Apache Corporation v. Cathryn C. Davis, 627 S.W.3d 324

Cathryn Davis, Senior Paralegal hired in 2006, worked in Apache Corporation's Houston litigation department; two younger paralegals were promoted earlier, straining relations with her supervisor, Dominic Ricotta.
In November 2012 Apache tightened business-hour and overtime rules; Ricotta instructed employees to submit a compliant 40-hour schedule; Davis repeatedly refused to submit a schedule within policy and worked unauthorized overtime.
On December 3, 2012 Davis emailed management alleging a hostile work environment and—in one sentence—complained of a "pervasive negative attitude" toward female employees; she threatened litigation if terminated.
Apache investigated (with the HR lawyer Davis requested); the investigation found no evidence of discrimination. Apache terminated Davis on January 25, 2013, citing insubordination (noncompliant schedule and unapproved overtime).
A jury found Apache retaliated against Davis for complaining of age or gender discrimination and awarded damages; the court of appeals affirmed; the Texas Supreme Court granted review.
The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding there was no evidence that but for Davis's gender-discrimination reference Apache would not have terminated her when it did.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Davis proved but-for causation for her retaliation claim under Tex. Lab. Code § 21.055	Davis: Her December 3 complaint (including a one-sentence gender allegation) caused termination; timing, decisionmaker knowledge, post-complaint negative attitude, and shifting reasons support causation	Apache: Termination was for legitimate, undisputed insubordination (failure to submit a compliant schedule; unauthorized overtime); decision was contemplated before the email	Court: Reversed — under Hinds but-for standard plaintiff must show without the protected activity the adverse action would not have occurred when it did; evidence showed Apache would have discharged Davis for insubordination regardless, so no but-for causation was proved

Texas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1995) (establishes but-for causation standard for retaliation/whistleblower claims)
Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 544 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. 2018) (applies but-for standard in employment retaliation under state law and lists circumstantial factors for analysis)
Continental Coffee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. 1996) (identifies multi-factor test courts have used to assess circumstantial causation evidence)
City of Fort Worth v. Zimlich, 29 S.W.3d 62 (Tex. 2000) (uses similar factors; warns that supervisor's negative attitude alone is insufficient to prove causation)
Office of the Attorney General v. Rodriguez, 605 S.W.3d 183 (Tex. 2020) (reiterates that an adverse action "based solely" on non-protected reasons defeats causation)
Univ. of Tex. Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (Supreme Court: Title VII retaliation requires but-for causation)
Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (employer's proceeding along previously contemplated lines is not evidence of retaliatory causation)