- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BEAUMONT DIVISION

JAMES GAUTHIER,

Plaintiff,

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

v.

THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.,

Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-281 

JURY DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 40)

Plaintiff, James Gauthier respectfully submits this response in opposition to Defendant,The 

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 40). As set forth below, there 

are genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment on Plaintiff's Sabine Pilot 

claim.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate only when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material 

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute 

about a material fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a 

verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The 

court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Reeves v. Sanderson 

Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).

THERE IS A FACT ISSUE AS TO WHETHER GOODYEAR REQUIRED 

GAUTHIER TO COMMIT AN ILLEGAL ACT

To prevail on a Sabine Pilot claim, a plaintiff must show that the employer required the 

employee to commit an illegal act carrying criminal penalties. Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 

Case 1:23-cv-00281-MAC Document 41 Filed 10/02/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 314
- 2 -

687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. 1985). The Fifth Circuit has recognized that "whether an employer's 

request rises to the level of a 'requirement' is generally a question of fact." Roca v. King's Creek 

Plantation, LLC, 500 F. App'x 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2012) (unpublished).

Contrary to Goodyear's assertion, there is evidence that Goodyear required Gauthier to 

change his statement about the hydrocarbon leak incident, not merely requested it. Gauthier 

testified that when he met with HR representative Shalyn Bevil, "the first question she asked me 

is if I wanted to change my statement." (Gauthier Dep. 66:12-13) (Exhibit A). Gauthier further 

testified: "She asked if I would be willing to change my statement." (Id. 69:25-70:1). While 

Goodyear characterizes this as a mere request, a reasonable jury could conclude that an HR 

representative asking an employee if they are "willing" to change a statement about a workplace 

incident amounts to a requirement, particularly in the context of an ongoing investigation into that 

incident.

Moreover, Gauthier testified that he believed he was being asked to change his statement 

in order to backdate it and help Goodyear avoid fines for not timely reporting the hydrocarbon 

leak:

"And I felt like I was asked to change my statement so that they could backdate it and get 

out of the fine. And because I did not change my statement, they did not get out of the fine. That's 

what I feel." (Id. 77:2-5).

This testimony creates a fact issue as to whether Goodyear was requiring Gauthier to falsify 

a statement to cover up a regulatory violation, which would constitute an illegal act. The Fifth 

Circuit has recognized that falsifying documents to cover up regulatory violations can constitute 

an illegal act for purposes of a Sabine Pilot claim. See Beets v. Texas Instruments, Inc., No. 94-

Case 1:23-cv-00281-MAC Document 41 Filed 10/02/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 315
- 3 -

10034, 1994 WL 714026, at *3 (5th Cir. Dec. 16, 1994) (unpublished) (falsifying environmental 

compliance reports could be basis for Sabine Pilot claim).

In addition to the Fifth Circuit authorities previously cited, Texas state courts have 

consistently held that whether an employer's request rises to the level of a "requirement" is a fact 

issue for the jury. In Morales v. SimuFlite Training Int'l, Inc., 132 S.W.3d 603, 608 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 2004, no pet.), the court held that "whether an employer's statement rises to the level 

of a 'request' or 'requirement' is generally a question of fact." Similarly, in White v. FCI USA, Inc., 

319 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir. 2003), the court, applying Texas law, noted that whether the employer 

required the illegal act is "typically a fact issue to be decided by a jury."

Gauthier's testimony that he was asked if he was "willing" to change his statement 

(Gauthier Dep. 69:25-70:1) creates a fact issue as to whether this constituted a requirement. Texas 

courts have recognized that even indirect pressure can amount to a "requirement" under Sabine 

Pilot. See Winters v. Houston Chronicle Publ'g Co., 795 S.W.2d 723, 724 (Tex. 1990) (noting that 

Sabine Pilot applies when an employee is "unacceptably forced to choose between risking criminal 

liability or being discharged").

Moreover, Texas courts have held that falsifying documents or records can constitute an 

illegal act for purposes of Sabine Pilot. In Higginbotham v. Allwaste, Inc., 889 S.W.2d 411, 416 

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied), the court held that falsifying testing records 

could form the basis of a Sabine Pilot claim. Gauthier's testimony that he believed he was being 

asked to change his statement to help Goodyear avoid regulatory fines (Gauthier Dep. 77:2-5) is 

analogous to the situation in Higginbotham and creates a fact issue as to whether he was being 

asked to commit an illegal act.

