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. 03-02-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2003

Qwest Communications International, Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation And SP Construction Services, Inc./ AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. CK Directional Drilling v. AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc./Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation SP Construction Services, Inc. C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. CK Directional Drilling

This case involves an appeal from a judgment awarding economic and exemplary damages to AT&T for fiber-optic cable damage caused by Qwest and its subcontractors, CK Directional Drilling and C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. The core dispute arose from three instances in 1997 where AT&T's cables were severed during Qwest's fiber-optic network construction. Qwest, CK, and AT&T all appealed the district court's final judgment, challenging various aspects, including malice findings, the validity of a Rule 11 agreement, damage calculations, and vicarious liability. The appellate court affirmed the findings of malice against Qwest and C&S, and Qwest's liability for its subcontractors' actions. However, it reversed the breach-of-contract damages awarded to AT&T due to insufficient evidence and upheld the district court's calculation of exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.

Fiber-optic cable damageTelecommunications infrastructureSubcontractor liabilityExemplary damagesMaliceRule 11 agreementBreach of contractPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewVicarious liability
References
0
Case No. 13-16-00004-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2016

Juan Bazaldua Jr. v. City of Lyford, Texas

Juan Bazaldua Jr. sued the City of Lyford for age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) after his employment was terminated. The trial court granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction, dismissing the case, prompting Bazaldua's appeal. The appellate court examined whether Bazaldua presented direct evidence of discrimination, specifically his supervisor routinely calling him 'viejo' (old man). However, the court found these remarks to be 'stray remarks' not directly related to the termination decision and therefore not direct evidence of discrimination. Since Bazaldua was replaced by an older worker, he could not establish a prima facie case for age discrimination. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Age DiscriminationTexas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA)Sovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionDirect Evidence of DiscriminationCircumstantial EvidenceEmployment TerminationDiscriminatory AnimousStray Remarks DoctrineAppellate Decision
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcimonde-Fisher v. Area203 Marketing, LLC

This case involves religious discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims brought by Lauren Gareimonde-Fisher, Jeffrey L. Harris, and Jeffrey L. Cole against Area203 Marketing. Plaintiffs allege that the company's owner, Carey Brown, fostered a workplace environment saturated with evangelical Christian beliefs, including mandatory religious events, biblical imagery, and derogatory comments toward non-Evangelical Christians. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all plaintiffs' hostile work environment and retaliation claims. Additionally, Plaintiff Cole's discrimination claim survived summary judgment due to direct evidence. However, the discrimination claims of Plaintiffs Harris and Garcimonde-Fisher were dismissed due to a lack of sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence.

Religious DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIEmployment LawEvangelical ChristianityCatholicismWorkplace HarassmentProtected Activity
References
70
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

Kaczor v. City of Buffalo

Walter Kaczor, a retired Buffalo Police Officer, sued the City of Buffalo and its officers for age discrimination under the ADEA and New York State Human Rights Law, alleging he was not reinstated due to his age. A jury found the defendants willfully discriminated against Kaczor. Defendants filed post-trial motions challenging the sufficiency of evidence, jurisdictional issues, and damages computation. The court denied defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on liability and willfulness, finding ample evidence to support the jury's findings, including direct evidence of age discrimination. The court also denied motions to dismiss Kaczor's ADEA and pendent state law claims, confirming jurisdiction despite complex interplays between federal and state filing requirements. Issues related to the excessiveness of damages were referred to a Magistrate for settlement negotiations.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)New York State Human Rights LawPost-Trial MotionsWillful DiscriminationJudgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)Procedural RequirementsJurisdictional IssuesElection of RemediesDamagesEmotional Distress
References
24
Case No. 14-19-00851-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2021

Michael D. Fenley v. Texas Plumbing Supply Company, Inc.

