Alvarado v. CITGO Petroleum Corporation – 25-40455 – Mar 4, 2026
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Alvarado’s claims against CITGO, holding that he failed to state any viable cause of action. The court concluded that his discrimination, retaliation, and workers’ compensation retaliation claims failed because he was an independent contractor—not an employee—during the relevant period, placing him outside the protection of those statutes. It also found that his Rehabilitation Act claim lacked sufficient factual allegations and was unsupported by the record. Additionally, the court noted that Alvarado effectively abandoned his claims by conceding key issues and failing to defend them in response to the motion to dismiss.
Wilcox v. W.K.S. Restaurant Corporation – 6:25-CV-00299-JCB
Wilcox’s lawsuit partially survived dismissal. The court recommended dismissing his FMLA retaliation claim but allowed his ADA disability discrimination, failure-to-accommodate, and Texas workers’ compensation retaliation claims to proceed because he alleged sufficient facts to make those claims plausible. In particular, the court found that his allegations of termination shortly after reporting a workplace injury and filing a workers’ compensation claim were enough, at least for now, to suggest a causal connection.
White v. Premium Velocity Auto LLC – 3:24-CV-2692-B – Mar 2, 2026
The federal district court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment on claims for race discrimination, FMLA interference and retaliation, and Texas Labor Code § 451.001 workers’ compensation retaliation. The court held fact issues existed regarding whether the employer’s stated reason for termination was pretextual and whether the plaintiff could perform his job upon returning from leave. All claims were allowed to proceed to trial.
In re Basic Energy Services, Inc. – 4:23-CV-02910 – Jan 15, 2026
The court granted summary judgment for the employer and liquidation trustee, disposing of all remaining claims. It held that tort claims arising from the work-related vehicle accident were barred by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive-remedy scheme, and that the claimants failed to raise a fact issue that post-accident conduct by a supervisor caused any independent injury or supported employer liability under respondeat superior.
Gibbins v. Hologic, Inc. – 1:25-CV-531-RP-DH – Dec 3, 2025
The federal magistrate judge recommended granting Hologic’s motion to dismiss in full and granting in part and denying in part Gatewood’s motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s negligence-based and emotional distress claims were barred by statutory schemes, including the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, to the extent they sought recovery for work-related injuries, and by the TCHRA where they duplicated workplace harassment remedies. Claims against Hologic were dismissed entirely, while claims against the individual supervisor for assault and defamation were allowed to proceed, as they were not preempted.
Sanders v. Power Ray, LLC – 25-CV-00292-DC-RCG
The magistrate judge recommended granting the employer’s motion to dismiss in full. The court dismissed the OSHA and Title VII retaliation claims with prejudice because OSHA’s § 660(c) provides no private right of action and the plaintiff failed to exhaust EEOC remedies for Title VII. The Texas Labor Code § 451.001 retaliation claim (a workers’ compensation anti-retaliation statute) was dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiff complained about safety but never alleged any workers’ compensation claim, proceeding, or testimony under Subtitle A of the Labor Code, which is required to invoke § 451.001.
George v. Amazon.com Services LLC – 4:24-CV-1063-SDJ – Nov 10, 2025
This federal case does not arise under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, but it is directly relevant to nonsubscriber injury claims because it enforces Amazon’s arbitration agreement contained in its Texas injury-benefit plan. The court held that the employee was not exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act’s transportation-worker exception, meaning his negligence lawsuit had to be sent to arbitration under the plan’s Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate.
Ordonez v. Rogers Electrical Service Corporation – SA-22-CV-01263-OLG – Oct 17, 2025
The court recommended granting summary judgment for the Rogers defendants, holding that the plaintiff’s negligence claims were barred by the exclusive-remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The evidence showed the plaintiff was a temporary or borrowed employee of Rogers Electrical Contractors, was covered by workers’ compensation insurance, and in fact received workers’ compensation benefits, making that remedy exclusive. As to Rogers Electrical Service Corporation, the court concluded it owed no legal duty because it did not control the plaintiff’s work or the premises where the injury occurred. Accordingly, all claims against the Rogers defendants were recommended for dismissal with prejudice.
Battle v. Matthews Nissan of Paris – 4:24-CV-00527 – Aug 22, 2025
The federal court recommended dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims without prejudice due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to prosecute. The court found that the allegations, which referenced being denied workers’ compensation, arose under Texas state law and not federal law, and diversity jurisdiction was not established.
Rodriguez v. Blaine Larsen Farms, Incorporated – 22-10514 – Aug 5, 2025
The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Blaine Larsen Farms, holding that the estate of a deceased H-2A worker, Marco Galvan, could not recover under negligence, wrongful death, survival, or breach of contract claims. Although the Texas Division of Workers’ Compensation found the COVID-related death non-compensable under the TWCA, the court still found no viable claims due to lack of evidence of duty, breach, or causation. The court also rejected arguments under the Texas Pandemic Liability Protection Act and emphasized that derivative claims could not survive independently.