Case 1:23-cv-00281-MAC Document 41 Filed 10/02/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 316
- 4 -

THERE IS A FACT ISSUE AS TO WHETHER GAUTHIER WAS TERMINATED 

SOLELY FOR REFUSING TO COMMIT AN ILLEGAL ACT

To prevail on a Sabine Pilot claim, a plaintiff must show that the refusal to perform the 

illegal act was the sole reason for termination. Safeshred, Inc. v. Martinez, 365 S.W.3d 655, 659 

(Tex. 2012). The Fifth Circuit has recognized that this causation element is typically a fact issue 

for the jury. See Roca, 500 F. App'x at 277 ("Whether an employee's refusal to perform an illegal 

act was the sole cause for his termination is generally a question of fact for the jury.").

Goodyear claims Gauthier cannot show he was terminated solely for refusing to change his 

statement. However, Gauthier testified that he believes he was wrongfully terminated "for 

something that I had no control over" and that he "did everything that I was supposed to do as the 

board operator that was within my control and things didn't happen right and I was the one 

terminated for it." (Gauthier Dep. 67:8-14). He further testified that he believes he was terminated 

because he refused to change his statement to help Goodyear avoid fines:

"I was asked to change my statement. And when I didn't and things weren't reported, I was 

terminated." (Id. 77:13-14).

This testimony creates a fact issue as to whether Gauthier's refusal to change his statement 

was the sole reason for his termination. While Goodyear may offer other reasons for the 

termination, it is the jury's role to weigh the evidence and determine the true reason. See Burton v. 

Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., 798 F.3d 222, 233 (5th Cir. 2015) (in employment cases, "the issue 

of the employer's true motive for termination is typically a question of fact for the jury").

Texas courts have consistently held that the causation element of a Sabine Pilot claim—

whether the refusal to perform the illegal act was the sole cause of termination—is a fact issue for 

the jury. In Texas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629, 633 (Tex. 1995), the Texas 

Case 1:23-cv-00281-MAC Document 41 Filed 10/02/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 317
- 5 -

Supreme Court stated that "[w]hether the plaintiff's refusal to perform an illegal act was the sole 

cause for the plaintiff's discharge is a question of fact."

More recently, in Physio GP, Inc. v. Naifeh, 306 S.W.3d 886, 888 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.), the court reiterated that "whether an employee's refusal to perform an 

illegal act was the sole cause for his termination generally presents a question of fact." This is true 

even when the employer offers alternative reasons for the termination. See City of Midland v. 

O'Bryant, 18 S.W.3d 209, 216 (Tex. 2000) (holding that the existence of "legitimate reasons" for 

termination does not preclude a Sabine Pilot claim if the jury determines the illegal act was the 

sole cause).

Gauthier's testimony that he believes he was terminated because he refused to change his 

statement (Gauthier Dep. 77:13-14) creates a fact issue as to the cause of his termination. While 

Goodyear may offer other reasons, it is the jury's role to weigh this evidence and determine the 

true cause of Gauthier's termination.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary 

judgment on Plaintiff's Sabine Pilot claim. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

Brandon P. Monk

THE MONK LAW FIRM

4875 Parker Drive

Beaumont, Texas 77705

Phone: (409) 724-6665

Fax: (409) 729-6665

brandon@themonklawfirm.com

By: /s/ Brandon P. Monk________

BRANDON P. MONK

State Bar No. 24048668

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 1:23-cv-00281-MAC Document 41 Filed 10/02/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 318
- 6 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was forwarded

to counsel of record, via e-file notification on this 2

nd day of October, 2024 to:

Kelley Edwards

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC

1301 McKinney Street, Suite 1900

Houston, Texas 77010

Phone: (713) 951-9400

Fax: (713) 951-9212

kedwards@littler.com

Of Counsel:

Urvashi Morolia 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC

1301 McKinney Street, Suite 1900

Houston, Texas 77010

Phone: (713) 951-9400

Fax: (713) 951-9212

umorolia@littler.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

/s/ Brandon P. Monk

Brandon P. Monk

Case 1:23-cv-00281-MAC Document 41 Filed 10/02/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 319