The Clients
Two employees who spoke up for a resident who couldn’t
Claimant A was the housekeeping supervisor at the Facility. Claimant B was a long-tenured Certified Nursing Assistant who had risen through the ranks to become the Lead CNA and Staffing Coordinator — a promotion track that the Facility’s own witnesses confirmed at the hearing. By every account, residents loved her, she was reliable, and she was good at her job.
Then, in late July 2023, an elderly resident with dementia — confined to a wheelchair, in the Facility’s memory-care unit — was allegedly mistreated by aides who were captured on a coworker’s phone “popping wheelies” and spinning her in her wheelchair. She was undressed. She was bleeding. She died the day after the incident.
Both Claimants reported what they had heard, both internally to facility management and externally to a Texas Health and Human Services surveyor. Both did exactly what the statute is designed to encourage. Both were punished for it.
The Law
Tex. Health & Safety Code § 260A.014
A Texas treatment facility may not suspend, terminate, discipline, or otherwise discriminate against an employee who in good faith reports a violation of law, abuse, neglect, or exploitation, or who cooperates with a state regulatory investigation. If the adverse action occurs within 60 days of a good-faith report, the statute creates a rebuttable presumption that the action was retaliatory. Prevailing employees may recover actual or statutory damages, mental anguish damages even absent any other injury, exemplary damages on a clear-and-convincing showing of malice, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Section 260A.014 exists for a specific reason. Long-term-care residents are among the most vulnerable people in Texas. Many cannot speak for themselves. The Legislature concluded that the only realistic check on facility-level mistreatment is the willingness of staff to report what they see — and that reporting only happens if employees believe the law will protect them when they do. Cases like this one are the test of that promise.
The Incident
What happened — and what happened next
July 2023
Jul 23
Resident #70 — an elderly woman with dementia, confined to a wheelchair — is allegedly spun in her wheelchair while undressed and bleeding. A coworker captures part of the episode on her phone.
Jul 24
Resident #70 dies.
Mid-Jul
Claimant A learns of the incident from a direct report and reports it internally to the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, and the Assistant Director of Nursing.
Mid-Jul
Claimant B receives an anonymous handwritten note from a coworker who witnessed the incident but is too frightened to report it herself. Claimant B conveys the report to the Administrator and turns the note over to the HHS surveyor.
Late Jul
Following a hostile post-report meeting, Claimant A is suspended on the day of her HHS interview. She is terminated approximately one week later — over the phone, with no exit interview and no contemporaneous documentation.
Sept 2023
Claimant B’s permanent Staffing Coordinator role is eliminated. Her full-time Lead CNA position is converted to PRN (“as-needed”) status. The Facility cites “low census and budget.” She is then never scheduled for a single shift.
What happened in the meeting after the reports is the heart of the case — and the place where the Facility’s account fell apart. According to the Claimants, Claimant B played the video of the incident on her phone in front of the Administrator, the ADON, and the DON. The audio was unmistakable: the resident screaming, another resident pleading for help on her behalf. The DON had Claimant B AirDrop the video to her, and then directed her to delete it. The ADON then turned on Claimant A, asked her to leave the meeting, and confronted and cursed at her in the hallway.
Facility management told a different story. There was no video. No one had told the Administrator a video existed. Claimant A had been disruptive, then cursed and threatened the ADON in front of residents, family members, and surveyors. The DON signed a written statement that she “never saw or heard of any abuse video.” The Arbitrator found that statement to be false.
She acknowledged that the Claimants stated there was a video. Still, she signed a statement that she “never saw or heard of any abuse video.” That was false.
Interim Arbitration Award · January 22, 2026
The Defense
What the Facility said — and why it didn’t hold
Every § 260A.014 case turns on the employer’s stated reason for the adverse action. In a long-term-care setting, the defense almost writes itself: there are always behavioral incidents, performance concerns, or budget pressures available to point at after the fact. To win, claimant’s counsel has to do two things: understand why each defense is initially credible, and then dismantle it with the employer’s own evidence.
The Facility offered three explanations across the two Claimants. The Arbitrator rejected each.
The Claim
“Claimant A was terminated for misconduct in the post-report meeting — cursing and threatening a supervisor in front of residents, family members, and state surveyors.”
The Rebuttal
The Administrator never interviewed Claimant A before terminating her. He never obtained a statement from a single one of the residents, family members, or surveyors who allegedly witnessed the misconduct. He skipped the documented exit interview the Facility’s own handbook required. Termination paperwork did not arrive until weeks later — back-dated. An employer that genuinely believes its employee committed misconduct in front of state surveyors gathers evidence; this Facility gathered none.
The Claim
“Claimant B’s role was eliminated due to low census and budget. She herself asked to move to PRN.”
The Rebuttal
The Facility’s contemporaneous letter cited “low census and budget.” The Administrator’s later testimony shifted the story: now Claimant B had asked for PRN herself. Both cannot be true. The Arbitrator credited Claimant B’s account that the change was imposed on her, not requested by her — and noted that after the conversion she was never scheduled for a single shift. A genuine “as-needed” reassignment produces shifts when needed. This one produced silence.
The Claim
“Claimant A could not have reported in good faith because she did not personally witness the abuse.”
The Rebuttal
Section 260A.014’s good-faith standard turns on the reasonableness of the employee’s belief, not on whether she was an eyewitness. Claimant A learned of the incident from a direct report whose account was corroborated by a TNA witness and by Claimant B’s playback of the video. The Arbitrator squarely rejected the Facility’s reading of the statute as inconsistent with both its text and its purpose. The protection would mean nothing if it applied only to employees who happened to be in the room when the abuse occurred.
How We Proved Retaliation
The mechanics of a § 260A.014 case
Section 260A.014 gives claimants a procedural advantage that few other Texas employment statutes match: a rebuttable presumption that any adverse action occurring within 60 days of a good-faith report was retaliatory. That presumption is a powerful tool, but only when the surrounding evidentiary case is built to back it up. Once an employer offers any non-retaliatory explanation, the presumption is rebutted, and the claimant has to prove but-for causation — the standard articulated by the Texas Supreme Court in Apache Corp. v. Davis.
The work, then, is to assemble a record in which the only coherent account of the firing is the one the statute prohibits. We did that here through six mechanisms.
Mechanism 01
Locking In the Timing
Claimant A was suspended on the day of her HHS interview and terminated days later. Claimant B’s role was eliminated weeks after she gave the surveyor the anonymous note. Both adverse actions sat squarely inside the 60-day window. We did not have to argue temporal proximity; the calendar argued it for us, and the statutory presumption attached automatically.
Mechanism 02
The False Written Statement
The DON signed a written statement disclaiming any knowledge of the abuse video — a statement the Arbitrator found, on the record, to be false. In retaliation cases, a single demonstrable falsehood by a decision-maker about a collateral fact is often the lever that pries the rest of the defense apart. Once the Arbitrator concluded the DON had been untruthful about the video, every other contested issue tipped the same direction.
Mechanism 03
The Investigation That Wasn’t
The Administrator testified that he investigated the post-report incident before terminating Claimant A. He did not interview her. He produced no statement from any of the third-party witnesses he claimed had observed her misconduct. He departed from the Facility’s own handbook procedure for exit interviews. An employer that wants the benefit of an “investigation” defense must actually conduct one. The absence of a real investigation became evidence in itself.
Mechanism 04
Witnesses Against
Each Other
A TNA who was present after the incident testified that she had been pressured to “stick to the story” when speaking with surveyors and that, fearing for her job, she lied in her written statement. Her account corroborated the Claimants’ version of the meeting and contradicted the ADON’s. We did not have to argue the Facility’s narrative was false. We let one of the Facility’s own employees tell the Arbitrator that.
Mechanism 05
The Shifting Story
on Claimant B
The Facility’s contemporaneous letter to Claimant B said her role was eliminated for “low census and budget.” The Administrator’s hearing testimony said she had asked for PRN herself. When an employer’s contemporaneous documents and its later testimony tell different stories, the gap between them is itself evidence. A truthful explanation does not require revision later.
