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

Curtis v. Radioshack Corp.

Plaintiff Jennifer Curtis filed a discrimination charge against RadioShack Corporation alleging pregnancy-based sex discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII. Her charge was filed 342 days after her termination, exceeding the 300-day statutory limit. Curtis sought equitable tolling, arguing that the Dutchess County Human Rights Commission (DCHCR) misled her and lost her file. However, the court found that DCHCR explicitly stated it did not investigate complaints and that Curtis lacked reasonable diligence in following up for over seven months. Consequently, the court denied equitable tolling and granted RadioShack's motion to dismiss Curtis's First, Second, and Third causes of action as time-barred. Surviving claims exist under New York State Human Rights Law, Fair Labor Standards Act, and New York State Labor Law.

Equitable tollingTitle VIIDiscriminationPregnancy discriminationTimelinessStatute of LimitationsFederal courtDutchess CountyHuman Rights CommissionEEOC
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falso v. Sutherland Global Services

Plaintiff Anthony Falso sued his former employer Sutherland Global Services, Inc. and several individual employees for alleged discrimination under Title VII and the ADA. Falso claimed disability discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination due to a learning disability and other alleged medical conditions. The individual defendants moved to dismiss, arguing no individual liability under Title VII or the ADA, which the court granted. Sutherland moved for partial summary judgment on the Title VII claim, contending Falso failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court agreed, finding Falso's administrative complaint only alleged disability discrimination and was not reasonably related to a Title VII claim, thus dismissing the Title VII claim.

DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationTitle VIIADAEmployment LawAdministrative RemediesSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissIndividual LiabilityFederal Court
References
19
Case No. 2019-03-1529
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2024

Alvarez, Toriba v. LFC Enterprises, Inc.

Ms. Toriba Alvarez sustained a left-ankle injury in February 2019 while working for LFC Enterprises, Inc., which was accepted as compensable. She received various treatments, including a peripheral nerve block that provided significant relief for three months. However, LFC Enterprises denied subsequent authorizations for further nerve blocks and a peripheral nerve stimulator trial based on utilization review findings. The Court, giving greater weight to the pain management provider's recommendations over utilization review, ruled that Ms. Alvarez is likely to prevail on her entitlement to the peripheral nerve block. Consequently, LFC Enterprises is ordered to authorize the peripheral nerve block, and a scheduling hearing is set for June 7, 2024.

Workers' CompensationAnkle InjuryNerve BlockPain ManagementUtilization ReviewTreatment AuthorizationMedical NecessityExpedited HearingDenial of BenefitsEmployee Rights
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 1987

Kincade v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

This is a class action lawsuit filed against Firestone Tire and Rubber Company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging racial discrimination in various employment practices at its LaVergne, Tennessee plant. The plaintiffs, comprising black applicants, current, and former employees, and the Nashville NAACP, claimed discrimination in recruitment, hiring, promotions, disciplinary actions, and terminations. The Court found insufficient evidence to establish a systemwide pattern or practice of intentional discrimination or disparate impact for the class claims, thus entering judgment for the defendant on these matters. However, for individual claims, the Court ruled in favor of Bobby Lee Kincade for a racially hostile work environment, Mary Pope Fite for discriminatory failure to promote, and Bobby W. Ivy for discriminatory failure to hire, while denying all other individual claims.

Racial discriminationEmployment discriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act42 U.S.C. § 1981Disparate treatmentDisparate impactClass actionHiring discriminationPromotion discrimination
References
42
Case No. ADJ8814296
Regular
Feb 16, 2017

JANET WILDER vs. CAPRI GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to review the Findings and Award (F&A) concerning applicant Janet Wilder's work-related injuries. The WCAB affirmed the F&A's findings regarding the nature of the injuries and psychiatric disability but found the medical evidence supporting the cranial/trigeminal nerve impairment was not substantial. Consequently, the WCAB deferred the issues of permanent disability and attorney's fees, remanding the case to the WCJ for further proceedings to develop the record on those specific issues.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityApportionmentQualified Medical EvaluatorCranial Nerve ImpairmentFacial DisorderPsychiatric Disability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gray v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc.

