Labor Code § 21.055 – Retaliation Prohibited (Protection from Retaliation)

Code Details

LABOR CODE

TITLE 2. PROTECTION OF LABORERS

SUBTITLE A. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

Exact Statute Text

Labor Code § 21.055 Summary

This specific section of the Texas Labor Code establishes that it is an illegal employment practice for an employer, labor union, or employment agency to take adverse action against an individual who engages in certain protected activities. These protected activities include opposing an act of discrimination, filing a formal charge or complaint, or participating in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing related to employment discrimination as outlined in Chapter 21 of the Labor Code. In essence, it aims to prevent an entity from punishing someone for standing up against or reporting discrimination.

Purpose of Labor Code § 21.055

The legislative intent behind this particular Texas Labor Code provision is to safeguard individuals who report or take action against employment discrimination. Without such protection, employees, union members, or job applicants might fear negative repercussions, such as termination, demotion, or blacklisting, if they challenge discriminatory practices. By prohibiting retaliation, the statute encourages individuals to come forward with legitimate complaints, thereby promoting a more equitable and lawful workplace environment. It acts as a crucial deterrent, ensuring that the mechanisms for reporting and investigating discrimination can function effectively without intimidation.

Real-World Example of Labor Code § 21.055

Consider the case of “Maria,” an employee at a marketing firm in Dallas, Texas. Maria observes that a colleague, “David,” is consistently passed over for promotions despite having superior qualifications and experience, seemingly due to his age. Maria decides to voice her concerns to the Human Resources department, alleging age discrimination on David’s behalf. Shortly after her conversation with HR, Maria’s supervisor, who was previously friendly and supportive, begins to unfairly criticize her work, excludes her from team meetings she would normally attend, and denies her a previously approved vacation request without a valid reason. If Maria can demonstrate that her supervisor’s actions were a direct consequence of her reporting the alleged age discrimination, she would have a strong claim for retaliation under Labor Code § 21.055. Her act of “opposing a discriminatory practice” (subdivision 1) is a protected activity, and the employer’s subsequent adverse actions would constitute unlawful retaliation.

Related Statutes

Because Labor Code § 21.055 explicitly refers to actions “under this chapter,” other sections within Labor Code Chapter 21 (Employment Discrimination) are directly related and crucial for context.

• Labor Code § 21.051 – Unlawful Employment Practices: This foundational statute defines what constitutes an unlawful discriminatory practice by an employer. It covers discrimination based on race, color, disability, religion, sex, national origin, and age. Section 21.055 protects those who oppose or report these practices.
• Labor Code § 21.002 – Policy and Purpose: This section outlines the state’s policy to secure freedom from discrimination in employment and identifies the broad objectives Chapter 21 aims to achieve.
• Labor Code § 21.201 et seq. – Administrative Review: These sections detail the process for filing complaints with the Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division (TWCCRD), the state agency responsible for enforcing Chapter 21. The protections of § 21.055 extend to individuals who “make or file a charge” or “file a complaint” under these procedures.

Case Law Interpreting Labor Code § 21.055

Texas courts have frequently interpreted and applied Labor Code § 21.055 to define the scope of prohibited retaliation.

One significant case is *Canutillo Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Kennedy*, 436 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.), which discussed the elements required for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under this statute. The court articulated that a plaintiff must prove (1) that they engaged in a protected activity, (2) that an adverse employment action occurred, and (3) that there was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action. This case, and others like it, provide vital guidance on what constitutes a protected activity and how causation can be demonstrated in retaliation claims.

For more information on cases interpreting this statute, you can explore search results for Canutillo Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Kennedy.

Why Labor Code § 21.055 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

While Labor Code § 21.055 primarily addresses employment law, its implications can significantly intersect with personal injury litigation, particularly when the retaliatory acts lead to substantial harm. Retaliation can inflict not only financial injury (e.g., lost wages, diminished earning capacity, career damage) but also severe emotional distress, mental anguish, and even physical symptoms stemming from stress and anxiety.

For a plaintiff in Texas, if the retaliatory actions by an employer cause demonstrable emotional or psychological harm, a personal injury attorney might evaluate whether these damages can be pursued. In some instances, the “injury” sustained due to the unlawful retaliation—such as post-traumatic stress, severe depression, or anxiety requiring medical treatment—can be characterized and compensated as personal injury damages, even within the context of an employment claim. Lawyers representing clients who have experienced such egregious retaliation often seek to recover damages for mental pain and suffering, which aligns closely with the types of non-economic damages sought in traditional personal injury cases. Understanding this statute is crucial for attorneys to properly assess the full spectrum of a client’s harm and to collaborate with employment law specialists, ensuring all avenues of recovery are explored for individuals who have suffered profoundly due to unlawful employer conduct.