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

Donaldson v. Texas Department of Aging & Disability Services

David Donaldson appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) on claims of race and disability discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the TCHRA and Title VII. Donaldson, an African-American employee diagnosed with multiple conditions including prostate cancer and PTSD, alleged DADS failed to accommodate his disabilities and discriminated against him through various adverse actions, culminating in his termination. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for DADS on the race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims, finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent or materially adverse actions in those areas. However, the court reversed and remanded the reasonable accommodation claim, concluding that Donaldson presented a fact issue regarding DADS's failure to provide continued assistance for his disabilities despite initial accommodations. This decision partially reverses the trial court's judgment, necessitating further proceedings on the reasonable accommodation aspect of the disability discrimination claim.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentDisability DiscriminationRace DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTitle VIIEmployment Law
References
83
Case No. 08-23-00177-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2024

Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Claudia Gomez

The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) terminated Claudia Gomez, alleging she physically assaulted a coworker; Gomez contended the termination was discriminatory based on age, gender, and disability. The trial court denied DADS's plea to the jurisdiction regarding Gomez's discrimination claims. On appeal, the court found Gomez failed to present evidence of a similarly situated comparator, thus not establishing a prima facie case for age, gender, or disability discrimination. Furthermore, Gomez did not demonstrate that DADS's stated reason for termination was a pretext for discrimination. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed Gomez's claims for lack of jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationEmployment LawTerminationPretextPrima Facie CaseSovereign ImmunityTexas Labor Code
References
30
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
Case No. 01-13-00469-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2014

Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Esther Iredia

The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction concerning employment discrimination claims brought by Esther Iredia. Iredia, a former DADS employee, alleged sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and national origin discrimination by her supervisor. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the trial court's denial of DADS's plea regarding the sex discrimination claim, concluding that Iredia provided sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment. However, the court reversed the denial and dismissed Iredia's race and national origin discrimination claims due to her failure to present a prima facie case.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionAppellate Court DecisionLabor LawSupervisor Misconduct
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levy v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation

This case addresses a disability discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by Daniel Levy against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and several individuals. Levy, a Forester 1 with diabetes, hearing loss, and a learning disability, alleged his employer failed to provide reasonable accommodations and retaliated against him. The Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were untimely, accommodations were met, or that their actions were for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The Court granted the Defendants' motion, ruling that claims prior to June 4, 2013, were time-barred. Furthermore, the Court determined Levy failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions, particularly writing, even with requested accommodations, and found Defendants provided legitimate reasons for alleged retaliatory actions.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Section 504 Rehabilitation ActNew York Human Rights Law (NYHRL)Reasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentForester EmploymentDiabetesLearning Disability
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2016

Tex. Dep't of Aging & Disability Servs. v. Lagunas

The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a case filed by Michael Lagunas. Lagunas, a 60-year-old security officer at DADS' El Paso State Supported Living Center, applied for an Assistant Unit Director position. Although initially selected for the role, the Director, Laura Cazabon-Braley, intervened and prevented his hiring, allegedly due to his age, and later reorganized the department, creating new positions for which Lagunas was not qualified. Lagunas filed charges of discrimination, alleging age discrimination and subsequent retaliation. The appellate court partly sustained DADS' appeal, ruling that certain claims in Lagunas' amended petition were administratively unexhausted and untimely, and thus should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. However, the court overruled DADS' contention that Lagunas failed to establish a prima facie case for the failure to hire/promote claim, and remanded that portion of the case for further proceedings.

Age DiscriminationFailure to PromoteRetaliationPlea to JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityTexas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA)Administrative ExhaustionPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingDepartment Restructuring
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2012

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff John J. Hamzik sued the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and several individual employees, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to file a second amended complaint. The District Court, finding that many claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the remaining claims failed to state a plausible cause of action, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the cross-motion was denied as futile, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEAADAEleventh Amendment ImmunityAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to Dismiss
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1996

Castellano v. City of New York

Approximately 2,000 disabled former New York City police officers filed 16 consolidated actions, alleging that the practice of providing supplemental benefits to police officers who retire after twenty years of service while denying those same benefits to officers who retire due to a disability discriminates against them in violation of Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as well as various state laws. The defendants, various individuals and entities involved in administering the New York City Police Department benefit programs, moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs are not protected parties under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as they are not 'qualified individuals with a disability' and are seeking preferential rather than nondiscriminatory treatment. The ADEA claims were dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lastly, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, leading to their dismissal as well.

Disability discriminationADA claimsRehabilitation Act claimsADEA claimsPolice officersRetirement benefitsSupplemental benefitsMotion to dismissQualified individual with a disabilityEmployment discrimination
References
61
Case No. 13-14-00113-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

Texas Health and Human Services Commission and the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Jose P. Baldonado

The case involves an appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS). Appellee Jose P. Baldonado sued for age discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) after being denied a position by HHSC and subsequently terminated by DADS. Appellants argued a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting Baldonado failed to establish a prima facie case for both claims and did not exhaust administrative remedies against DADS. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Baldonado raised sufficient fact questions regarding his qualifications, the causal link for retaliation, and the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court highlighted DADS's status as an agency within HHSC and its participation in the administrative complaint process as evidence of proper notice.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRetaliationPlea to JurisdictionTCHRAPrima Facie CaseAdministrative RemediesSovereign ImmunityInterlocutory AppealTexas Court of Appeals
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2008

Krikelis v. Vassar College

Plaintiff Arlene Krikelis sued Vassar College and Aramark Campus Services, alleging sex and disability discrimination and retaliation in her employment. Her claims included disability discrimination related to her diabetes, gender-based pay discrimination as a cook, a hostile work environment due to a coworker's harassment, and retaliation for her complaints. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the disability discrimination claims, ruling her diabetes was not a substantially limiting disability under the ADA or NYHRL. However, the court denied summary judgment on the gender-based pay discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims, finding that sufficient factual disputes warranted trial.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities ActNew York Human Rights LawRetaliation ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationSummary Judgment MotionWorkplace Harassment
References
54
Showing 1-10 of 10,921 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