Mechanism 06
The Handbook as the
Cross-Examination
The Facility had a written termination procedure. It required a documented exit interview. It was ignored. We did not need to import an outside expert on best practices; we made the Facility’s own administrator confirm, on the record, that the rules existed, applied to Claimant A’s termination, and were not followed. An employer’s own policies, used against it, carry weight no expert ever could.
What the handbook required versus what the Facility did
The contrast was stark — and the Arbitrator drew it explicitly.
What the Handbook Required
InvestigationInterview the employee accused of misconduct before termination.
Witness StatementsObtain documentation from any third-party witnesses.
Exit InterviewConduct and document a formal exit interview.
DocumentationProvide contemporaneous, accurate paperwork to the employee.
What the Facility Actually Did
InvestigationNever interviewed Claimant A.
Witness StatementsProduced no statement from any resident, family member, or surveyor.
Exit InterviewNone conducted. None documented.
DocumentationTermination paperwork delivered weeks late, back-dated.
The point is not that the Facility was sloppy at HR — facilities can be sloppy without being retaliatory. The point is that the combination of the false written statement, the absent investigation, the shifting explanations, the contradicted witnesses, and the suspicious timing excluded innocent explanations. By the close of the hearing, no coherent account of the adverse actions remained except the one § 260A.014 forbids.
The Award
Findings, damages, and fees
Following a three-day evidentiary hearing, the Arbitrator issued an Interim Award in January 2026 finding for both Claimants, and a Final Award in April 2026 fixing fees and costs. The Arbitrator concluded that the adverse employment actions would not have occurred but for the Claimants’ good-faith reports of resident abuse — the but-for standard required under Apache Corp. v. Davis.
Damages — Claimant A
Past mental anguish
$15,000
Prejudgment interest
$3,358
Damages — Claimant B
Past mental anguish
$75,000
Prejudgment interest
$10,738
Fees & Costs
Recoverable costs and expenses
$6,508
Post-judgment interest was set at 6.75%.
The mental-anguish award, in context
One feature of the award deserves a closer look. Claimant B’s wage loss was modest — $5,000 — but her mental-anguish award was fifteen times that figure. Section 260A.014 specifically permits mental-anguish damages standing alone, and the testimony here illustrated why. Claimant B’s family was evicted. Her husband, who had never been laid off in his life, was laid off during the same stretch. She told him repeatedly: “I can’t deal, I can’t do this anymore.” Her mother testified to her sustained anxiety and the impact on her children. Mental-anguish damages in retaliation cases are not a residual category. They are often the largest line item the statute will produce.
The Pattern
What this case teaches about § 260A claims
Practitioner Insight
Long-term-care retaliation cases are won and lost in the days after the report — when the facility chooses how, and how thoroughly, to investigate.
This case illustrates a recurring fact pattern in § 260A.014 disputes. An employee reports abuse, neglect, or a regulatory violation. The facility’s first instinct is not to investigate the conduct; it is to control the narrative — instruct staff what to say to surveyors, generate a written statement that supports management, and find a behavioral or budgetary peg on which to hang the inevitable adverse action. The result is an evidentiary record in which the facility’s documentation does not match its testimony, its testimony does not match its handbook, and its handbook does not match what its own employees observed.
Texas arbitrators and juries are highly sensitive to three signals that this pattern is in play: (1) a tight temporal window between the protected report and the adverse action, (2) a one-sided “investigation” that omits the very witnesses whose accounts would matter most, and (3) a stated reason for the adverse action that drifts between the contemporaneous documents and later testimony. When all three are present — as they were here — the statutory presumption is rarely rebutted in any meaningful sense, and the but-for inquiry follows naturally.
The lesson for healthcare workers: the law protects you, and the absence of a clean explanation for the action taken against you is itself evidence. The lesson for trial counsel: build the case around the gap between what the facility said and what its own records show. That gap, properly developed, is the case.
