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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trivett v. Tri-State Container Corp.

This class action involves female employees suing Tri-State Container Corporation for sex-based employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court found that Tri-State engaged in unlawful employment practices by paying female class B folders less than male general floor helpers for substantially similar work, implementing discriminatory 'clock-out' policies, and creating an unequal system for promotions that favored male employees. However, the court found no sex discrimination in the company's layoff practices, determining that these decisions were based on legitimate business reasons and job qualifications rather than gender. The plaintiffs were awarded relief including back pay for wage disparities and reasonable counsel fees, with specific amounts to be determined.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationClass ActionWage DisparitySeniorityPromotion OpportunitiesBack PayCivil Rights Act 1964Title VIIUnlawful Employment Practice
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jermyn v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.

This case addresses Defendant Best Buy's second motion to decertify a class of New York customers who alleged the company denied valid price match requests through a secret corporate "Anti-Price Matching Policy." The court had previously certified the class for both injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and money damages under Rule 23(b)(3). Best Buy's motion for decertification was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, which clarified standards for class commonality and the appropriateness of monetary claims in Rule 23(b)(2) classes. The court denied the motion, distinguishing Dukes by noting that the plaintiffs here successfully alleged and provided substantial proof of a specific, centralized illegal corporate policy, unlike the broad discretion at issue in Dukes. Furthermore, the court emphasized that its certification involved separate classes for injunctive and monetary relief, thus not violating Dukes' guidance on combined (b)(2) claims.

Class ActionDecertification MotionCommonalityRule 23(b)(2) CertificationRule 23(b)(3) CertificationConsumer ProtectionPrice Match PolicyDeceptive Business PracticesCorporate PolicyMonetary Damages
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Puentes v. Sullivan

The plaintiff, a former jailer in the El Paso County Sheriff’s Department, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985(3), alleging that defendants conspired to terminate his employment due to his political beliefs, violating his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendants moved to dismiss the § 1985(3) claim and filed a Motion in Limine regarding the word "conspiracy," arguing the plaintiff failed to allege a class-based discriminatory animus as required by Griffin v. Breckenridge. The court reviewed circuit precedents, including Cameron v. Brock and Action v. Gannon, which held that political belief groups can constitute a class under § 1985(3) and that the Fourteenth Amendment protects First Amendment rights against private conspiracies under Section 5. The court concluded that a private conspiracy to deny First Amendment rights due to membership in a group advocating an unpopular position constitutes an invidiously discriminatory animus. Therefore, the court denied both of the defendants' motions.

First AmendmentFourteenth Amendment42 U.S.C. § 198342 U.S.C. § 1985(3)ConspiracyPolitical BeliefsEmployment TerminationClass-based DiscriminationMotion to DismissMotion in Limine
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2007

Lentz v. Spanky's Restaurant II, Inc.

This Amended Order addresses a plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. The plaintiff, a waiter, alleges that defendants Spanky’s Restaurant II, Inc. d/b/a Double Nickel Steakhouse, Lisa West, and Lady West Enterprises, LTD d/b/a Double Nickel Steakhouse violated FLSA by requiring waitstaff to participate in a "tip pool" with expediters who do not customarily receive tips and by failing to display required notice. The court, considering both the Lusardi and Shushan approaches to class certification, denied the plaintiff's motion. The denial was based on the plaintiff's failure to identify a sufficient number of similarly situated individuals and to provide adequate factual evidence beyond conclusory allegations. The court also noted the novelty of defining expediters' eligibility for tip-sharing and concerns about the breadth of the proposed notice. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members was denied.

FLSACollective ActionTip PoolingClass CertificationSimilarly SituatedWage and HourEmployment LawFair Labor Standards ActNotice RequirementsDenial of Motion
References
30
Case No. 11-cv-7679, 11-cv-8249
Regular Panel Decision

Tiro v. Public House Investments, LLC

This case consolidates two actions brought by "tipped/front of house" and "non-tipped/back of house" employees against several New York City restaurants and individuals for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Plaintiffs moved for class certification of their state-law claims. District Judge Colleen McMahon granted the motion in part, certifying eight subclasses based on employment at specific restaurants (Public House, Butterfield, Wicker Park, Black Finn) within the two broader categories of tipped and non-tipped workers. The court appointed Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP as class counsel but directed the parties to submit new joint proposed class notices. Defendants are also ordered to disclose employee information for the subclasses.