Eddie Gray sued Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc., and three individual defendants for employment discrimination under Title VII, New York Executive Law, and New York City Human Rights Law, along with unlawful termination under New York's whistleblower statute. Defendants moved to dismiss various claims. The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing portions of the Title VII claims as time-barred, all Title VII claims against individual defendants, and the claims under the whistleblower statute and New York City Human Rights Law entirely. The court found that Gray's 1987 and 1989 Title VII claims were time-barred, not falling under the 'continuing violation' exception. It also ruled that individual defendants cannot be held personally liable under Title VII and dismissed those claims. Finally, Gray's whistleblower claim was dismissed as time-barred, and his New York City Human Rights Law claim was dismissed due to non-compliance with statutory prerequisites.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIITime-Barred ClaimsWhistleblower StatuteNew York City Human Rights LawIndividual LiabilityContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of LimitationsRetaliatory TerminationRacial Discrimination
References
26
Case No. 15-25-00120-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2025

Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund, LP and Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund II, LP v. Primexx Energy Corporation, M. Christopher Doyle, Angelo Acconcia, Blackstone Inc., Blackstone Holdings III LP, Blackstone EMA II LLC, BMA VII LLC, Blackstone Energy Management Associates II LLC, Blackstone Energy Partners II LP, Blackstone Management Associates VII LLC, Blackstone Capital Partners VII LP, BCP VII/BEP II Holdings Manager LLC, BX Primexx Topco LLC, and BPP Holdco LLC

This case concerns an appeal by minority investors of Primexx, a Texas oil partnership, alleging that the controlling partner, Blackstone, breached contractual and statutory duties of good faith, fair dealing, loyalty, and care during a "drag-along" sale of Primexx's assets. Plaintiffs claim Blackstone orchestrated a "fire sale" to Callon Petroleum, leading to a near-total loss on their $200 million investment. The Business Court granted summary judgment in large part to the defendants, ruling that the partnership agreement's drag-along rights and the Texas Business Organizations Code permitted the controlling partner's actions concerning the sale process and price. However, the court denied summary judgment on claims related to the improper distribution and unfair allocation of sale proceeds. The court also granted special appearances for Blackstone Inc. and Angelo Acconcia, dismissing all causes of action against other Blackstone entities and M. Christopher Doyle.

Partnership DisputeCorporate GovernancePrivate EquityOil and GasTexas LawFiduciary DutyGood Faith and Fair DealingDrag-Along RightsSummary JudgmentAppeal
References
66
Case No. 15CV3421ADSARL
Regular Panel Decision

Falcon v. City University of New York

This case involves allegations by Plaintiff Nancy Falcon against her employer, the City University of New York (CUNY), for gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII. CUNY filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss the complaint. The Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It dismissed the hostile work environment claim and limited the Title VII discrimination claim by barring reliance on events before 2008. However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the Title VII discrimination claim regarding a 2012 promotion denial and the Title VII retaliation claim concerning alleged acts after an internal complaint in December 2014, finding sufficient facts for these aspects to survive scrutiny.

Title VIIGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationMotion for Judgment on PleadingsRule 12(c)McDonnell Douglas FrameworkPlausibility StandardStatute of LimitationsEEOC Complaint
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simonton v. Runyon

The plaintiff, a male homosexual and former employee of the United States Postal Service, filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination and a hostile work environment based on his sexual orientation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Title VII does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court, citing established precedent and an interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., concluded that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not considered discrimination "based upon sex" under Title VII. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, affirming that while the alleged conduct was offensive, Title VII did not provide a legal remedy for the plaintiff's claim.

Sexual Orientation DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIIMotion to DismissFederal CourtPrecedentStatutory InterpretationCivil RightsEmployment Discrimination
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prunella v. Carlshire Tenants, Inc.

Plaintiff, Angelo Prunella, a Jehovah's Witness, sued Carlshire Tenants, Inc. and Garthchester Realty, Ltd. under Title VII, alleging religious discrimination after his employment termination. Defendants moved to dismiss Carlshire for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing it wasn't an "employer" under Title VII, and for summary judgment, claiming a prior settlement stipulation barred Prunella's action. The court granted Carlshire's motion to dismiss, finding it did not meet Title VII's definition of an employer due to insufficient employees, and also granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court determined that Prunella's May 1997 settlement agreement, which he signed knowingly and voluntarily after negotiations with his union representative, broadly waived "any and all claims," including his Title VII claims. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Religious DiscriminationTitle VIIEmployment TerminationSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionEmployer DefinitionSettlement AgreementWaiver of ClaimsKnowing and Voluntary ConsentCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 995 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