Texas House Bill HB197

Texas 2025 - 89th 1st C.S.

• Filed: 7/24/25

Caption

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

Summary

HB 197 would create a new Chapter 142B in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code governing when evidence about an employee’s THC use may be used in civil lawsuits and administrative proceedings against employers. The bill focuses on claims alleging negligent hiring, training, supervision, or entrustment, and it limits the use of evidence that an employee used low-THC cannabis lawfully under Chapter 169 of the Occupations Code. In those cases, a court could not admit evidence of the employee’s medical use of low-THC cannabis unless the employer knew of the use, became aware the employee was intoxicated before the incident in a way that made harm reasonably foreseeable, and failed to reasonably intervene. The bill also addresses broader THC evidence. In civil actions or administrative proceedings alleging that an employee’s THC use caused or contributed to injury, death, or property damage, a positive THC test alone would not be admissible unless accompanied by other sufficient evidence that the employee was intoxicated at or near the time of the relevant act or omission. The bill applies only to actions filed on or after its effective date, which would be the 91st day after the legislative session ends.

Impact

HB 197 would narrow the evidentiary basis available to plaintiffs and agencies in cases involving employer liability tied to employee cannabis use. It would not change substantive negligence standards directly, but it would make it harder to rely on low-THC cannabis medical-use evidence or a positive THC test by itself to prove employer fault or employee intoxication. The bill would affect civil practice, employer liability litigation, and administrative proceedings, while also interacting with existing Texas law on low-THC cannabis use and workplace-related claims.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of committee transcripts or recorded votes, the available record shows no documented opposition or support beyond the filing of the bill itself. The measure appears to be framed as a liability and evidence-limitation bill intended to protect employers from the use of weak or potentially prejudicial THC evidence in lawsuits. Because there is no recorded debate in the provided materials, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from committee discussion or voting history.

Contention

The main policy tension in HB 197 is between employer protection and plaintiff access to evidence. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s requirement that THC evidence be tied to actual intoxication near the time of the incident, rather than a positive test alone, and its protection for lawful medical use of low-THC cannabis. Potential critics may argue that the bill makes it more difficult to prove negligence or unsafe supervision in cases where cannabis use is relevant, especially if intoxication is hard to establish without test results. The bill also raises questions about how courts and agencies will evaluate “other sufficient evidence” and what counts as reasonable employer knowledge and intervention.