Class certificationWage disputeFLSANYLLLabor lawRestaurant industryCollective actionTipped employeesNon-tipped employeesEmployer liability
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tana Oil and Gas Corp. v. Cernosek

Tana Oil and Gas Corp. appealed a district court's partial summary judgment which found Tana in breach of oil and gas lease agreements for underpaying royalties to a class of mineral-interest owners and improperly deducting gas-lift fees. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that Tana had correctly calculated royalties based on the "amount realized" from the sale of raw gas at the well. The court further determined that the lease agreements permitted the deduction of reasonable post-production costs and gas-lift fees. Consequently, the appellate court rendered judgment in favor of Tana, finding no breach of the lease agreements, and also reversed the award of damages and attorney's fees to the Class.

Oil and Gas LeaseRoyalty PaymentsBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentPost-Production CostsGas-Lift FeesAmount RealizedNet ProceedsMineral-Interest OwnersAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scott v. Moore

Plaintiffs, Paul E. Scott, James T. Matthews, and A.A. Cross Construction Co., Inc., were attacked by union members at the Alligator Bayou Pump Station construction site in Jefferson County, Texas. The attack was organized by the Executive Committee of the Sabine Area Building and Construction Trades Council in response to Cross Construction Company's hiring of nonunion workers. The court found that the defendants conspired to deprive non-union individuals of their equal protection rights under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), concluding that discrimination based on non-union status constitutes a class-based discriminatory animus. The plaintiffs were awarded immediate and consequential damages, including compensation for personal injuries, equipment damage, increased insurance costs, and security services, along with attorney's fees. The court declared all defendants jointly and severally liable.

Workers' RightsUnion ViolenceNon-Union WorkersConspiracyCivil Rights Act of 187142 U.S.C. Section 1985(3)Class-Based DiscriminationInvidious DiscriminationAssault and BatteryProperty Damage
References
17
Case No. 89952
Regular Panel Decision

Britt v. Suckle

Plaintiff Don Britt brought a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) against Sherman Foundry and its associated entities and individuals, alleging a conspiracy to obstruct the due course of justice. Britt sustained severe back injuries while working at the Foundry and was subsequently discharged, which he attributed to the Foundry's negligence and its plan to avoid industrial accident costs. After seeking legal counsel for workmen's compensation, the defendants allegedly retaliated by interfering with his medical treatment and legal representation, and by influencing other employers to terminate his and his daughter's employment. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that Britt successfully demonstrated an independent illegality under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Act and a class-based discriminatory animus. This decision affirmed that conspiracies to bar certain classes of plaintiffs from state courts to vindicate a state-granted right are actionable under § 1985(2).

Civil Rights ConspiracyObstruction of JusticeWorkers' Compensation RetaliationEqual Protection LitigationClass-based AnimusEmployer LiabilityFederal JurisdictionState Court AccessFourteenth Amendment RightsPrivate Action
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 1997

Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiffs, 25 current or former Metro-North employees, filed two class action lawsuits alleging employment discrimination based on race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and various New York State laws against Metro-North Commuter Railroad. They sought class certification for "all African-American employees of defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad from 1983 through 1996." The Court consolidated the two actions but subsequently denied the motion for class certification. The denial was based on the plaintiffs' failure to satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The Court found that the plaintiffs' statistical data and sociological opinion were insufficient to establish company-wide discriminatory practices, and individual claims varied significantly, thus lacking typicality for such a broad class.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationClass ActionClass Certification DenialFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 23Commonality RequirementTypicality RequirementStatistical EvidenceSociological OpinionTitle VII
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 8,525 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