CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Austin v. Chandler

The Appellees, a group of public safety officers over the age of 40 from the City of Austin's defunct Public Safety Emergency Management Department (PSEM), sued the City for age-based employment discrimination. They alleged that the consolidation of PSEM into the Austin Police Department (APD) disparately impacted older PSEM employees by stripping them of their years of service. A jury found in favor of the Appellees, and the trial court awarded damages, including back pay and placement on the APD pay scale consistent with their years of service. On appeal, the City challenged the judgment on five grounds, including jurisdiction, sufficiency of evidence for disparate impact, whether a reasonable factor other than age was established, and the award of overtime pay damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the Appellees had exhausted administrative remedies, established a prima facie case of age-based disparate-impact discrimination, and that the City failed to prove its employment decision was based on reasonable factors other than age.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawDisparate ImpactSeniority RightsPublic SafetyMunicipal LawConsolidationAdministrative ExhaustionSufficiency of EvidenceJury Instructions
References
30
Case No. 08-23-00177-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2024

Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Claudia Gomez

The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) terminated Claudia Gomez, alleging she physically assaulted a coworker; Gomez contended the termination was discriminatory based on age, gender, and disability. The trial court denied DADS's plea to the jurisdiction regarding Gomez's discrimination claims. On appeal, the court found Gomez failed to present evidence of a similarly situated comparator, thus not establishing a prima facie case for age, gender, or disability discrimination. Furthermore, Gomez did not demonstrate that DADS's stated reason for termination was a pretext for discrimination. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed Gomez's claims for lack of jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationEmployment LawTerminationPretextPrima Facie CaseSovereign ImmunityTexas Labor Code
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2016

Tex. Dep't of Aging & Disability Servs. v. Lagunas

The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a case filed by Michael Lagunas. Lagunas, a 60-year-old security officer at DADS' El Paso State Supported Living Center, applied for an Assistant Unit Director position. Although initially selected for the role, the Director, Laura Cazabon-Braley, intervened and prevented his hiring, allegedly due to his age, and later reorganized the department, creating new positions for which Lagunas was not qualified. Lagunas filed charges of discrimination, alleging age discrimination and subsequent retaliation. The appellate court partly sustained DADS' appeal, ruling that certain claims in Lagunas' amended petition were administratively unexhausted and untimely, and thus should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. However, the court overruled DADS' contention that Lagunas failed to establish a prima facie case for the failure to hire/promote claim, and remanded that portion of the case for further proceedings.

Age DiscriminationFailure to PromoteRetaliationPlea to JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityTexas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA)Administrative ExhaustionPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingDepartment Restructuring
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heagney v. European American Bank

Plaintiffs in this action allege that the defendant, European American Bank, discriminated against them based on age, violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The plaintiffs sought the court's authorization to proceed as an "opt-in" class action and to send notice to potential class members. The Court granted the motion, concluding that the case may proceed as an opt-in class suit, broadly defining the class to include employees whose employment was terminated through various mechanisms, not just early retirement, between June 1, 1984, and December 31, 1985. Furthermore, the Court determined that plaintiffs' counsel could provide written notice to other potential class members without requiring formal court authorization, citing recent Supreme Court rulings on attorney advertising and finding no legal precedent to prohibit such notice. The Court also found that the administrative filing requirements under the ADEA were satisfied for the class.

Age DiscriminationADEAClass ActionOpt-in ClassClass CertificationAttorney AdvertisingSolicitation of ClaimsEEOC Administrative ChargeFair Labor Standards ActEarly Retirement Incentive Program
References
20
Case No. 01-13-00469-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2014

Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Esther Iredia

The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction concerning employment discrimination claims brought by Esther Iredia. Iredia, a former DADS employee, alleged sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and national origin discrimination by her supervisor. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the trial court's denial of DADS's plea regarding the sex discrimination claim, concluding that Iredia provided sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment. However, the court reversed the denial and dismissed Iredia's race and national origin discrimination claims due to her failure to present a prima facie case.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionAppellate Court DecisionLabor LawSupervisor Misconduct
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donaldson v. Texas Department of Aging & Disability Services

