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

Spicer v. Beaman Bottling Co.

This case addresses the applicability of the "continuing violation doctrine" to a sexual harassment claim filed under the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Plaintiff Judy G. Spicer alleged sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge by her supervisor, Don Hollingshead, and employer, Beaman Bottling Company. The Supreme Court adopted the continuing violation doctrine, allowing a plaintiff to challenge a series of discriminatory acts if one falls within the one-year statute of limitations. However, the Court found that all acts of sexual harassment against Spicer occurred more than one year before she filed suit, and the alleged retaliatory actions did not constitute a continuing violation or discrimination based on gender. Therefore, the plaintiff's action was deemed time-barred, and the Court of Appeals' judgment affirming dismissal was affirmed.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of LimitationsTennessee Human Rights ActRetaliatory DischargeHostile Work EnvironmentSupervisory LiabilityWorkplace DiscriminationAppellate Review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Xue Ming Wang v. Abumi Sushi Inc.

Plaintiff Xue Ming Wang sued Abumi Sushi Inc. and Qing Zhong Li for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law (NYLL), and New York General Business Law § 349 violations, stemming from his employment as a delivery worker. The core legal dispute centered on whether the defendants, who acquired the restaurant's assets in June 2015, were liable for violations predating the sale under successor liability doctrines. The Court considered both traditional common-law and federal common-law 'substantial continuity' tests. It concluded that the traditional test did not apply due to lack of ownership continuity, and under the 'substantial continuity' test, the plaintiff failed to prove the defendants had notice of the alleged pre-sale violations. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's motion, and dismissed claims related to pre-June 2, 2015 conduct against the appearing defendants.

Successorship LiabilityFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawGeneral Business Law § 349Wage and Hour ViolationsAsset SaleConstructive NoticeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawLabor Dispute
References
45
Case No. 03-05-00781-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2009

Alegria Olivarez v. University of Texas at Austin

Alegria Olivarez sued her former employer, the University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin), alleging discrimination based on national origin and retaliation. UT-Austin filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting Olivarez's suit was barred because she did not file an administrative complaint with the Texas Commission on Human Rights within the 180-day statute of limitations. The trial court granted the plea, and Olivarez appealed. She contended that the limitations period began upon receipt of her termination letter and that her TCHR filing was timely under the doctrine of continuing violation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, concluding that the only alleged discriminatory act within the 180-day period (a reprimand for a cluttered desk) was not an actionable adverse employment action, and the continuing violation doctrine did not apply. The court also clarified that termination does not qualify as a predicate act for a hostile work environment claim.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationStatute of LimitationsPlea to the JurisdictionContinuing Violation DoctrineHostile Work EnvironmentAdministrative ComplaintTexas Labor CodeAppellate Review
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. New York State

The plaintiff, pro se, filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging numerous constitutional rights violations by state and municipal defendants, including false arrests, excessive force, and retaliation, spanning 12 years. The claims included violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the 14th Amendment, and New York State common law. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to disqualify the Attorney General. The court denied plaintiff's cross-motion. It granted defendants' motion to dismiss the RICO claim, claims asserted on behalf of plaintiff's son, and the conspiracy claim, finding the latter barred by the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine. However, the court denied dismissal requests related to the statute of limitations (applying the continuing violation doctrine to § 1983 claims), Eleventh Amendment immunity (allowing individual capacity claims), and the First Amendment retaliation claim, finding the allegations sufficient to proceed.

Civil RightsDue ProcessFalse ArrestExcessive ForceRetaliationFirst Amendment42 U.S.C. § 1983Qualified ImmunityStatute of LimitationsEleventh Amendment
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rhodes v. Bedford County, Tenn.

This case involves an action brought by employees of the Bedford County Ambulance Service against Bedford County, Tennessee, alleging violations of Sections 7 and 8 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically regarding minimum wage and overtime provisions. The dispute arose following the Supreme Court's Garcia decision, which made FLSA applicable to state and municipal employees, and subsequent Congressional amendments aimed at easing the transition for local governments. Plaintiffs argued that the county failed to pay proper minimum wage and overtime from April 15, 1986, to June 30, 1986, and that the subsequent change from salaried to hourly pay on July 1, 1986, constituted a scheme to avoid overtime requirements by artificially deflating the regular rate. The court found that the county’s failure to provide proper overtime payments was a continuous violation, thus plaintiffs’ action was not barred by the statute of limitations. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the issue of liability under Section 7 of the FLSA, finding both periods of violation. Liquidated damages were awarded for the initial period, but a question of material fact remained for the later period. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime CompensationMinimum Wage LawPublic Agency EmploymentMunicipal Government LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionsContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of Limitations FLSAWage and Hour DisputeAntidiscrimination in Employment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Voll

