Law.com Features a Landmark Texas Employment Law Decision: ‘Sabine Pilots v. Hauck’ by Greg Thompson

---

It was early morning at Provost & Umphrey, and like many days, I showed up before 7:00 a.m., hoping to catch our boss, the legendary Walter Umphrey, over coffee before the workday began. That day, he had a client he wanted me to see: Michael Hauck, a deckhand who had been fired for refusing to perform an illegal act. I had just enough time to review the law on at-will employment. In Texas, for over 100 years an employer could fire an employee for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all as long as the termination didn’t violate a statutory exception. It was harsh, it was employer-friendly, and on paper, it seemed like Michael didn’t stand a chance.

Michael’s story was compelling. He worked on a Sabine Pilot boat in Port Arthur, Texas. This was a physically grueling job that involved operating winches, securing mooring lines, and helping ferry pilots to the oil tankers get safely into port. One of his tasks, assigned in the dead of night, was to pump bilge oil into the Sabine Ship Channel. We viewed this as a clear violation of federal law. A Coast Guard placard in the engine room warned that putting oil in the waterways was illegal. Michael spoke up, called the Coast Guard, and confirmed that the activity was illegal. When he refused, he was promptly fired. The defendant denied that this was the reason he was fired.

I explained to Walter the bleak reality: Texas law offered almost no protection for at-will employees like Michael. He wasn’t in a protected class, and courts had long upheld employers’ absolute discretion. Walter didn’t flinch. “Go change the effing law,” he said. That was my enormous assignment. I had been practicing law for just over a year. But I had a mentor who believed in doing what was right, and a client who deserved justice.

Taking on the Lawsuit

We filed the case in 1983. The defense was formidable. They had a powerhouse law firm representing the Sabine Pilots, including a state senator and one of the most connected lawyers between Houston and New Orleans. Preparing Michael for his deposition was a delicate task. Maritime workers can be rough around the edges, and I needed him to tell his story clearly without overexplaining. They crossed him thoroughly, but he stood his ground.

The defense moved for summary judgment, arguing that the reason for Michael’s firing was irrelevant. The law said they could fire him for any reason. I countered with fairness and public policy, pointing out that the at-will doctrine was a creature of common law and that courts could and should correct an injustice. District Judge Ron Walker looked at me and said, “Greg, it may be wrong, but Texas law says they can do this.” We lost, and I had to deliver the news to Michael. Walter’s response was simple: “Reverse him.”

Appeal to the Ninth Court of Appeals

I loved the intellectual challenge of appeals, the preparation, the thrill of standing before judges and arguing why justice demanded change. At the Beaumont 9th Court of Appeals, I told the judges: “I am going to ask you to do something that hasn’t been done in 100 years; change this unjust law and protect workers who follow the law.” I cited emerging trends from other states, legal scholarship criticizing the rigid at-will doctrine, and the fundamental unfairness of firing someone for obeying the law.

The Court ruled in our favor. Chief Judge Martin Dies wrote a short opinion, but it resonated with common sense: firing an employee for following the law was inherently wrong. Our victory was small but powerful; of course they appealed.

The Texas Supreme Court

Walking into the Supreme Court in Austin was awe-inspiring. I was nervous, but ready. The Justices loomed large on the bench. I was looking up at Chief Justice John Hill, and Justices Kilgarlin, Spears, Ray, Wallace, Robertson, McGee, Campbell, and Gonzales. Across the aisle, the state senator forcefully argued that the legislature, not the courts, should address employment at will law. My mind raced: the legislature hadn’t acted for 100 years. Why wait on them now?

I argued that no employee should face a Hobson’s choice: break the law or lose their job. I urged the Court to recognize a narrow public policy exception to the at-will doctrine: an employee cannot be terminated for refusing to engage in illegal conduct. This wasn’t about creating a “just cause” standard; it was about fairness, lawfulness, and public policy.

The Justices questioned, challenged, and pushed back. Justice Robertson asked if this would create a hollow victory for employers forced to defend against lawsuits. I responded with sincerity: “I don’t think it’s a hollow victory when one wins a lawsuit.” I addressed every hypothetical about Michael’s work performance and reminded the Court that summary judgment standard required taking his allegations as true.

Weeks later, the opinion arrived. My hands shook as I read Justice Wallace’s words. The Texas Supreme Court had done something extraordinary: they had created a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine. Employers could no longer fire an employee solely for refusing to perform an illegal act. Justice Kilgarlin’s concurrence was equally striking, noting that absolute at-will employment was a relic of early industrial times and that the Court had a duty to update it to reflect contemporary societal values.

The Impact

The decision was transformative. Sabine Pilots v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex.1985) is still good law today, cited by hundreds of courts across Texas and other states. Beyond citations, it changed the way employers approached employee conduct. Workers now had a clear legal shield against being forced into illegal acts, and employers knew the law would hold them accountable.

For me, the case was deeply personal. Michael Hauck’s courage, Walter Umphrey’s mentorship, and the Court’s vision aligned to create something lasting. It felt like my glory days, a once-in-a-career victory where justice, law, and morality converged. The celebration at the office was unforgettable. Manhattans all around as we toasted to justice served.

Lessons Learned

The story of Sabine Pilots v. Hauck is more than legal history; it’s a testament to standing up for what is right. Michael Hauck risked his livelihood to follow the law. I had the privilege of helping to correct a century-old injustice. Walter Umphrey’s guidance reminded me that sometimes, doing the right thing means taking on the impossible.

Looking back, I realize that my role in Sabine Pilots v. Hauck shaped not only the law but also my understanding of what it means to be an advocate. It taught me that standing up for one person, one deckhand, can ripple across decades, affecting hundreds, maybe thousands, of lives. Those were my glory days, and I will never forget them.

Greg Thompson is board certified in personal injury trial law and appellate law. He is a highly sought-after mediator who specializes in complex cancer cases, major business disputes, trucking litigation, and first-party fire, storm, wind, and hail claims. His email is gmthompson@mac.com.