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

Falcon v. General Telephone Co. of Southwest

This Memorandum Opinion addresses remands from the Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit in the landmark employment discrimination case Falcon v. General Telephone Co. The court, presided over by District Judge Buchmeyer, conducted a 'rigorous analysis' and evaluated statistical evidence. It concluded that the individual plaintiff, Mariano S. Falcon, who claimed promotion discrimination, could not represent a class of Mexican-American applicants who were not hired, as their claims were not 'fairly encompassed' and Falcon lacked standing. Despite this, due to prior Fifth Circuit rulings, the court would permit intervention by one of 13 original class members to pursue the class hiring claims. However, the court ultimately found the class claims of hiring discrimination to be 'baseless' after a 'more specific evaluation' of the statistical evidence, determining that General Telephone did not discriminate in hiring. For Falcon's individual claim of promotion discrimination, a new trial on liability was deemed necessary due to conflicting testimony and the application of Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine standards. However, any potential damages for Falcon were capped at $1,040.33, an amount significantly less than the $7,373.27 in appeal costs Falcon owed to General Telephone. Therefore, the court conditionally dismissed the case unless Falcon paid the appeal costs or posted a bond, after which only the liability of his individual promotion claim and related attorneys' fees would proceed to trial.

Employment DiscriminationClass ActionRacial DiscriminationPromotion DiscriminationHiring DiscriminationRule 23(a)Statistical EvidenceDisparate ImpactDisparate TreatmentRes Judicata
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meyer v. State of New York Office of Mental Health

Plaintiff Jill Meyer sued Defendants State of New York Office of Mental Health (OMH), Creedmoor Psychiatric Center (CPC), and Caterina Grandi for alleged gender, religion, and age discrimination under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, stemming from a failure-to-hire claim in 2011. Plaintiff, a Jewish woman over 60, alleged she was not hired for psychiatrist positions at CPC due to discrimination, despite being qualified. Defendants moved for summary judgment, citing Plaintiff's past poor performance at CPC and the superior qualifications of the hired candidates. The Court granted summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiff's Title VII claims, dismissing them with prejudice, finding no sufficient evidence of gender-based discrimination and concluding that the religious discrimination claim lacked sufficient evidence of pretext. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims (NYSHRL and NYCHRL), dismissing them without prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationFailure to HireTitle VIIGender DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CasePretextMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1977

Prate v. Freedman

This case involved white applicants who sued the City of Rochester, New York, alleging reverse discrimination in police officer hiring practices that favored minority applicants. The plaintiffs challenged a prior consent decree from Howard v. Freedman, which had established affirmative action measures. Chief Judge Curtin dismissed the consolidated actions, ruling it an impermissible collateral attack on the Howard decree due to the plaintiffs' failure to intervene timely. The court also held that the Constitution permits limited preferences for previously discriminated groups and dismissed pendent state law claims as superseded by federal law. Finally, the court awarded attorney fees to the defendant-intervenors, finding the plaintiffs' suit unreasonable and vexatious.

Reverse DiscriminationAffirmative ActionPolice RecruitmentEmployment LawCollateral Attack DoctrineConsent DecreeJudicial ReviewAttorney Fee AwardSubject Matter JurisdictionState Law Preemption
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 1993

Cruz v. Ecolab Pest Elimination Division, Ecolab Inc.

Plaintiff Barbara Cruz sued her former employer Ecolab Inc. and two individual defendants, Steven Mosh and Henry Marcantonio, alleging discriminatory discharge, discrimination in hiring, and sexual harassment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 based on sex and national origin. The court dismissed the Title VII claims for discrimination in hiring and sexual harassment due to lack of prior agency filing, but allowed the § 1981 racial discrimination in hiring claim to proceed. Cruz's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was dismissed for failing to meet the

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIRacial DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationSex DiscriminationSexual HarassmentInsufficient Service of ProcessIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSubject Matter JurisdictionPendent Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 1977

Falcon v. General Telephone Co.

