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. 1:06-cv-01137
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2009

Baker v. Windsor Republic Doors

Plaintiff Douglas Baker filed a civil action against Defendant Windsor Republic Doors (WRD) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Tennessee Handicap Act (THA), and Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. A jury found WRD liable for both claims, awarding Baker back pay and compensatory damages. The Court granted judgment for WRD on the discrimination claim but sustained the retaliation claim. This order addresses the availability of compensatory damages for ADA retaliation claims, an issue with conflicting legal authority among federal courts. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, concluded that compensatory damages are available for ADA retaliation claims and found that the THRA and THA also provide alternative grounds for sustaining the award. Consequently, the Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding compensatory damages was denied, and the jury's $29,500 compensatory award was upheld.

Americans with Disabilities ActADA RetaliationTennessee Handicap ActTennessee Human Rights ActCompensatory DamagesJury AwardStatutory InterpretationDisability DiscriminationCivil RightsEmployment Law
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollard v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, Inc.

This case concerns the determination of compensatory damages and front pay for Plaintiff Sharon Pollard against Defendant E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. The Court previously found DuPont liable for Title VII discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After a damages hearing in July 2003, the Court concluded Plaintiff could not return to work due to severe anxiety and depression stemming from harassment and DuPont's insufficient response. The Court awarded Plaintiff $1,004,374.00 in front pay through age 65, determining she had adequately mitigated her damages. Additionally, $950,000.00 in compensatory damages was awarded for emotional distress, with a future hearing scheduled to determine punitive damages.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISexual HarassmentCompensatory DamagesFront PayIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderMajor Depressive DisorderMitigation of DamagesExpert Witness Testimony
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cush-Crawford v. Adchem Corp.

This case involves allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation brought by Plaintiff Tonia Cush-Crawford against Defendant Adchem Corp. A jury found in favor of the Plaintiff on her hostile environment sexual harassment claim under Title VII, awarding $0 in compensatory damages but $100,000 in punitive damages. The Defendant moved to set aside the verdict and vacate the punitive damages award, arguing that punitive damages cannot be awarded without compensatory damages, an issue of first impression in this circuit. The Court denied the Defendant's motion, ruling that an award of compensatory damages is not a prerequisite for punitive damages in Title VII cases. The Plaintiff's motion for a new trial on damages was also denied, and the Court awarded attorney's fees and costs to the Plaintiff.

Title VIISexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesAttorney's FeesFederal Civil RightsEmployment LawRule 50 MotionRule 59 Motion
References
41
Case No. 03-08-00626-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2010

Safeshred, Inc. v. Louis Martinez, III

Louis Martinez, III, an employee of Safeshred, Inc., was terminated after refusing to drive a commercial vehicle he deemed unsafe and noncompliant with federal and state regulations. Martinez sued Safeshred, alleging wrongful termination under the Sabine Pilot exception to the at-will employment doctrine. A jury awarded Martinez economic damages, compensatory damages for non-economic losses including mental anguish, and exemplary damages. Safeshred appealed, challenging the availability and sufficiency of exemplary and compensatory damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the awards for economic and exemplary damages, finding punitive damages are proper in Sabine Pilot actions and supported by evidence of malice. However, the court reversed the award for compensatory damages for mental anguish, ruling that the evidence presented did not meet the legal sufficiency standard for such damages in Texas law.

Retaliatory DischargeAt-Will EmploymentSabine Pilot DoctrinePunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesMental AnguishLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyCommercial Vehicle SafetyFederal Motor Carrier Regulations
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waterson v. Plank Road Motel Corp.

Suzanne Waterson, a former employee of Best Western Inn, sued for sexual harassment and discriminatory termination. Defendants moved to bar testimony on compensatory and punitive damages and to restrict the testimony of another former employee, Anne Marie Malinowski. The court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which allows compensatory/punitive damages and jury trials for Title VII claims, was not retroactive to Waterson's alleged pre-1991 conduct. However, Waterson could seek compensatory damages and a jury trial under her supplemental New York State Human Rights Law claim, provided her state claim was dismissed for "administrative convenience." The court denied the motion to restrict Malinowski's testimony, finding it relevant to demonstrating a hostile work environment and discriminatory intent. Ultimately, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion regarding damages, allowing compensatory damages only for the state law claim, and denied the motion to restrict Malinowski's testimony.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1991RetroactivityCompensatory DamagesPunitive DamagesJury TrialState Law ClaimNew York State Human Rights Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laurie Marie M. v. Jeffrey T. M.

