The Texas Court of Appeals has ruled in a significant case involving Empower Clinic Services, L.L.C., doing business as Empower Pharmacy, and former employee Samuel Pray. The court's decision, issued on August 25, 2026, addresses the denial of a motion to dismiss by Empower Pharmacy under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). This ruling is crucial for both parties, as it impacts the ongoing legal battle over allegations of retaliation and antitrust violations.

The case began when Empower Pharmacy, a Houston-based compounding pharmacy, filed a lawsuit against Pray after he left the company. Empower accused him of breaching noncompetition agreements and other claims. In response, Pray countersued, alleging that Empower retaliated against him for raising concerns about potential violations of federal regulations and antitrust laws. The court's ruling has implications for how claims of retaliation and antitrust violations are treated under Texas law.

Background

Empower Pharmacy is a prominent compounding pharmacy that serves thousands of clinics across the United States and employs over 1,200 people. Samuel Pray, who had a background in supply chain and logistics in the pharmaceutical industry, was hired by Empower in May 2022 as the Director of Supply Chain. During his employment, Pray signed two noncompetition agreements, which restricted his ability to work for competing pharmacies after leaving Empower.

Pray's tenure at Empower was marked by his concerns regarding the company's compliance with FDA regulations. He alleged that Empower instructed him to use noncompliant ingredients and that he faced retaliation after raising these issues. Following his resignation in July 2024, Empower filed a lawsuit against Pray, claiming he had engaged in misconduct while employed. Pray, in turn, filed counterclaims, alleging retaliation under the federal False Claims Act and violations of the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act.

The Ruling

The Texas Court of Appeals ruled that the TCPA applies to Pray's counterclaims, which are not exempt under the statute. The court found that Pray failed to make a prima facie case for his claims of retaliation and antitrust violations. The court stated, "We conclude that the TCPA applies to both the retaliation and antitrust claims, which are not statutorily exempt, and Pray failed to make a prima facie case for either claim." This ruling reverses the trial court's decision to deny Empower's motion to dismiss and sends the case back for further proceedings.

The judges involved in the ruling emphasized the importance of the TCPA in protecting the rights of individuals to petition and speak freely while also safeguarding the ability to file legitimate lawsuits. The court's decision highlights the need for clear and specific evidence when making claims under the TCPA.

Impact

The court's ruling has significant implications for both Empower Pharmacy and Samuel Pray. For Empower, the ruling allows them to move forward with their claims against Pray without the burden of his counterclaims complicating the case. For Pray, the decision underscores the challenges whistleblowers face when bringing retaliation claims, particularly in the context of the TCPA. This ruling may also set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding the burden of proof required for retaliation claims.

Furthermore, the ruling reinforces the importance of the TCPA in Texas, which aims to protect individuals' rights while balancing the need to prevent frivolous lawsuits. The court's decision may influence how companies respond to employee concerns about compliance and regulatory issues, as the threat of retaliation claims could deter potential whistleblowers.

What's Next

Following the court's ruling, the case will return to the trial court for further proceedings. Empower Pharmacy may continue to pursue its claims against Pray, while Pray's ability to counter with retaliation claims has been significantly limited. It remains to be seen whether Pray will seek to appeal the court's decision or if there are any related cases pending that could further impact this situation.