David Donaldson appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) on claims of race and disability discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the TCHRA and Title VII. Donaldson, an African-American employee diagnosed with multiple conditions including prostate cancer and PTSD, alleged DADS failed to accommodate his disabilities and discriminated against him through various adverse actions, culminating in his termination. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for DADS on the race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims, finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent or materially adverse actions in those areas. However, the court reversed and remanded the reasonable accommodation claim, concluding that Donaldson presented a fact issue regarding DADS's failure to provide continued assistance for his disabilities despite initial accommodations. This decision partially reverses the trial court's judgment, necessitating further proceedings on the reasonable accommodation aspect of the disability discrimination claim.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentDisability DiscriminationRace DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTitle VIIEmployment Law
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 1996

Tunstall v. Sol Seifer & Co.

A judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, dated March 7, 1996, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing an age discrimination complaint, was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The court found the action was properly dismissed due to the plaintiff's lack of proof that younger workers were hired for a position she was qualified for after her discharge. The plaintiff's request for further discovery was rejected because she had failed to compel compliance with discovery requests during the nearly 10 years the action had been pending, despite filing a note of issue and statement of readiness.

age discriminationsummary judgmentdiscoverydismissalemployment lawappellate reviewprocedural issueslack of proofNew YorkSupreme Court
References
1
Case No. 13-14-00113-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

Texas Health and Human Services Commission and the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Jose P. Baldonado

The case involves an appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS). Appellee Jose P. Baldonado sued for age discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) after being denied a position by HHSC and subsequently terminated by DADS. Appellants argued a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting Baldonado failed to establish a prima facie case for both claims and did not exhaust administrative remedies against DADS. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Baldonado raised sufficient fact questions regarding his qualifications, the causal link for retaliation, and the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court highlighted DADS's status as an agency within HHSC and its participation in the administrative complaint process as evidence of proper notice.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRetaliationPlea to JurisdictionTCHRAPrima Facie CaseAdministrative RemediesSovereign ImmunityInterlocutory AppealTexas Court of Appeals
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 1999

Hardy v. General Electric Co.

Plaintiff, a 58-year-old engineer, was discharged from defendant's Corporate Research and Development Center in Schenectady County in August 1993. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination under New York's Human Rights Law and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, along with contract claims. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment for the defendant on the contract claims but denied it for the age discrimination claim. On appeal, the order was modified, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the age discrimination cause of action was granted, dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The appellate court found that the defendant successfully demonstrated legitimate economic reasons for the workforce reduction and the plaintiff's termination, and the plaintiff failed to establish that these reasons were a pretext for age discrimination, despite presenting arguments regarding alleged age-related statements and statistical evidence.

age discriminationemployment lawsummary judgmentHuman Rights LawADEAworkforce reductioneconomic justificationpretextappellate reviewemployer-employee dispute
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stratton v. DEPARTMENT FOR AGING CITY OF NEW YORK

Plaintiff Joyce Stratton sued the New York City Department for the Aging (DFTA) and Commissioner Prema Mathai-Davis for age discrimination and retaliation after her termination at age 61 and failure to be rehired. A jury found for Stratton, awarding $500,000 in damages, determining age was a factor and the non-rehire was retaliatory and willful. Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence, erroneous admission of statistical evidence, and excessive damages. Plaintiff cross-moved for front pay and restoration of benefits. The court denied defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law and new trial regarding statistical evidence. The motion for a new trial due to excessive damages was denied on condition that plaintiff accept a remittitur reducing the award from $500,000 to $373,886.23. Plaintiff's motion for front pay and benefits, totaling $378,000, was granted.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawJury VerdictPost-trial MotionsJudgment as a Matter of LawNew TrialRemittiturFront PayBack Pay
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 2,648 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational