?
Not long. A short deadline applies, so it’s worth getting your facts reviewed soon after the firing. If you were a public employee and you reported a violation of law, the Whistleblower Act’s separate 90-day deadlines and grievance requirement apply.
