Clarifying Same-Sex Harassment Pleadings After Texas’s 2021 Amendments:
A Commentary on Lanier v. Wise County (5th Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

Chad Lewis Lanier, a retired deputy sheriff for Wise County, Texas, alleged that his male supervisor repeatedly subjected him to lewd sexual taunts and comments. He sued the county, the sheriff, and the supervisor under:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2
• Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), Tex. Lab. Code § 21.051
• State-law constructive discharge and retaliation theories

The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), finding that Lanier failed to plead facts showing the abuse occurred because of sex—a necessary element of same-sex sexual-harassment claims. Lanier appealed, challenging:

1. Dismissal of his Title VII claim;
2. Dismissal (and federal retention) of his TCHRA claim in light of the 2021 statutory amendments creating Tex. Lab. Code §§ 21.141–.142;
3. Denial of leave to amend.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Title VII Hostile-Work-Environment Claim: Lanier’s allegations—though vulgar—did not plausibly show discrimination because of sex under any of the three evidentiary paths recognized for same-sex harassment in Oncale and Boh Bros.
• TCHRA Claim: Because Texas courts interpret § 21.051 consistently with Title VII, the same pleading failure doomed the state claim. The panel rejected Lanier’s request that the federal court decline supplemental jurisdiction.
• Leave to Amend: A bare, formulaic request for leave—unaccompanied by proposed amendments or new facts—did not entitle Lanier to another pleading opportunity.
• Other Claims: Constructive-discharge and retaliation counts were abandoned on appeal.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) – The Supreme Court outlined three “evidentiary routes” for proving same-sex harassment. Lanier reiterates that plaintiffs must fit within at least one path at the pleading stage.
2. E.E.O.C. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., 731 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc) – The Fifth Circuit’s seminal same-sex harassment decision provided detailed guidance on the “because of sex” element. The Lanier panel applies Boh Bros. verbatim, reinforcing its continued vitality.
3. La Day v. Catalyst Technology, Inc., 302 F.3d 474 (5th Cir. 2002) and Cherry v. Shaw Coastal, Inc., 668 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2012) – These cases illustrate allegations sufficient to infer homosexual desire or overt sexual advances. By contrasting them with Lanier’s facts, the court underscored the insufficiency of sexualized insults alone.
4. Raj v. LSU, 714 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 2013) – Re-affirms that plaintiffs need not plead a full prima facie case but must state a “plausible” claim; dictates the Rule 12(b)(6) lens in discrimination suits.
5. Texas Dep’t of Family & Protective Services v. Whitman, 530 S.W.3d 703 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2016) – Confirms that Texas courts import Title VII standards into § 21.051 analysis; paved the way for the Fifth Circuit to treat the state claim identically.
6. Goldstein v. MCI WorldCom, 340 F.3d 238 (5th Cir. 2003) – Supports the rule that a skeletal request for amendment, without specifics, does not compel leave.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The panel employed a straightforward, layered approach:

1. Rule 12(b)(6) Framework – Accept all well-pled facts as true; ask whether they “nudge” the claim from conceivable to plausible (Twombly/Iqbal).
2. Step One—“Because of Sex” – Apply Oncale/Boh Bros.’s three routes:
   • Homosexual Desires: No facts indicating Wallace was gay, made sexual advances, or sought sexual contact.
   • Gender-Directed Hostility: No suggestion Wallace harbored animus toward men as a class.
   • Comparative Evidence: No facts about Wallace’s treatment of women.
   Conclusion: Lanier failed at route one, so harassment is not actionable under Title VII.
3. Step Two—Hostile Work Environment – Reached only in the alternative; the court stated Lanier likely failed the “severe or pervasive” test as well, but definitively grounded dismissal on step one.
4. TCHRA Mirrors Title VII – Because § 21.051 shares the same substantive standard, Lanier’s state claim collapses for the same reason.
5. Supplemental Jurisdiction – Once federal and state claims are intertwined and dismissed on identical grounds, a court may keep and dispose of state claims. The panel found no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
6. 2021 Texas Amendments – §§ 21.141–.142 introduced an expanded definition of “sexual harassment” and allowed suits against “employers” with fewer employees. But Lanier sued only under § 21.051; the new subchapter was irrelevant. Thus, no “novel” state issue justified remand.
7. Leave to Amend – A district court may deny a general, unexplained request. Without proffering new facts capable of curing the “because of sex” deficiency, amendment would be futile.

3.3 Likely Impact

• Pleading Precision: Plaintiffs alleging same-sex harassment in the Fifth Circuit must now plead not only salacious language but credible facts tying that language to sex-based motives. Conclusory assertions will be weeded out early.
• TCHRA Litigation: Litigants who wish to invoke Texas’s 2021 amendments must expressly plead causes of action under §§ 21.141–.142 and satisfy their new elements. Failing to do so forfeits any argument that federal courts should abstain pending state interpretation.
• Supplemental Jurisdiction Strategy: Plaintiffs who combine federal and state discrimination claims should anticipate that dismissal of the federal claim on the merits may take the state claim down with it in one order.
• Individual Liability in Texas: By citing Butler v. Collins, 714 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. 2025), the opinion reinforces that individual supervisors are generally immune from personal liability under § 21.051, nudging plaintiffs to focus on the employer entity or the new Post-2021 subchapter if they seek individual accountability.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Same-Sex Sexual Harassment – Harassment where the perpetrator and victim are the same gender. To be actionable under Title VII, it must be shown that the conduct was motivated by the victim’s sex, not merely sexual in tone.
• “Because of Sex” Element – A legal requirement that the harassment would not have occurred but for the plaintiff’s gender. Courts ask whether gender itself—not sexual vulgarity—drove the mistreatment.
• Hostile Work Environment – A workplace permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, or insult sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter employment conditions.
• Rule 12(b)(6) – A procedural device allowing defendants to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint before discovery. The court assumes the facts are true and asks whether the plaintiff states a plausible legal claim.
• Supplemental Jurisdiction (§ 1367) – Allows federal courts to decide state-law claims linked to federal ones in the same lawsuit. A court may keep or dismiss those claims after disposing of the federal causes depending on fairness, efficiency, and comity.
• Leave to Amend – Permission to revise the complaint. While freely given, a judge can deny it when amendment would be futile or when the plaintiff offers no substance showing how defects would be cured.

5. Conclusion

Lanier v. Wise County may be unpublished, but it sends a clear signal. The Fifth Circuit will scrutinize same-sex harassment pleadings for specific facts connecting vulgar speech to sex-based animus or desire. Off-color mockery, standing alone, will not cross the plausibility threshold. The decision also clarifies that Texas’s 2021 TCHRA amendments do not automatically broaden older § 21.051 claims, and that plaintiffs must explicitly invoke the new subchapter to access its expanded remedies—especially against individual supervisors.

Practitioners should heed three takeaways:

1. Plead concrete facts supporting one of the three Oncale routes.
2. Identify the precise Texas statutory provision—§ 21.051 or the 2021 subchapter—and tailor allegations accordingly.
3. When seeking leave to amend, be prepared to show the court how additional allegations will cure defects; generic requests are no longer sufficient.

In the broader legal landscape, Lanier fortifies a trend: heightened attention to the causal link between harassing conduct and the protected characteristic, ensuring Title VII and TCHRA remain statutes against discrimination, not generalized civility codes.