Michael D. Fenley sued Texas Plumbing Supply Company, Inc. for age discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliatory termination after his employment was terminated in November 2016, seven months after being hired. Fenley alleged that his supervisor made frequent age-related comments and complained about his back problems and a broken finger, which required surgery and workers' compensation claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for Texas Plumbing on all claims, but Fenley appealed, challenging these grounds. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the disability discrimination and retaliation claims, finding Fenley failed to provide sufficient evidence of a "disability" or a retaliatory motive. However, the court reversed and remanded the age discrimination claim, concluding that Fenley's personal statement provided direct evidence of discriminatory animus, such as his supervisor telling him he was "too old for this job."

Age DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliatory TerminationSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTexas Labor CodeDirect EvidenceCausal ConnectionPretextAppellate Review
References
45
Case No. 13-21-00365-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2022

Edcouch-Elsa Independent School District v. Lisa Cabrera

This is an employment discrimination case brought by appellee Lisa Cabrera against her former employer, Edcouch-Elsa Independent School District (EEISD), alleging sex and age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). EEISD appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction as Cabrera failed to provide evidence of a statutorily protected violation. Cabrera's employment was terminated due to excessive absences. She claimed discrimination based on her sex and age, augmented by "attractiveness," stemming from her supervisor's jealousy. The court found Cabrera failed to present sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence for her age and/or sex discrimination claims, noting she was replaced by a woman one year older and of the same sex, and did not show disparate treatment. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order, rendering judgment dismissing Cabrera's claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Employment DiscriminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActPlea to JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityAge DiscriminationSex DiscriminationCircumstantial EvidenceDirect EvidenceMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkAppellate Review
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Payne v. Goodman Manufacturing Co.

Plaintiff Connie Payne filed a lawsuit against her former employer, Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P., alleging claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for interference and retaliation, violations of the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) for maternity leave, pregnancy discrimination, and retaliation, and claims under the Equal Pay Act (EPA). The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court denied summary judgment on the plaintiff's FMLA interference and retaliation claims, allowing them to proceed to trial, citing sufficient evidence of a causal connection due to temporal proximity between the FMLA request and termination. However, the court granted summary judgment on all THRA claims (pregnancy discrimination, maternity leave, and retaliation) and the EPA claim, dismissing them with prejudice. The THRA pregnancy discrimination claim failed due to a lack of direct evidence and insufficient temporal proximity. The THRA maternity leave and retaliation claims were also dismissed as they were analyzed under similar standards as the failed THRA discrimination claims. The EPA claim was dismissed because the plaintiff could not establish "equal work" compared to male co-workers, as they possessed more technical certifications and skills.

FMLATHRAEqual Pay ActPregnancy DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawDiscriminationWorkplace RightsWage Disparity
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp.

Lorenzo Chambers filed an employment discrimination suit against TRM Copy Centers Corporation under Title VII, alleging wrongful termination. TRM countered with claims of performance issues and a violation of their anti-moonlighting policy. The court acknowledged weaknesses in TRM's justifications but found no direct or indirect evidence of discrimination, such as statistical data or prejudiced remarks. The judge determined that the employer's inadequate explanation for dismissal does not, by itself, constitute affirmative evidence of discrimination. Consequently, TRM's motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of Chambers' claims.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentRacial DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationWrongful TerminationAfter-Acquired EvidenceMoonlighting PolicyBurden of ProofDisparate Treatment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lampo v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The claimant appealed three decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied additional disability benefits and rejected an application for reconsideration of a discrimination claim. The court found substantial evidence in Dr. David Smith's testimony, which indicated normal visual performance, supporting the Board's conclusion that the claimant had no loss of visual acuity. It was also noted that the claimant received 26 weeks of disability payments, and the employer's long-term disability plan, which exceeds state requirements, is governed solely by ERISA. The Board's decision to deny reconsideration of the discrimination claim was deemed neither an abuse of discretion nor arbitrary, as no new evidence was presented. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decisions.

Workers' Compensation BoardDisability BenefitsVisual AcuityERISADiscrimination ClaimReconsideration DenialSubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueAppellate ReviewAffirmed Decision
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 18,857 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