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

Alonzo v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

Plaintiff Luis R. Alonzo filed an employment discrimination action against The Chase Manhattan Bank and several individual defendants, alleging discrimination based on race, color, and national origin, and retaliation. Alonzo, a Hispanic employee, claimed he was subjected to racial slurs and subsequently terminated. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies for race and color claims and lack of individual liability under Title VII. The court denied the motion regarding race discrimination, finding that "Hispanic" could encompass race for EEOC investigation purposes, but granted the dismissal of color discrimination claims and claims against the individual defendants, citing no personal liability under Title VII.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIEEOC ChargeExhaustion of Administrative RemediesNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationIndividual LiabilityJudgment on PleadingsHispanic Identity
References
44
Case No. 05-24-00614-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Dallas County, Texas v. Larry Henderson

The case involves an interlocutory appeal by Dallas County, Texas, after the trial court denied its plea to the jurisdiction concerning former employee Larry Henderson’s employment discrimination claims. Henderson, who was suspended in November 2022 and terminated in December 2022, filed two charges of discrimination with the EEOC and TWC, alleging harassment, retaliation, and discrimination based on race, color, sex, and national origin by his supervisor, Shelly Cabrera. The Court of Appeals concluded that Henderson failed to exhaust administrative remedies and plead a prima facie case for his race, color, and national origin discrimination claims, which were found to be time-barred or lacking sufficient factual support. However, the court remanded Henderson’s sex discrimination and retaliation claims, noting that the trial court's order for repleading was stayed by the appeal.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationPlea to JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesPrima Facie CaseHostile Work EnvironmentTexas Labor CodeTitle VIIComparatorsContinuing Violation Doctrine
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dennis v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

The plaintiff, a former employee, filed an employment discrimination claim against Pan American World Airways, Inc. (Pan Am), Betty Kwong, and Su-zann Hull, alleging race and color discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She later attempted to amend her complaint to include an age discrimination claim under the ADEA and various state tort claims. The defendants moved to dismiss the ADEA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the state tort claims as preempted, and sought Rule 11 sanctions. The Court dismissed the age discrimination claim, ruling that it was not reasonably related to the original EEOC complaint based on race and color. Furthermore, the Court granted Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff's attorney for asserting the state tort claims, determining they were preempted by the Railway Labor Act and filed without sufficient pre-filing inquiry.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights ActAge Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)Subject Matter JurisdictionRule 11 SanctionsPreemptionRailway Labor Act (RLA)EEOC ComplaintRace Discrimination
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooper v. Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District

Joe B. Cooper filed an employment discrimination suit against Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District (JMCGHD) on May 12, 2009, alleging race, color, and sex discrimination under Title VII. Cooper, a licensed clinical social worker, claimed his supervisor, Sheila Odom, created a hostile work environment through condescending behavior and racial slurs like "whitey" and "white boy," leading to his constructive discharge. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court dismissed claims of sex and color discrimination due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies with the EEOC. While acknowledging Odom's African-American race satisfied the "background circumstances" for reverse discrimination, the court found Cooper failed to present evidence of similarly situated African-American employees receiving better treatment. The court also concluded that most of Odom's alleged harassing behavior was racially neutral and that the racial comments lacked sufficient specificity and pervasiveness to establish a hostile work environment or constructive discharge. Consequently, the court granted JMCGHD's motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims.

Employment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentReverse DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIRacial HarassmentConstructive DischargeFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEEOCWorkplace Harassment
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Dock Workers Colored Ass'n v. Boyer

Independent Dock Workers Colored Association No. 57588, a Texas corporation, and its members sued Jake Boyer and Zeke Hildreth for an accounting of a trust fund. The fund was comprised of 5% of weekly wages from members, with Boyer serving as trustee. Plaintiffs alleged that Boyer and Hildreth received a significant sum, while Boyer claimed a smaller amount, detailing his disbursements and tendering a remaining balance. An auditor's report largely corroborated Boyer's accounting. The trial court found that Boyer had adequately accounted for all funds, allowing credits for a charter fee, attorney fees, commissions to Hildreth, and advances to members. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, noting the absence of by-laws governing the trust fund's disposition and Boyer's uncompensated service as trustee.

Trust FundAccountingFiduciary DutyTrusteeDisbursementMember AdvancesAttorney FeesCommissionsAffirmedTexas Law
References
0
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. 96 Civ. 3889(DC)
Regular Panel Decision

Evans v. Golub Corp.

Pro se plaintiff Mark B. Evans brought an employment discrimination case against The Golub Corporation d/b/a Price Chopper Supermarket, alleging race and color discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff claimed disparate treatment and harassment based on several incidents involving supervisors, including denial of a shift transfer, use of profane language, and confrontational interactions, leading to two dismissals from employment. The court, applying the McDonnell-Douglas framework, assessed whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to prove discriminatory intent. Ultimately, the court found that Evans failed to present evidence demonstrating that the adverse treatment was motivated by his race or color. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Employment LawTitle VIIRace DiscriminationDisparate TreatmentHarassmentSummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentFederal CourtPro Se LitigationEvidentiary Standards
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2016

Taylor v. City of New York

Plaintiff Tiffany Taylor sued the City of New York and the Department of Environmental Protection alleging employment discrimination based on sex, race, color, and national origin, alongside retaliation and state law claims. Taylor claimed she was repeatedly denied promotion to PAA level two or three and hiring as an apprentice construction laborer or construction laborer due to discrimination, and endured a hostile work environment and retaliatory transfers. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied in part, allowing Taylor's sex discrimination claims related to the apprentice construction laborer position under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL to proceed. All other discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims were dismissed, largely due to timeliness or failure to state a claim.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentFailure to HireFailure to PromoteStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violations DoctrineTitle VII
References
83
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,438 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