Mariano S. Falcon, a Mexican-American, filed a class-action lawsuit against General Telephone on April 3, 1975, alleging discrimination in hiring and promotion. The court found that Falcon himself was discriminated against in promotions but not in hiring. For the class, General Telephone discriminated in hiring but not in promotions. The relief granted includes awards for backpay, overtime pay, loss of job security, and six percent interest. The court denied monetary relief for shift differential pay, potential promotions, and "individual initiative" as too speculative. Damages were granted up to the end of "phase I" of the trial, and attorney fees were awarded to the plaintiffs.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIClass ActionRacial DiscriminationMexican-AmericanBackpayPromotionsHiring PracticesBurden of ProofAttorney Fees
References
3
Case No. 02-22-00305-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2023

University of North Texas Health Science Center v. Marcy Paul

Marcy Paul sued the University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) for age and sex discrimination, and retaliation, after her employment contract was not renewed and she was not hired for a tenure-track position or promoted to Department Chair. UNTHSC filed a plea to the jurisdiction on sovereign-immunity grounds. Paul conceded the lack of jurisdiction for the failure-to-promote to Department Chair claim. The Court of Appeals found that Paul presented sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue on her age- and sex-discrimination claims related to the failure to hire her for a tenure-track professor position, and her age-discrimination claim for the contract nonrenewal. However, the court found insufficient evidence for her sex-discrimination claim related to the contract nonrenewal. Consequently, the trial court's denial of UNTHSC's plea to the jurisdiction was affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part.

Age DiscriminationSex DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionPrima Facie CasePretextMcDonnell DouglasTenure-track position
References
71
Case No. 03-97-00559-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 1998

Mary Nell Wilhite v. Bell County, Texas

Mary Nell Wilhite appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment against her gender discrimination, age discrimination, and retaliation claims. Wilhite alleged she was discriminated against when she was not promoted to director of the Personal Recognizance Bond Office, with Danny Johnson being hired instead. The Bell County trial court granted summary judgment, asserting a lack of genuine issues of material fact and offering legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its hiring decision, focusing on Johnson's superior qualifications and experience. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wilhite failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the County's non-discriminatory reasons were a pretext for discrimination concerning the director position. Additionally, the court upheld the summary judgment on her bondsman and retaliation claims, concluding that she had already received the bondsman promotion and that the alleged retaliation did not constitute an adverse employment action.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CasePretextBurden ShiftingTitle VIIADEA
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bexar County, Tx v. Gant

Elvin J. Gant, Jr. filed a discrimination charge with the Texas Commission on Human Rights on July 9, 1999, alleging race/national origin, color, sex, and age discrimination, stemming from a racial slur, lack of promotion, and eventual termination. After receiving a right-to-sue letter, Gant sued the County, asserting claims under the Texas Human Rights Act for unlawful failure to hire, unlawful discharge, and unlawful retaliation. The County moved for summary judgment, arguing Gant failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing his complaint within 180 days of the alleged racial slur. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Gant's race discrimination claims (failure to hire, unlawful discharge), concluding that the racial slur itself did not constitute an unlawful employment practice triggering the 180-day filing period. However, the court reversed and dismissed Gant's retaliation claim for lack of jurisdiction, finding he failed to exhaust administrative remedies as this claim was not included in his initial complaint and was not factually related to the race discrimination charge.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionSummary Judgment AppealTexas Human Rights ActJurisdictional DefectUnlawful Employment PracticeProbational PeriodRacial Slur
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 1997

Petrykiewicz v. Xerox Corp.

Zbigniew S. Petrykiewicz, a contract employee, sued Xerox Corporation alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and retaliation. Petrykiewicz claimed Xerox failed to hire him because of his age and terminated his contract employment in retaliation for complaining about age discrimination. Xerox filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted Xerox's motion, finding that Petrykiewicz failed to demonstrate that Xerox's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions (lack of a bachelor's degree for hiring and staffing reductions for termination) were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. The plaintiff's complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActSummary JudgmentRetaliation ClaimEmployment DiscriminationContract EmploymentQualification RequirementsPretextPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingFederal Civil Procedure
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 2,959 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