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. 08-03-00076-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2005

Dillard Department Stores, Inc. and Dillard Texas Operating Limited Partnership D/B/A Dillard's v. Sabrina Hecht

Sabrina Hecht sued Dillard Department Stores, Inc. for wrongful termination, alleging discrimination under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act after sustaining a job-related back injury. A jury found in favor of Hecht, awarding damages including lost earnings, medical care, mental anguish, and punitive damages. Dillard's appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. The Court of Appeals reversed the award of punitive damages, finding insufficient evidence of malice, but affirmed the jury's finding of constructive discharge, concluding that Dillard's created an intolerable work environment that compelled Ms. Hecht's resignation. The trial court's judgment was modified accordingly.

Wrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation RetaliationConstructive DischargePunitive DamagesEvidence SufficiencyJury InstructionsEmployment DiscriminationWorkplace InjuryHostile Work EnvironmentAccommodation Failure
References
20
Case No. 08-01-00442-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2003

Denney, Ida Ramirez v. Dillard Texas Operating Limited Partnership D/B/A Dillard's

Appellant Ida Ramirez Denney sued Dillard's under the Texas Labor Code Ch. 451, alleging wrongful termination after filing a workers' compensation claim. Denney was terminated due to Dillard's policy of discharging employees absent for over six months, despite having complied with all leave regulations. The core issue on appeal was whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding impeaching testimony that challenged Dillard's claim of uniformly applying its absence-control policy. The Court of Appeals found the exclusion of this evidence erroneous and prejudicial, especially given the jury's explicit question regarding exceptions to the leave policy. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationWrongful TerminationEmployer RetaliationLeave of Absence PolicyImpeaching TestimonyEvidentiary ExclusionUniform Application of PolicyCircumstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
22
Case No. E2010-00170-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2010

Dillard Construction, Inc. v. Haron Contracting Corp.

Dillard Construction, Inc. (Dillard) appealed a Chancery Court decision regarding a complex construction dispute with its demolition subcontractor, Havron Contracting Corp. (Havron). The lower court held Dillard liable to Havron for $91,100 under quantum meruit for work performed by Havron's subcontractors, denied Dillard an offset for damaged electrical equipment, and allowed Havron to recover attorney's fees awarded against it to its subcontractor H&S Construction through a 'pass-through' indemnity theory from Dillard. Dillard challenged the quantum meruit award and the denial of the offset, while Havron challenged the denial of indemnification for its own incurred attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the quantum meruit award and the denial of the offset, finding the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's findings. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny Havron its own attorney's fees, citing Havron's lack of good faith in denying payment to H&S and its violation of the Prompt Pay Act.

Construction DisputeQuantum MeruitContract LawIndemnityAttorney's FeesSubcontractor ClaimsPrompt Pay ActBreach of ContractEquitable RemediesAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc.

Carol Ann Henry and James S. Henry appealed a summary judgment in favor of Dillard Department Store, Inc., and its adjuster, Pulaski Adjustment Company. Mrs. Henry sustained a back injury during employment in February 1994 and sued Dillard for alleged unreasonable denial or delay of workers’ compensation benefits, asserting claims for breach of good faith, Texas Insurance Code violations, and breach of contract. Dillard initially denied coverage, leading to delayed testing and surgery for Mrs. Henry's cauda equina diagnosis. The key legal question was whether the Henrys needed to exhaust administrative remedies with the Texas Workers Compensation Commission (TWCC) before bringing their bad faith suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that exhaustion of administrative remedies was required given no evidence of Dillard's misconduct causing an independent injury.

Workers' Compensation Benefits DenialAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionBad Faith Insurance ClaimSummary Judgment AppealTexas Insurance Code ViolationsBreach of Contract ClaimDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingSpinal Injury CaseCauda Equina DiagnosisWorkers' Compensation Act Litigation
References
14
Case No. NO. 14-04-00197-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2005

Jake A. English v. Dillard Department Stores Inc.