This appeal concerns a civil action for intrafamilial child sex abuse, where an 11-year-old stepdaughter was sexually abused by her stepfather. The trial court found the defendant liable for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, with the jury awarding $200,000 in compensatory damages and $275,000 in punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the finding of liability for battery but deemed both compensatory and punitive damage awards excessive. Consequently, the court ordered a new trial on damages unless the plaintiff agrees to a reduction of compensatory damages to $100,000 and punitive damages to $100,000. If the plaintiff stipulates to these reductions, the judgment, as amended, will be affirmed.

Child sex abuseIntrafamilial abuseBatteryIntentional infliction of emotional distressPunitive damagesCompensatory damagesExcessive verdictDamages reductionAppellate reviewStepfather abuse
References
0
Case No. W2019-02089-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2022

Commercial Painting Company INC. v. The Weitz Company LLC

This is the third appeal in a commercial construction project dispute between general contractor Weitz Company, LLC and subcontractor Commercial Painting Company, Inc. Commercial Painting originally sued Weitz for damages, including intentional misrepresentation and breach of contract, resulting in a jury award of $1,729,122.46 in compensatory damages and $3,900,000.00 in punitive damages, plus interest and attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee held that the economic loss rule applies to construction contracts between sophisticated commercial entities, thus barring the fraud claim and punitive damages. The court affirmed the compensatory damages for breach of contract but reversed the punitive damages and pre/post-judgment interest due to contractual waivers. The attorney's fees award was vacated and remanded for reconsideration to reflect only those fees related to the affirmed compensatory damages.

Commercial ConstructionSubcontractor DisputeBreach of ContractFraudulent MisrepresentationEconomic Loss RulePunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesAttorney's FeesPre-judgment InterestPost-judgment Interest
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C & D ROBOTICS, INC. v. Mann

Gregory J. Mann sued his former employer, C & D Robotics, Inc., for wrongful termination in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. A jury found in Mann's favor, awarding back pay, compensatory damages, and exemplary damages. C & D appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for the causal link, the amount of actual/compensatory damages, the finding of malice, and the calculation of prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings regarding the causal link and compensatory damages. However, it reversed the award of exemplary damages, concluding there was no evidence of actual malice, and affirmed the trial court's award of prejudgment interest.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeWrongful TerminationDamagesCompensatory DamagesExemplary DamagesMaliceLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyPrejudgment Interest
References
28
Case No. No. 07-19-00343-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2021

THF Housing Management Corp. v. Kathleen Gideon

THF Housing Management Corp. appealed a jury verdict in favor of its former employee, Kathleen Gideon, who sued for employment discrimination based on disability. Gideon, a property manager, was injured in a non-work-related accident and returned to work part-time with accommodations. She was terminated after informing her supervisor she would need more time for rehabilitation. The jury found in favor of Gideon, awarding her back pay and compensatory damages. THF challenged the sufficiency of evidence for Gideon being qualified for the job and for disability being a motivating factor in her termination, as well as the amount of compensatory damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's findings on liability but modified the judgment, capping compensatory damages at $50,000 as per the Texas Labor Code, based on evidence that THF had fewer than 101 employees. The final award was $168,556.71 in back pay and employment benefits, and $50,000 in compensatory damages, for a total of $218,556.71.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationTexas Labor LawCompensatory DamagesBack PayAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CapJury VerdictEmployee Termination
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

West v. Pratt

This appeal addresses the allocation of compensatory and punitive damages between a liability insurer and an uninsured motorist carrier in Tennessee. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the uninsured motorist carrier for plaintiffs Glenn and Shari West, challenged Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company's, the liability insurer for defendant Horace Pratt, decision to apportion its policy limits between compensatory and punitive damages. State Farm argued this allocation improperly shifted responsibility for punitive damages to them, a result prohibited by Tennessee public policy concerning uninsured motorist coverage. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings, holding that a liability carrier must first satisfy compensatory damage awards to the extent of its limits before applying any funds to punitive damages, unless the policy explicitly states otherwise. This decision underscores the state's public policy against indirectly burdening uninsured motorist carriers with punitive damage obligations.

Allocation of damagesPunitive damagesCompensatory damagesUninsured motorist coverageUnderinsured motorist coverageLiability insuranceInsurance policy limitsPublic policyTennessee lawStatutory interpretation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 4,052 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