Paul was instructed by PB-KBB to perform a tradeoff ventilation study. Paul v. P.B.-K.B.B., Inc., 801 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied). By mid-July 1982, Paul had not completed the trade-off study and was transferred to the "interstructure" division of PB-KBB. During the first part of August 1982, Paul was discharged.
Id. The Sabine-Pilot exception does not apply when the wrongful motivation is a producing cause of rather than the sole reason for the discharge. See Paul v. P.B.-K.B.B., Inc., 801 S.W.2d 229, 230 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied). In other words, an employer who fires an employee both for refusing to perform an illegal act and for a legitimate reason cannot be liable for wrongful discharge under Sabine Pilot. See Tex. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629, 633 (Tex. 1995).
The Sabine Pilot exception does not apply when the wrongful motivation is a producing cause rather than the sole reason for the discharge. See Paul v. P.B.-K.B.B., Inc., 801 S.W.2d 229, 230 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied); see also Fitch v. Reliant Pharm., LLC, No. Civ.A.4:04-CV-615-Y, 2006 WL 325759 at *3 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (granting a summary judgment because defendant introduced evidence showing multiple reasons to fire plaintiff and no evidence that the sole cause for the firing was the refusal to participate in an illegal program). An employer who discharges an employee both for refusal to commit an illegal act and for a legitimate reason is not liable for wrongful termination.
Sabine Pilot is clearly a statement of public policy that an employee may not be discharged for the refusal to commit an illegal act. The common law of the State of Texas has continued to hold the line to this narrow exception.See Winters, 795 S.W.2d at 723; Hancock v. Express One Intern., Inc., 800 S.W.2d 634 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1990, writ denied); Burt v. City of Burkburnett, 800 S.W.2d 625 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1990, writ denied); Paul v. P.B.-K.B.B., Inc., 801 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied). The Texas Supreme Court's decision in McClendon, 779 S.W.2d at 69, reversed in Ingersoll-Rand v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 111 S.Ct. 478, 112 L.Ed.2d 474 (1990), was an attempt to expand the narrow public policy exception to hold that the at-will doctrine does not bar employees from recovering damages if they can prove that the employer fired them to avoid paying benefits under a pension plan.