Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—W.D. Tex.: Nurse’s retaliation claim over patient sexual misconduct complaints tossed, (Apr 15, 2026)

By Chelsea N. Simms, Esq.

Complaints regarding a patient’s sexually aggressive behavior were not protected activity and the employer acted for legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons tied to patient safety and restraint practices.

A charge nurse’s Title VII employment retaliation claims against Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) will not proceed to trial, ruled a federal court in Texas. The suit, alleging retaliation for filing repeated sexual harassment and abuse claims, was dismissed on HHSC’s motion for summary judgment because, the court found, HHSC articulated a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for its actions (Compagno v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission, No. 1:23-CV-01068-ADA (W.D. Tex. Apr. 10, 2026)).

The employee, a charge nurse at Austin State Hospital (ASH)—a psychiatric hospital overseen by HHSC—worked with patients exhibiting a wide range of problematic behaviors and acts of psychosis and was trained to use a variety of holds, restraints, and de-escalation procedures.

Sexually aggressive patient. In August 2018, a patient with a pattern of sexually aggressive and hostile behavior toward staff and other patients was admitted to ASH. Beginning in September 2019, that patient’s conduct escalated, resulting in multiple restraints. The employee repeatedly reported the patient’s behavior to her supervisors, raising concerns about staff safety and advocating for the patient’s transfer to a more appropriate unit.

On January 8, 2020, hospital directors reviewing restraint reports observed the patient on a restraint chair while the employee was on duty. One director reported concerns that restraints were being used for convenience rather than safety and that the employee failed to complete required documentation. Executive leadership was notified, and an investigation followed.

Emergency leave. On January 9, 2020, the employee was placed on emergency leave pending investigation based on alleged patient abuse and video footage supervisors believed showed improper restraint use. The leave was extended through March 1, the effective date of the employee’s earlier written resignation. Management rejected her claim that she had verbally rescinded her resignation days earlier, citing lack of authority by the recipient supervisor and the seriousness of the allegations.

The employee later filed an EEOC charge alleging retaliation for reporting sexual harassment by the patient. She subsequently brought suit under Title VII for discrimination and retaliation. The sex discrimination claim was dismissed, and HHSC moved for summary judgment on the remaining retaliation claim.

Protected opposition activity. The court concluded that the sexual harassment complaints did not constitute protected activity under Title VII’s retaliation provision, which protects employees who oppose unlawful employment practices or participate in Title VII enforcement proceedings. Emphasizing that opposition activity must rest on a reasonable belief that the conduct opposed violates Title VII, the court determined that reporting sexually aggressive behavior by a psychiatric patient—particularly when the behavior was indiscriminate as to sex and was part of the clinical risks inherent in the work environment—did not amount to opposition to an unlawful employment practice.

The nurse’s complaints did not allege sex-based discrimination by the employer or differential treatment based on sex; instead, they described patient misconduct affecting staff of all genders. As the court explained, Title VII regulates employer conduct, not the conduct of third-party patients absent a nexus to discriminatory employment practices.

The court also reasoned that the employee’s reporting fell squarely within her job duties, as reporting patient behavior, escalating safety concerns, and advocating for patient reassignment were expected components of her role as a charge nurse. The court treated this context as reinforcing the conclusion that she did not engage in protected opposition activity because she did not place HHSC on notice that she was complaining about conduct prohibited by Title VII. Without protected activity, the court held that the employee failed to satisfy the first element of a retaliation claim, which alone required judgment in HHSC’s favor.

Legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for adverse employment action. Even assuming the employee had established a prima facie case of retaliation, the court concluded that HHSC articulated legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the challenged employment actions and that she failed to show pretext. Though HHSC refused to accept her attempted rescission of her resignation and placed her on emergency leave pending investigation, the court accepted HHSC’s explanation that the rescission was ineffective because it was not made to an authorized decisionmaker and it occurred against the backdrop of serious concerns about her conduct of improperly restraining the patient and failing to comply with required restraint documentation protocols.

HHSC presented evidence that supervisory staff reviewed security footage from two incidents and concluded that restraints lacked clinical justification. The court found that patient safety considerations and compliance with restraint policies constituted legitimate grounds for emergency leave and employment decisions in a psychiatric hospital environment.

The employee argued that similarly situated nurses were not disciplined and that an external investigation later found no patient abuse. However, the court rejected these arguments as insufficient to establish pretext. It emphasized that the employee was the charge nurse responsible for decision-making during the incidents at issue and that supervisors were entitled to rely on their own assessments and training when evaluating restraint use. Further, the court found that the existence of a separate investigative outcome did not undermine the legitimacy of the employer’s contemporaneous judgment or demonstrate retaliatory motive.

In granting summary judgment, the court underscored that speculation and disagreement with managerial decisions could not substitute for evidence that retaliation motivated HHSC’s actions. Because the employee failed both to demonstrate protected activity and to rebut HHSC’s legitimate explanations, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find in her favor. As a result, HHSC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Title VII retaliation claim.

The case is No. 1:23-CV-01068-ADA.

Judge: Albright, A.

Attorneys: Robert Joseph Wiley (Law Offices of Rob Wiley) for Nyoka Compagno. Scott D. Smith, Office of the Attorney General, for Texas Health and Human Services Commission.

Cases: Retaliation SexualHarassment TexasNews