Takeaway: The disability discrimination laws generally protect police and public safety officers with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from discharge based on their condition. Because these positions require safe and effective performance of duties, however, the laws may not protect an officer with PTSD who experiences dangerous effects of the condition around others.
The Texas Supreme Court held a Texas ranger was not shielded from termination after he attributed the cause of a volatile school confrontation to his PTSD.
The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) hired the plaintiff as a trooper in 2004, promoted him to a special agent in its Criminal Investigations Division in 2010, and selected him as a Texas ranger in 2012. It was a rough detail. The plaintiff took medical leave in 2017 to seek treatment for alcoholism and PTSD, and transferred back to the Criminal Investigations Division in 2018. The plaintiff took additional medical leave in late 2019 to receive inpatient treatment for alcoholism and PTSD.
On Jan. 15, 2020, while he was out on medical leave, the plaintiff and his wife received a call from their daughter’s high school. School counselors reported that the daughter might soon be detained due to a mental-health crisis.
Grabbing his DPS badge, his handcuffs, and (because he was off duty) his personal sidearm, the plaintiff hurried to the high school with his wife and loudly confronted one of the counselors inside the small office where his daughter was being held. A second counselor joined them in the office upon hearing the confrontation, along with two officers from the school district’s police department.
When the police officers said that they would be transporting his daughter to a behavioral-health facility, the plaintiff ordered them to get out of the office immediately. He also displayed his DPS badge and threatened to put the police officers in jail for interfering with his rights as a parent. When the counselor’s office phone began to ring, the plaintiff yelled at her not to answer it. That counselor later reported that she felt trapped and feared for her safety and her life. Eventually, the plaintiff and his wife allowed their daughter to travel to the behavioral-health facility with one of the police officers.
During the DPS’ investigation of the incident at the high school, the plaintiff ascribed his misconduct to his PTSD. He admitted that, because of his repeated exposure to trauma, he stayed in an elevated state of hypervigilance, often causing things to end with less-than-optimal outcomes. He conceded that he acted emotionally during the incident.
The director of the DPS decided to fire the plaintiff. He testified in a discharge appeal hearing before the Public Safety Commission of Texas that a DPS officer has an obligation to control their emotions in a stressful situation. It was unacceptable for the plaintiff to walk into an office and order a police officer out when he was trying to do his official job. The plaintiff also wrongfully displayed his badge and tried to use his position as a DPS special agent to interfere with the official response of police in another police agency.
After the DPS terminated his employment, the plaintiff sued the agency under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code for disability discrimination and retaliation. The trial court denied the DPS’ joint plea to the jurisdiction and motions for summary judgment.
The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment on the plaintiff’s claim that his termination was motivated by discrimination based on his PTSD. The appellate court dismissed the remainder of the plaintiff’s claims for lack of jurisdiction. The DPS filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court.
The Texas Supreme Court found that Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code does not prevent the employer from terminating an employee if his mental or physical impairment in fact limits his ability to perform his job. The law only prohibits discrimination because of a physical or mental condition that does not impair an individual’s ability to reasonably perform a job.
The court found that the plaintiff could not show his capacity to perform his job to satisfy this objective standard. The court reasoned that the DPS should not give someone a sidearm and a badge, only for the employee to snap under pressure when in stressful interactions. This would unreasonably endanger citizens and officers.
The Texas Supreme Court reversed the disability discrimination award and ruled in favor of the DPS.
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Callaway, Texas, No. 24-0966 (April 10, 2026).
Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.
Was this resource helpful?
Validate your HR expertise
Earning your SHRM-CP credential makes you a recognized expert and leader in the HR field.
Related Content
Transform HR with mobile technology to streamline workflows, enhance communication, and boost employee engagement across distributed teams.
A new study found that talent development practitioners believe performance-based assessments are more effective at measuring employee learning outcomes than knowledge tests.
As AI makes deeper inroads into organizations, employee concerns about the technology continue to grow. Here's how HR leaders can address the fear of AI among their own staff, as well as in the wider organization.