PJC Business

E MPLOYMENT

PJC 107.3

PJC 107.3

Question on Wrongful Discharge for Refusing to Perform an Illegal Act

QUESTION ______ Was Paul Payne discharged for the sole reason that he refused to perform an illegal act? As used in this question, an “illegal act” means any of the following: [Insert appropriate instructions.] Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. PJC 107.3 should be used for a claim that the employee was dis charged for the sole reason that he refused to perform an illegal act. Source of question. PJC 107.3 is derived from Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck , 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. 1985). See Ed Rachal Foundation v. D’Unger , 207 S.W.3d 330 (Tex. 2006) ( Sabine Pilot protects employees who are asked to commit a crime, not those who are asked not to report one). Burt v. City of Burkburnett , 800 S.W.2d 625, 627 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1990, writ denied), interpreted Sabine Pilot ’s use of the word “refused” to include a requirement that the employer, in some manner, must order, require, or request the employee to commit an illegal act. Broad-form submission. PJC 107.3 is a broad-form question designed to be accompanied by one or more appropriate instructions. Tex. R. Civ. P. 277 requires that “the court shall, whenever feasible, submit the cause upon broad-form questions.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 277; see Thota v. Young , 366 S.W.3d 678, 689 (Tex. 2012) (rule 277’s use of “whenever feasible” mandates broad-form submission in any or every instance in which it is capable of being accomplished). For further discussion, see PJC116.2 regarding broad-form issues and the Casteel doctrine. Illegal act. The trial court should make a threshold determination as a matter of law whether the act the employee refused to commit was illegal. In Hancock v. Express One International, Inc. , 800 S.W.2d 634, 636–37 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990, writ denied), the court refused to extend the Sabine Pilot exception to illegal acts that carry only civil penalties.

299