Jake A. English appealed a summary judgment granted to Dillard Department Stores, Inc. on his retaliatory discharge claim. English was terminated after six months on a leave of absence (LOA) due to an on-the-job injury, which Dillard's claimed was per its neutral LOA policy. English argued the termination was premature by one day and that the policy wasn't uniformly applied. The court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Dillard's presented a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination (uniform enforcement of LOA policy) and English failed to provide sufficient controverting evidence of retaliatory motive, as his claims of premature termination and discriminatory application were not supported by evidence.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimSummary Judgment AppealLeave of Absence PolicyEmployment TerminationTexas Labor LawAppellate Court DecisionCausal LinkDiscriminatory Policy ApplicationNeutral Absence Control Policy
References
27
Case No. 08-04-00259-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2005

in Re: Dillard Department Stores, Inc. and Grizelda Reeder

This is an original proceeding in mandamus where Dillard Department Stores, Inc. and Grizelda Reeder (Relators) sought to compel arbitration of a defamation claim filed by their former employee, Andrea Martinez. Dillard's argued that Ms. Martinez's defamation claim fell within the scope of a 2000 arbitration agreement. The trial court denied Dillard's motion to compel arbitration, finding the defamation claim was not covered. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the defamation claim did not fall under "personal injuries arising from a termination" or "violations of common law affecting economic terms of employment" as defined in the 2000 Rules of Arbitration. Therefore, the writ of mandamus was denied.

ArbitrationDefamationEmployment LawMandamusContract InterpretationScope of Arbitration AgreementJudicial AdmissionPersonal InjuryTexas Court of AppealsFederal Arbitration Act
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Gonzales

This case concerns an appeal by Dillard’s Department Store against a judgment favoring its former employee, David Gonzales, who alleged sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress by his supervisor, Daniel Tellez. Gonzales reported Tellez's inappropriate touching and suggestive remarks to store management, but Dillard's response was deemed inadequate, leading to Gonzales's constructive discharge and a subsequent suicide attempt. The appellate court affirmed the jury's finding of sexual harassment under the TCHRA, including compensatory damages and attorney's fees, but reversed the judgment for intentional infliction of emotional distress and the associated exemplary damages.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentEmployment DiscriminationConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressAppellate ReviewWorkplace MisconductSupervisor LiabilityDamages AwardAttorney's Fees
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris County v. Dillard

James Earl Skeen, an off-duty and intoxicated Harris County reserve deputy sheriff, caused a fatal car accident. The statutory beneficiaries of Lila Jean Dillard, who was killed, and Stephanie Hunold, who was severely injured, sued Harris County. They alleged Harris County was liable for Skeen's conduct, arguing he was an 'employee' under the Texas Tort Claims Act despite being a volunteer. The trial court and court of appeals found in favor of the plaintiffs, interpreting 'employee' to include volunteers. However, the Texas Supreme Court reversed these judgments, holding that the Texas Tort Claims Act only waives sovereign immunity for actions of 'paid' employees. Since Skeen was not a paid employee, Harris County was not liable for his actions, and the plaintiffs' action against the county was barred by governmental immunity.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActEmployee DefinitionVolunteer LiabilityReserve Deputy SheriffNegligenceStatutory InterpretationWaiver of ImmunityPaid Service
References
8
Case No. 2016-05-0933
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2017

Wiles, Ellen v. Dillards

Ellen Wiles, an employee of Dillards, sought workers' compensation benefits for left carpal tunnel syndrome, which she attributed to her work duties. She filed an expedited hearing request after Dillards denied her claim, citing issues with timely notice and work-related causation. The Court found that Ms. Wiles likely provided adequate statutory notice and that her authorized physician, Dr. Frank Thomas, opined a greater than 51% likelihood of work-relatedness. While the Court found some prior medical records problematic, it ruled that Dillards failed to sufficiently rebut Dr. Thomas's opinion. Consequently, the Court ordered Dillards to provide Ms. Wiles with a panel of orthopedic specialists for evaluation and further treatment, but denied her request for temporary disability benefits and reimbursement of prior medical expenses at this stage.

Carpal Tunnel SyndromeExpedited HearingMedical CausationNotice of InjuryOrthopedic ReferralTemporary Disability DenialWorkers' Compensation ClaimsRepetitive TraumaEmployer LiabilityEmployee Benefits
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

GMAC Commercial Credit, LLC v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff GMAC Commercial Credit, LLC, filed a diversity breach of contract action against Dillard Department Stores, Inc., seeking damages for alleged unilateral discounts on invoices. The case, initially filed in New York state court, was removed to federal court by defendant Dillard. Dillard moved to dismiss for improper venue or to transfer, citing a forum selection clause requiring litigation in Arkansas. The court, presided over by Judge Motley, found personal jurisdiction over Dillard in New York, making venue proper there. However, the court determined that GMAC, as an assignee of the vendor Lady Carol Dresses, LLC, was bound by the forum selection clause. Consequently, the court granted Dillard's motion to dismiss the action without prejudice, allowing GMAC to refile in either an Arkansas state court in Pulaski County or the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, in accordance with the clause.

Breach of ContractVenueForum Selection ClausePersonal JurisdictionAssignee RightsUniform Commercial CodeNew York LawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDismissal Without PrejudiceDiversity Jurisdiction
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 22 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