Background
Billy Tom Martin worked as an inventory specialist for Baseline Energy Services, an energy-sector employer. In February 2023, after injuring his back and sternum while performing work duties, he filed a workers’ compensation claim and asked to work from home temporarily. Baseline terminated his employment the same day. Martin subsequently filed suit alleging workers’ compensation retaliation, disability discrimination under the Texas Labor Code, and libel. The libel count rested on allegations that Baseline — in bad faith and motivated by retaliatory intent — told employees and the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) in connection with his unemployment benefits proceedings that Martin had “abandoned his job,” a statement Martin characterized as false.
Baseline filed a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA), Texas’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing broadly that Martin could not establish a prima facie case on any of his claims and that its statements were protected. On appeal, Baseline narrowed its challenge to the libel claim only, arguing that statements made to the TWC in unemployment proceedings are communications in connection with a governmental proceeding, invoking the right to petition protected by the TCPA. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss after Baseline failed to appear at the hearing. The denial came with a finding that Martin had “shown clear and specific evidence supporting each essential element” of his claims — a finding the appellate court noted was factually erroneous because Martin had never filed a response or presented any evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part. On the libel claim, the court held that Baseline met its threshold burden: statements made to the TWC during unemployment proceedings are communications pertaining to a governmental proceeding and thus implicate the right to petition under the TCPA. The court cited Yu v. Koo, 633 S.W.3d 712 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021), and Porter-Garcia v. Travis Law Firm, 564 S.W.3d 75 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018), confirming that the TCPA broadly covers communications in or pertaining to quasi-judicial proceedings before agencies like the TWC. Internal employer statements that “pertained to” the TWC proceeding were also covered.
Once Baseline satisfied its initial burden, the burden shifted to Martin to provide clear and specific evidence of a prima facie case for each element of libel. Martin had filed no response to the motion to dismiss and had presented no evidence at the hearing. The trial court’s statement that Martin had “shown clear and specific evidence” was therefore wrong on its face, and under Buzbee v. Clear Channel Outdoor, 616 S.W.3d 14 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020), pleading allegations alone cannot satisfy the TCPA’s clear-and-specific-evidence standard. The court reversed the denial of the TCPA motion as to the libel claim. On the workers’ compensation retaliation and disability discrimination claims, the court affirmed, because those claims were based on employment actions, not on Baseline’s speech or petitioning activity — and Baseline had abandoned any argument that the TCPA applied to those claims.
Key Takeaways
- Employer statements made to the TWC in unemployment-benefit proceedings are communications pertaining to a governmental (quasi-judicial) proceeding and fall within the TCPA’s protection of the “right to petition”; internal employer communications that pertain to those proceedings are also covered.
- Once the TCPA threshold is met, a plaintiff must present clear and specific evidence — not just pleading allegations — of every essential element of the challenged claim; failure to file any response to the motion to dismiss is fatal to the libel claim.
- The TCPA does not extend to workers’ compensation retaliation or disability discrimination claims, which are based on adverse employment actions rather than on protected speech or petitioning activity.
Why It Matters
Texas employers facing libel suits arising from statements made in TWC unemployment proceedings have a clear TCPA pathway to early dismissal. The opinion reinforces that the right-to-petition prong of the TCPA is broadly construed — not just formal testimony in a TWC hearing, but internal employer communications pertaining to the proceeding also qualify. For energy companies and other employers that regularly participate in TWC proceedings, this means that any defamation claim triggered by statements in that context is presumptively subject to anti-SLAPP scrutiny, and plaintiffs must marshal specific evidence — not just allegations — to survive a motion to dismiss.
The decision also draws a clean line between the TCPA’s domain and the Labor Code’s anti-retaliation domain. Workers’ compensation retaliation and disability discrimination claims are grounded in the employer’s conduct — the termination decision — not in protected speech. Those claims proceed on their own merits regardless of whether any TCPA-protected communications were also made. Employers should be careful not to over-read the TCPA’s reach when faced with multi-count employment lawsuits that combine retaliatory-discharge claims with defamation.