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. 03-03-00199-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2004

Valentine Cantu, Maria Padilla, Carolyn Chatham, Suzanne Hoog-Watson and George Denton v. Texas Workforce Commission and Employees Retirement System of Texas

This case, heard by the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, involves an appeal from a summary judgment in a suit alleging age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. Appellants, former employees of the Texas Workforce Commission, claimed they were terminated due to age and that the Employees Retirement System of Texas misinterpreted a government code section regarding early retirement benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary judgment, concluding that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination and that the Retirement System's interpretation of former government code section 814.1041(b) was correct. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying attorney's fees or excluding evidence.

Age discriminationSummary judgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActRetirement benefitsGovernment code interpretationStatutory constructionLegislative intentDisparate impactPretext methodPrima facie case
References
28
Case No. 03-03-00131-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2004

Cantu v. Texas Workforce Commission

This case addresses an appeal by former employees of the Texas Workforce Commission (Valentine Cantu, Maria Padilla, Carolyn Chatham, Suzanne Hoog-Watson, and George Denton) who alleged age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act against the Workforce Commission and the Employees Retirement System. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Appellants challenged their terminations due to a privatization plan and the Retirement System's interpretation of an early retirement program (Government Code § 814.1041). The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. The court further held that the Retirement System's interpretation of Government Code § 814.1041(b) was correct, supported by both plain language and legislative intent, and found no abuse of discretion in the denial of attorney's fees or the exclusion of evidence.

Age DiscriminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActSummary JudgmentPrivatization PlanEarly Retirement ProgramGovernment Code Section 814.1041Prima Facie CasePretext Method of ProofDisparate ImpactAttorney's Fees
References
29
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. 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. 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. 06-15-00078-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2015

Tochril, Inc. v. Texas Workforce Commission

This case involves an appeal by Tochril Incorporated (also known as Health Force) against the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). Health Force challenged the TWC's administrative decision classifying its healthcare workers as "employees" rather than independent contractors, which led to the assessment of unemployment taxes. The appeal contests the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the TWC, arguing that the court improperly excluded evidence, failed to recognize genuine issues of material fact under the Twenty Factor Test, and ignored consistent findings from federal agencies like the IRS and DOL, which had classified the same workers as independent contractors. The core legal issue is the correct worker classification for unemployment tax purposes.

Worker ClassificationIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusUnemployment TaxTexas Workforce CommissionSummary Judgment AppealTwenty Factor TestIRS Audit FindingsDOL Audit FindingsLabor Law
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Douglas Spicer v. Texas Workforce Commission

Douglas Spicer appealed the trial court's summary judgment upholding the Texas Workforce Commission's (TWC) denial of unemployment benefits. Spicer, a former pianist and organist for Pleasant Valley United Methodist Church, was denied benefits due to an exemption in the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act (TUCA) for church employment, leading him to challenge the statute's constitutionality. He argued that section 201.066 of the TUCA violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, specifically the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses. The appellate court, applying the Lemon test and rational-basis review, found no constitutional violations. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the TWC's decision to deny unemployment benefits to Spicer was supported by substantial evidence.

Unemployment BenefitsChurch ExemptionConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentEstablishment ClauseFree Exercise ClauseEqual ProtectionSummary JudgmentAdministrative Law
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workforce Commission v. Wichita County

This appeal examines whether an employee on federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave can simultaneously receive unemployment benefits under the Texas Labor Code. The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) appealed a trial court's decision that denied unemployment benefits to Julia White, who was on unpaid FMLA leave from Wichita County for depression and anxiety. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that FMLA, intended for job security, and state unemployment benefits, meant for those able and seeking new work, are mutually exclusive. The court concluded that interpreting the statutes to allow concurrent benefits would be unreasonable, thwarting legislative intent as both laws serve distinct purposes.

Family and Medical Leave ActFMLAUnemployment BenefitsTexas Labor CodeJob SecurityIncome SecurityEmployment RelationshipMedical LeaveTexas Workforce CommissionWichita County
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2013

Christopher Furlough v. Spherion Atlantic Workforce, LLC

The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed lower court decisions regarding a workers' compensation settlement for Christopher Furlough. Furlough sought to set aside a Department of Labor-approved settlement with Spherion Atlantic Workforce, LLC, claiming inadequate representation and insubstantial benefits. The Supreme Court clarified that the Department's approval of a settlement implies approval of the accompanying SD-1 form, precluding judicial second-guessing of its completeness. The Court also ruled that administrative remedies were exhausted and Furlough was legally represented, making a court-approved settlement unnecessary. Crucially, Furlough's petition, filed nearly two years post-settlement, was deemed untimely under Rule 60.02(1), and relief under Rule 60.02(5) or inherent authority was inappropriate due to available remedies and Furlough's lack of complete fault.

Workers' Compensation LawSettlement AgreementAdministrative RemediesRule 60.02Independent ActionEquitable ReliefMedical Impairment RatingPermanent Partial DisabilityDepartment of Labor ApprovalSD-1 Form
References
50
Case No. 08-10-00070-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2011

Texas Workforce Commission v. Maria Elena Olivas

The Texas Workforce Commission appealed the trial court’s denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a retaliatory discharge suit brought by its former employee, Maria Elena Olivas. Olivas claimed she was dismissed after filing a workers’ compensation claim. The Commission argued that sovereign immunity for such claims had not been 'clearly and unambiguously' waived by the Legislature, referencing Texas Government Code Section 311.034 and the Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, distinguishing Norman by noting that the State Applications Act (SAA) had not been amended since the controlling Fernandez decision, which established a clear waiver of sovereign immunity for state agencies under the SAA. The court also clarified that Section 311.034 did not alter the existing framework for analyzing legislative intent regarding waivers of sovereign immunity.

Retaliatory DischargeSovereign ImmunityWorkers' CompensationPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationGovernment Code 311.034Labor Code 451.001State Applications ActJudicial Precedent
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 971 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