The debtors, Patrick L. Voll and Linda P. Voll, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ("Tax Department") willfully violated the automatic stay by continuing to garnish Mrs. Voll's wages post-petition, despite receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing. The garnishment ceased, and the improperly deducted funds were returned after the Debtors filed a motion for sanctions. The court found that the Tax Department willfully violated the automatic stay. However, the court denied the Debtors' claim for emotional distress damages, finding they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of significant emotional harm distinct from the general stressors of bankruptcy and other life events. The court awarded the Debtors $13,625.00 in attorneys' fees as actual damages for the willful violation of the stay.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic Stay ViolationWage GarnishmentSanctions MotionAttorneys' Fees AwardChapter 13 BankruptcyTaxation and FinanceActual DamagesEmotional Distress ClaimsWillful Violation
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ogle v. State

This case involves a claimant who filed for medical malpractice and negligence against the State of New York, alleging that delayed treatment for tuberculosis during his incarceration led to paraplegia. The Court of Claims initially denied the State's motion to dismiss, applying the continuous treatment doctrine. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, asserting that the doctrine's application requires a relevant relationship between treating physicians or a continuous relationship between the claimant and initial physicians, rather than merely all providers being state employees. The court found questions of fact regarding the relevant relationship between the medical facilities involved (Ogdensburg, Samaritan, Upstate) that need to be determined by the Court of Claims. Therefore, the order of the Court of Claims was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings to determine the applicability of the continuous treatment doctrine.

medical malpracticenegligencecontinuous treatment doctrinetuberculosisspinal cord injuryparaplegiacorrectional facility inmatestatute of limitationsquestions of factappellate review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2014

In re Haemmerle

The debtor, Thomas Haemmerle, moved to hold Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in civil contempt for violating his Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge injunction. Haemmerle's personal liability on a mortgage loan was discharged in 2006, despite Wells Fargo not being initially scheduled as a creditor. After the loan defaulted in 2011, Wells Fargo pursued collection efforts. Despite being notified of the discharge in 2013, Wells Fargo continued to make numerous phone calls and send letters asserting Haemmerle's personal liability. The court ruled that Haemmerle's personal liability was discharged by operation of law and that Wells Fargo knowingly and willfully violated the discharge injunction, awarding attorneys' fees and $69,500 in punitive damages.

Bankruptcy LawDischarge InjunctionCivil ContemptCreditor NotificationNo-Asset BankruptcyPersonal LiabilityIn Rem RightsPunitive DamagesAttorneys' FeesEmotional Distress Claims
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Otubu v. Wakefern Food Corp.

Lawrence Otubu, a black male, filed an employment discrimination action against Wakefern Food Corporation alleging violations of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Otubu claimed discriminatory hiring, failure to promote, and wrongful termination based on race during his employment from January to September 1985. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's § 1981 claim. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, the court determined that claims for discriminatory termination and harassment are precluded under § 1981. Furthermore, the court found that Otubu's remaining § 1981 claims were time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations, rejecting the application of continuing violations and equitable tolling doctrines. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the § 1981 claims was granted.

Employment DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 196442 U.S.C. Section 1981Statute of LimitationsEquitable TollingContinuing Violations DoctrineRacial DiscriminationFailure to PromoteWrongful TerminationFederal Civil Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heins v. Potter

Plaintiff Clark Heins, a former employee of the United States Postal Service, filed discrimination claims against John E. Potter, Postmaster, for failure to hire, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. Heins alleged violations of his retreat rights related to job vacancies at the Monticello Post Office, claiming the Postal Service failed to notify him and allowed less senior employees to bid. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing Heins failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not contacting an EEO counselor within the 45-day period. The court denied the defendant's motion, finding that a jury must determine when Heins's claim accrued, specifically whether he had sufficient knowledge of his injury and its cause on April 26, 1995, or if it was later on June 14, 1995. The court also rejected the applicability of the continuing violation doctrine.

DiscriminationFailure to HireFailure to AccommodateRetaliationTitle VIIRehabilitation ActEEO CounselingAdministrative ExhaustionSummary JudgmentAccrual
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 9,693 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