Supreme Court

Chen v. Cai 

• Case number: 22-0667
• Legal category: Government Immunity
• Subtype: Texas Tort Claims Act
• Set for oral argument: January 9, 2024

Case Summary

The issue is whether an employee’s report of sexual harassment by a coworker and comments about the matter to another coworker fall within the employee’s scope of employment for purposes of the Texas Tort Claims Act. 

Chen and Cai both worked at the M.D. Anderson Research Center in Houston and were subject to the Center’s policies and procedures for the filing and investigating of sexual harassment claims. In October 2018, Cai reported to a supervisor, as well as the Center’s Title IX coordinator, that Chen was sexually harassing and stalking her, which ultimately led to Chen’s placement on investigative leave and the commencement of criminal charges against him. Cai also discussed the matter with another coworker, repeating her allegations of stalking and harassment by Chen.

In November 2019, Chen sued Cai, alleging claims of slander, defamation, libel, malicious, criminal prosecution, and tortious interference with contract, among others. Chen moved to dismiss under Section 101.106(f) of the Tort Claims Act, which requires a court to dismiss a suit against a government employee based on conduct within the general scope of that employee’s employment. Chen refused to amend his pleadings to substitute the governmental unit as the defendant, arguing that reporting or discussing sexual harassment was not within the general scope of Cai’s employment. The trial court denied Cai’s motion to dismiss.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and rendered judgment in part, dismissing Chen’s malicious prosecution claim in its entirety and dismissing his remaining claims to the extent they are based on Cai’s reports of sexual harassment or conduct relating to the subsequent investigation. One justice, dissenting in part, also would have dismissed any claims based on Cai’s statements to the coworker.

Chen and Cai filed cross-petitions for review. The Supreme Court granted both petitions.

Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case. Links to the full case documents are included above.