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. NO. 14-17-00162-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2018

Gerardo Solis, Osmin Turcios, Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, and Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. v. S. V.Z., Individually and as Next Friend of A.Z., Her Minor Child

This civil case involves the statutory rape of a 16-year-old by her 26-year-old supervisor at Chipotle Mexican Grill, leading to a lawsuit filed by the victim's mother against the supervisor, a manager, and the restaurant. The mother asserted claims for sexual assault, aiding and abetting, and sexual harassment. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the victim, but the judgment was appealed. The appellate court reversed and remanded the sexual assault claim against the supervisor and the sexual harassment claim against Chipotle for a new trial due to an erroneous jury instruction. It also rendered judgment that the plaintiff take nothing on the sexual assault claim against Chipotle, which was preempted by TCHRA, and the aiding and abetting claim against the manager, as that cause of action is not recognized under Texas common law.

Sexual AssaultStatutory RapeSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentAge of ConsentActual DamagesCompensatory DamagesJury Instruction ErrorRemand for New TrialPreemption
References
53
Case No. 16 Civ. 731
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2018

Nevada v. U.S. Dep't of Labor

This case concerns a motion for contempt filed by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC against Carmen Alvarez and her attorneys. Chipotle alleged that Alvarez and her legal counsel violated a nationwide preliminary injunction issued by the Eastern District of Texas on November 22, 2016, which enjoined the Department of Labor from implementing and enforcing a revised overtime regulation (the "Final Rule"). Despite the injunction, Alvarez and her lawyers filed a lawsuit in New Jersey against Chipotle, seeking overtime wages based on the very Final Rule that was enjoined. The Court found that it had jurisdiction over the non-party respondents due to actual notice of the injunction. It determined that Alvarez and her lawyers were in privity with the Department of Labor, whose interests were adequately represented in the original injunction proceeding, and thus were bound by the nationwide injunction. The Court further clarified that the injunction was unambiguous and prohibited any enforcement of the Final Rule, not just by the Department of Labor. Good faith was not a defense to contempt. Consequently, the Court granted Chipotle's motion for contempt, ordering respondents to withdraw their allegations related to the Final Rule and affirming the injunction's broad applicability. Chipotle was also awarded attorneys' fees and expenses for prosecuting the contempt motion.

Contempt of CourtNationwide InjunctionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Overtime RegulationsDepartment of Labor (DOL)PrivityCivil ProcedureDue ProcessAttorneys' FeesJudicial Enforcement
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2014

Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

This Opinion & Order addresses a class and collective action filed by plaintiff Maxcimo Scott against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Minimum Wage Act due to the misclassification of "apprentices" as exempt from overtime pay. Chipotle asserted statutory good faith defenses under 29 U.S.C. §§ 259 and 260 but sought a protective order to prevent discovery of attorney-client communications, claiming it did not rely on legal advice. The court, presided over by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, ruled that Chipotle's invocation of good faith defenses implicitly waived attorney-client privilege, as the advice of counsel was central to evaluating the sincerity of these defenses. Consequently, the court denied Chipotle's motion for a protective order, compelling the production of relevant privileged documents. Additionally, the decision permits discovery into Chipotle's differing classification of apprentices in California, deeming it relevant to the issue of willfulness and good faith in other states.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Minimum Wage Act (NYLL)Overtime CompensationWage and Hour DisputesClass Action LawsuitAttorney-Client PrivilegeAt-Issue WaiverGood Faith DefenseProtective Order MotionEmployment Misclassification
References
32
Case No. ADJ10165092
Regular
Feb 12, 2018

MARIA OLEA vs. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, CHUBB INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Maria Olea's petition for reconsideration of a previous Findings and Award. Olea contested the Administrative Law Judge's reliance on a PQME report over her treating physician's opinions regarding her permanent disability and apportionment. The Board agreed with the WCJ's recommendation to reconsider and has rescinded the prior award. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings, including obtaining a formal disability rating.

Petition for ReconsiderationPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPrimary Treating PhysicianPermanent and Stationary DatePermanent DisabilityApportionmentFindings and AwardRescindedReturned for Further ProceedingsCrew Member
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2003

Reger v. Harry's Harbour Place Grille, Inc.

Conrad G. Reger, an independent contractor, sustained injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder while applying caulking to a roof at a restaurant operated by Harry's Harbour Place Grille, Inc. on premises leased from Harbour Place Marine Sales, Inc. Plaintiffs commenced an action for damages, asserting claims under Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (6), and § 200. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment for both parties on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, citing a factual issue regarding whether Reger was involved in roof repair. The court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim because Reger was not engaged in construction, excavation, or demolition, and the Labor Law § 200 claim due to lack of evidence of defendants' supervision and control. The appellate court affirmed the order without costs.

Ladder FallSummary JudgmentIndependent Contractor InjuryPremises LiabilityRoof Repair AccidentUnsecured LadderLabor Law ClaimsPersonal InjuryAppellate AffirmationConstruction Safety
References
4
Case No. ADJ7162659
Regular
Nov 07, 2013

,JUAN MORA, vs. ,CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL and ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT; CALIFORNIA COMFORT VANS, and AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, ACE FIRE UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY/ACE GROUP, et. al.,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because the challenged order was procedural and not a final determination of substantive rights. The WCAB found that an interim order striking a doctor's opinion due to ex parte communication is not subject to reconsideration under Labor Code Section 5900(a). The case was returned to the trial level for clarification of the original order, specifically whether all of the doctor's reports were stricken and if the doctor was dismissed as the Qualified Medical Examiner. This clarification is necessary for proper further proceedings and potential issuance of a replacement QME panel.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONORDER STRIKINGEX PARTE COMMUNICATIONQUALIFIED MEDICAL EXAMINER (QME)LABOR CODE SECTION 4062.3FINAL ORDERINTERIM PROCEDURAL ORDERSDISCOVERYEVIDENTIARY MATTERS
References
3
Case No. 2015-02-0222
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2016

Bradley Booker v. Mid-City Grill

Bradley Booker, a delivery driver for Mid-City Grill, was robbed and struck in the head on January 14, 2015, leading to a seizure and diagnosis of a subarachnoid hemorrhage two days later. He received medical treatment, with East Tennessee Brain and Spine Center noting a normal neurological exam and near-complete resolution of the hemorrhage upon his discharge on March 4, 2015. Mr. Booker sought workers' compensation benefits, and during an expedited hearing, Mid-City Grill, an uninsured employer, acknowledged responsibility. The parties reached an agreement for the employer to cover Mr. Booker's medical bills and pay $5,000.00 in temporary disability benefits, resolving the disputed issues.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingUninsured EmployerMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsSubarachnoid HemorrhageSeizureRobberyHead InjurySettlement Agreement
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Susko v. Romano's MacAroni Grill

Plaintiff Karen M. Susko sued her former employer, Romano's Macaroni Grill, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII. Susko reported multiple incidents of alleged sexual harassment by a co-worker, Daniel Fabrizio, including touching, attempted kissing, patting, and threats of physical violence, which occurred between October 1996 and March 1997. Although Romano's responded by warning and eventually terminating Fabrizio, Susko claims the company failed to take adequate action to prevent further harassment. Romano's moved for partial summary judgment on the sexual harassment claim, arguing that the incidents did not constitute a hostile work environment and that their response was reasonable. The court denied the motion, finding sufficient factual support for a hostile work environment claim and a remaining factual issue regarding the reasonableness of Romano's employer response.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityCo-worker HarassmentRetaliation ClaimFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56DiscriminationWorkplace Harassment Policy
References
17
Case No. ADJ7530595
Regular
Apr 21, 2014

FIDEL PEREZ vs. EL PATIO MEXICAN GRILL, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Fidel Perez's petition for reconsideration. Reconsideration is only available for final orders that determine substantive rights or liabilities. Pre-trial orders, such as those concerning evidence, discovery, or trial setting, are interlocutory and not subject to reconsideration. Therefore, the Board found Perez's petition to be improper.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityWCJAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLab. Code
References
5
Case No. 2019-06-1141
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2020

Angel, Heriberto v. El Molcajete Mexican Restaurant

The Court held an expedited hearing to consider whether Mr. Angel suffered a work-related hernia that would entitle him to workers’ compensation benefits. Mr. Angel alleged he suffered a hernia from lifting beer kegs for El Molcajete Mexican Restaurant, with an alleged injury date of December 23, 2018. However, medical testing conducted soon after the accident, specifically a sonography on January 3, 2019, showed no evidence of a hernia. The Court found it unlikely that Mr. Angel could prove his work incident resulted in a hernia that appeared suddenly and immediately followed the accident, as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-212. Consequently, the Court denied his interlocutory claim for medical and temporary disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationHerniaExpedited HearingMedical EvidenceCausationInjury by AccidentBurden of ProofTennessee LawDenial of BenefitsInguinal Hernia
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 97 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