Statutory and Case Authorities
Tex. Health & Safety Code § 260A.014
Anti-retaliation provision · Prohibits a treatment facility from suspending, terminating, disciplining, or otherwise discriminating against an employee for reporting abuse, neglect, exploitation, or other violations of law.
Tex. Health & Safety Code § 260A.014(f)
60-day rebuttable presumption · Presumption that a suspension or termination within 60 days of a good-faith report was retaliatory.
Tex. Health & Safety Code § 260A.015(b)(2)
Damages provision · Greater of $1,000 or actual damages, including mental-anguish damages even where no other injury is shown.
Apache Corp. v. Davis, 627 S.W.3d 324 (Tex. 2021)
But-for causation standard · Adverse employment action would not have occurred when it did but for the protected activity.
PM Management-Trinity NC, LLC v. Kumets, 404 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. 2013)
Available remedies · Confirms that prevailing § 260A plaintiffs may recover statutory or actual damages, exemplary damages, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.
Loyds of Dallas Enterprises, LLC v. Jennings, 2016 WL 718573 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 23, 2016, no pet.)
Elements of the cause of action · Five-element framework for § 260A.014 retaliation claims and burden allocation once the statutory presumption is rebutted.
Frequently Asked
What Texas healthcare workers want to know
Can a Texas nursing home fire me for reporting resident abuse?
No. Section 260A.014 of the Texas Health and Safety Code prohibits a treatment facility from suspending, terminating, disciplining, or otherwise discriminating against an employee who in good faith reports a violation of law, abuse, neglect, or exploitation, or who cooperates with a state regulatory investigation. Employees fired in violation of the statute may recover actual or statutory damages, mental anguish damages, exemplary damages on a clear-and-convincing showing of malice, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
What is the 60-day presumption under Section 260A.014?
If an employee is suspended or terminated within 60 days after making a good-faith report, the statute creates a rebuttable presumption that the adverse action was retaliatory. The burden then falls on the employer to come forward with a non-retaliatory explanation. If the presumption is rebutted, the employee must prove but-for causation under Apache Corp. v. Davis.
Do I have to witness the abuse personally to be protected?
No. The statute protects employees who in good faith believe a violation has occurred. Good faith turns on the reasonableness of the employee’s belief, not on first-hand observation. An employee who learns of suspected abuse from a coworker and reports it in good faith is fully protected — and the Arbitrator in this case rejected the contrary argument squarely.
What if I wasn’t fired but my hours or position were changed after I reported?
Section 260A.014 reaches more than terminations. It also covers suspensions, discipline, and “otherwise discriminat[ing] against” an employee. A material change in employment terms — for example, the elimination of a permanent role and a conversion to as-needed status with no shifts, as in this case — can qualify as an adverse action under the statute.
Why did this case go to arbitration instead of a jury?
Many long-term-care employers require employees to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. Those agreements typically provide that all employment disputes are resolved through binding arbitration administered by a body like the American Arbitration Association, rather than through the courts. The procedural posture changes — there is no jury, and the proceeding is private — but the substantive statutory rights under § 260A.014 do not.
How long do I have to bring a § 260A.014 claim?
Limitations periods for § 260A claims and related statutes vary depending on the specific cause of action and the facts. Because deadlines and tolling rules vary based on individual circumstances, anyone considering a claim should consult with an attorney promptly — waiting can cost you the case before it begins.
DDA
Reviewed By
◆ Texas trial counsel for healthcare workers and whistleblowers · Houston, Texas · Practice areas include § 260A.014 retaliation, workers’ compensation retaliation, and wrongful termination.
Were You Punished for Reporting Abuse?
Reporting resident abuse should not cost you your job.
If you reported abuse, neglect, or a regulatory violation at a Texas nursing home, assisted-living facility, or other treatment facility — and were fired, suspended, demoted, or had your hours cut afterward — you may have a claim under Texas Health & Safety Code § 260A.014. Consultations are confidential and free.
Speak with our team →
