The civic record

Read. Follow. Verify.

HB 196TEXASSession 892State Billdead

Did Not Advance

Texas restricts evidence of employee THC use in civil lawsuits against employers

Original title: Relating to admissibility of certain evidence against employers for employee use of THC.

Last action · August 18, 2025: FiledSponsor: Pat Curry

Bill progressHistory & official text ↓

Introduced

Committee

Floor Vote

Passed

Law

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

What This Bill Proposed

Texas HB 196 bars courts and administrative bodies from admitting evidence of an employee's medical use or positive THC test results in injury lawsuits against employers, unless specific conditions showing employer knowledge of intoxication or independent proof of impairment are met.

Why it matters

The measure sets legal evidentiary standards in civil actions where employers face claims of negligent hiring, supervision, or entrusting related to employee cannabis use.

Who It Would Have Affected

Groups the bill's text would have affected, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.

Directly affected

employers

Employers face modified evidentiary standards and protections against certain claims of negligence related to employee cannabis use.

Directly affected

employees

Employees are subject to new evidentiary rules concerning whether their medical low-THC cannabis use or positive THC tests can be introduced in civil or administrative liability proceedings against their employer.

Key Facts

You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an employer be presented with evidence of an employee's medical cannabis use in an injury lawsuit?

Only if the employer knew the employee used under Chapter 169, became aware of intoxication prior to the incident in a timely manner, and failed to reasonably intervene.

Is a positive THC drug test automatically admissible in a civil suit against an employer?

No, a positive THC test is not admissible unless the offering party introduces other sufficient evidence showing the employee was actually intoxicated at or near the time of the relevant act or omission.

What else do you want to know?

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Follow the record

Votes, people, money & the original source

Where This Stands

This bill did not become law - Died at adjournment · introduced in the House.

Procedural history

1 action

Aug 18, 2025HouseIntroduced
Filed

Version history

Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.

View official text →

Lobbying Activity

No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.

Full breakdown

Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.

Connected Entities

Occupations Code, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Pat Curry

otherOccupations Code“Statutory reference for low-THC cannabis definitions”Map →

otherCivil Practice and Remedies Code“Amended code title”Map →

PersonPat Curry“Bill author/sponsor”Map →

Sources

Open source document

capitol.texas.gov

Analysis Score

0–100

Significance20
Lowered because this bill did not pass (its text scored 60)
Controversy50
Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
Entertainment10
Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
Buzz30
Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools