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

Chacko v. Texas a & M University

Plaintiff Jane Chacko, a Canadian citizen, sued Texas A&M University (TAMU) and several individual defendants for alleged national origin and citizenship discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. Chacko claimed she was offered a position as Sponsored Student Specialist, obtained a work visa, but was subsequently not hired or terminated due to her non-U.S. citizenship, following complaints from an ISS staff member. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Chacko was never officially hired and that Title VII does not cover citizenship discrimination. The court granted summary judgment for TAMU on the Title VII claim, finding it covers national origin, not citizenship, and also for TAMU on §§ 1981 and 1983 claims due to sovereign immunity. Additionally, the court granted qualified immunity to defendants Gage and Cocanougher. However, summary judgment was denied for defendants Ashworth and Droleskey on the §§ 1981 and 1983 claims in their individual capacities, as genuine issues of material fact remained regarding their discriminatory motives in Chacko's hiring/termination.

DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationCitizenship DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983Employment LawSummary JudgmentQualified ImmunitySovereign Immunity
References
153
Case No. 01A01-9602-CH-00073
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 1998

Devore v. Deloitte & Touche

This appeal concerns an employment discrimination action filed by Maurice DeVore against Deloitte & Touche. DeVore, a computer programmer, alleged he was terminated due to race discrimination and in retaliation for filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The trial court granted summary judgment to Deloitte & Touche, determining DeVore failed to present sufficient evidence of discrimination or pretext. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that DeVore's statistical evidence and personal beliefs were insufficient to prove pretext for the employer's stated reason of inadequate job performance.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CasePretextual ReasonStatistical EvidenceJob PerformanceTraining DisparityEEOC Charge
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stanford v. New York City Commission on Human Rights

The plaintiff, a provisional human rights specialist, sued her employer, the New York City Commission on Human Rights, and several individual defendants for employment discrimination. She alleged discrimination based on national origin and retaliation after her termination, which followed a history of insubordination and conflict with her supervisor. The court found no evidence to support either the national origin discrimination claim, noting similar racial backgrounds among parties, or the retaliation claim, as the Commission had encouraged employees to challenge the civil service examination in question. The decision concluded that the plaintiff's termination stemmed from an irreconcilable personal antagonism with her supervisor rather than any discriminatory reasons. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, affirming that federal courts should not intervene in personnel decisions based on non-discriminatory grounds.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimInsubordinationProvisional Employee TerminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActEEOC ComplaintSupervisor-Employee ConflictFederal District Court CaseWorkplace Conduct
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Board of Higher Education & Professional Staff Congress/CUNY

This case addresses a petition to stay arbitration initiated by a petitioner against a respondent, representing Sandra Davis and Luis Rodriquez-Abad. The grievants, non-reappointed instructional staff at CUNY (Hunter College), sought arbitration alleging discrimination. The petitioner refused to process these grievances, citing a collective bargaining agreement clause (Section 20.7) that precludes arbitration for discrimination claims if a party has filed a claim in court or with a governmental agency. Sandra Davis had filed a Title VII lawsuit, and Luis Rodriquez-Abad had filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights. The court, referencing Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., ruled that while statutory rights cannot be prospectively waived, the contractual right to arbitration can be waived if a superior forum is chosen. Consequently, the court granted the petition to stay arbitration of the discrimination claim, allowing other claims to proceed to arbitration.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementDiscriminationNonreappointmentTenureGrievance ProcedureTitle VIICivil Rights ActExecutive Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parry v. Tompkins County

Plaintiff, a counselor for Tompkins County, alleged unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation after her job duties were changed due to client allegations. She filed a grievance and a complaint under Local Law No. 6. A settlement resolved the grievance, but conciliation efforts for the discrimination complaint ceased in May or October 1996. Plaintiff later filed a lawsuit in December 1997, alleging a violation of Local Law No. 6, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court as time-barred. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the action was time-barred under Local Law No. 6's one-year statute of limitations, as conciliation efforts terminated earlier than claimed and no continuing pattern of discrimination was established.

DiscriminationSexual OrientationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsConciliation EffortsGrievance ProcedureAppellate ReviewTime-Barred ClaimContinuing Violation DoctrineLocal Law No. 6
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Damron v. Yellow Freight System, Inc.

Leroy Damron sued Yellow Freight System, Inc. for employment discrimination under the ADEA and Title VII, alleging age and national origin discrimination, alongside retaliation, after being terminated as a casual truck driver. Damron's national origin claim was based on his "tax protester" activities, specifically his attempt to revoke his Social Security number, arguing foreign aliens were preferred. The court granted summary judgment for Yellow Freight, dismissing Damron's failure-to-hire/promote claims as time-barred due to late EEOC filing and finding no basis for equitable doctrines. It further ruled that national origin discrimination does not encompass claims solely based on U.S. citizenship or the legally required use of Social Security numbers. Finally, Damron's race and age discrimination claims lacked evidence, and his retaliation claim failed as the adverse employment action predated his protected activities, leading to the dismissal of his entire complaint with prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationAge Discrimination in Employment ActTitle VII Civil Rights ActNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTax ProtesterSocial Security Number DisputeCasual Truck DriverTime-Barred Claims
References
105
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nash v. Northland Communications Corp.

The appellant, an employee of Northland, sustained two back injuries and settled two workers' compensation claims. After the second injury, Northland terminated his employment. The appellant filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination under Article 8307c of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, seeking damages for various personal injuries. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Northland, severing the discrimination claim. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that an employee cannot seek a second recovery for the same personal injury under a discrimination claim if the damages sought are solely and inseparably tied to the injury for which workers' compensation benefits have already been received.

Workers' CompensationDiscriminationSummary JudgmentElection of RemediesDouble RecoveryTexas LawBack InjuryEmployment TerminationPersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Keselman v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant appealed two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a discrimination claim. In 1986, the claimant sustained a shoulder injury and was placed on disability retirement in 1990 by the self-insured employer. In 2001, the claimant filed a discrimination claim, alleging retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found the discrimination claim untimely, as it was filed almost 11 years after the alleged discriminatory practice in 1990, exceeding the two-year statutory period under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the claimant's argument that the two-year period should start from a later Board decision.

workers' compensationdiscrimination claimtimelinessstatute of limitationsretaliationdisability retirementAppellate DivisionBoard decisionNew York lawjudicial review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shafa v. Montgomery Ward & Co.

The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought an employment discrimination action against Montgomery Ward Co., Inc. under Title VII, alleging termination based on national origin. The case was tried before an advisory jury, which found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. The Court concurred, concluding that the plaintiff's termination was due to insubordination and unapproved absence, not discriminatory intent. Consequently, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice, denying all requests for relief, including the defendant's conditional motion for attorney's fees.

employment discriminationTitle VIIterminationpro se litigationinsubordinationnational origin discriminationadvisory juryprima facie caseSecond CircuitMcDonnell Douglas framework
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Hunt

The defendant, Howard Hunt, an attorney, was indicted for conspiring to intimidate a prospective witness in a narcotics case. After being found guilty by a jury on January 19, 1967, Hunt filed a motion to quash the jury panel, alleging violations of federal statutory schemes for jury selection due to incorrect standards and inadequate sources for prospective jurors. The Court, presided over by Senior District Judge Graven, held a three-day hearing on the motion. The defendant's challenges primarily focused on alleged discrimination against Mexican-Americans and an imbalance in economic attainment and employment representation within the jury panel, specifically concerning Bexar County. The Court denied the motion, finding no evidence of impermissible selective judgment by suggesters, no significant disparity indicating discrimination against Mexican-Americans (especially when considering eligibility factors like age, citizenship, and English language proficiency), and no purposeful discrimination based on economic status or occupation, given the complexities of jury selection in metropolitan areas and the efforts made to ensure a broad cross-section of the community.

Jury SelectionJury PanelRacial DiscriminationJury QualificationsStatutory ComplianceCross-Section of CommunitySan Antonio DivisionBexar CountyFifth CircuitJudicial Conference
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 2,422 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