Butler v. Collins: Chapter 21 Doesn’t Immunize Individual Employees

Cheryl Butler joined Southern Methodist University (SMU) as an assistant law professor in 2011. Following her third-year review, SMU renewed her contract, and she became eligible for tenure consideration in fall 2015. Butler requested an extension of the tenure vote due to illness, which was denied, though she was later granted Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave for spring 2016.

Butler’s tenure committee, chaired by Professor Roy Anderson, issued a report stating she met tenure standards in scholarship and service but not in teaching. In January 2016, the law faculty voted against recommending her for tenure. Appeals to Dean Jennifer Collins and Provost Stephen Currall were unsuccessful, making the denial final. Butler completed the 2016–2017 academic year under a terminal contract but did not teach classes.

Butler filed suit against SMU and several employees, alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title IX, and the FMLA. She also brought state claims under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code and common law claims including breach of contract, negligent supervision, defamation, conspiracy to defame, and fraud.

The defamation and fraud claims were based on statements in the tenure committee’s report and related discussions. Butler alleged she was falsely accused of lying about her illness, turning in grades late, misleading students, and being unfit to practice law or teach. She claimed these statements and subsequent concealment efforts were part of a scheme that led to her denial of tenure.

Federal Court Proceedings

In federal court, the defendants moved to dismiss several claims. The district court dismissed the negligent supervision, defamation, conspiracy to defame, and fraud claims, holding they were preempted by Chapter 21 under the Texas Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Waffle House v. Williams. It allowed Butler’s Title VII, § 1981, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, Title IX, and FMLA claims to proceed. Later, the court granted summary judgment against Butler on those remaining claims. Butler appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

The Fifth Circuit certified a question to the Texas Supreme Court, asking whether Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code preempts common law defamation and fraud claims against employees when those claims arise from the same conduct as statutory discrimination and retaliation claims against the employer.

Texas Supreme Court Review

The Texas Supreme Court examined whether Chapter 21 displaced an employee’s right to sue other employees for tortious conduct such as defamation and fraud. The Court distinguished between claims against employers and claims against individual employees. It reaffirmed that Chapter 21 provides the exclusive remedy against employers for workplace discrimination and retaliation. However, the Court held that Chapter 21 does not extend to immunize individual employees from liability for their own tortious acts.

The Court reasoned that longstanding common law causes of action, such as defamation and fraud, remain available against coworkers, even if the alleged misconduct overlaps with discrimination claims against the employer. The Court emphasized that while plaintiffs cannot recover twice for the same injury, Chapter 21 does not bar separate tort claims against employees when those claims are recognized under common law.

Court’s Decision

On May 23, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court answered the certified question from the Fifth Circuit by ruling that Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code does not preempt common law defamation and fraud claims against employees, even if those claims are based on the same conduct underlying a statutory claim against the employer.

Labor and Employment Legal Support

If you have experienced workplace issues involving discrimination, retaliation, or disputes over employment rights, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC assists with labor and employment matters. Reach out to contact us to learn how our team can help with your employment law needs.