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

Bowaters Southern Paper Corp. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

This case involves a petition by Bowaters Southern Paper Corporation to set aside a demand for access to evidence by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and a cross-petition by the EEOC to enforce its demand. The dispute arose after a Commissioner's charge alleging unlawful employment practices against Bowaters was filed, leading to an EEOC investigation and subsequently a demand for extensive personnel records. Bowaters contended the demand was invalid because the underlying charge failed to "set forth the facts upon which it is based" as required by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court found that the Commissioner's charge, which merely listed general discriminatory practices without supporting facts, was legally insufficient to invoke the Commission's investigative jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court denied the EEOC's motion for enforcement and set aside the demand for access to evidence, concluding that a valid charge is a jurisdictional prerequisite for an investigation.

Equal Employment OpportunityCivil Rights Act of 1964Administrative LawInvestigative AuthorityJudicial ReviewSufficiency of ChargeDemand for EvidenceUnlawful Employment PracticesRacial DiscriminationJurisdictional Prerequisite
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tosha Restaurants, LLC v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Shane A. Fuller was terminated from his part-time dishwasher position at a Denny's Restaurant due to a skin condition (psoriasis and cellulitis). He filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, alleging disability discrimination. The Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Commissioner of Human Rights found the employer guilty of an unlawful discriminatory practice under Executive Law § 296 and awarded Fuller damages for lost pay, counseling, and pain and suffering. The employer (petitioner) commenced a proceeding to annul this determination. The court reviewed the employer's explanations for termination (customer complaints, health concerns, scheduling issues) and found them to be pretexts for discrimination. The court confirmed the determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights and dismissed the employer's petition.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment TerminationPsoriasisCellulitisUnlawful Discriminatory PracticeExecutive LawHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewAdministrative DeterminationPretext for Discrimination
References
23
Case No. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Office of Mental Health v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Alphonso Purse Jr. was terminated by his employer (petitioner) in March 1992 after being absent from work due to alcohol rehabilitation and osteoarthritis. He subsequently filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights (SDHR), alleging discriminatory practice based on his status as a recovering alcoholic. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found discrimination and awarded Purse $5,000 for emotional distress but denied back pay. SDHR later reversed the ALJ's decision on back pay, awarding Purse an additional $385,750. The petitioner (employer) then challenged SDHR's determination in court. The court upheld the finding of unlawful discriminatory practice and the award for emotional distress, but annulled the award of back pay, concluding that Purse's economic losses were due to his disability, not discrimination, as he was receiving disability benefits concurrently with his removal from the payroll.

Disability DiscriminationAlcohol Abuse RehabilitationEmployment TerminationExecutive LawState Division of Human RightsBack Pay AwardEmotional Distress DamagesCollective Bargaining AgreementMedical DocumentationSubstantial Evidence Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Broussard v. Schlumberger Well Services

This is a class action lawsuit filed by five Negro employees against Schlumberger Well Services, alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant's past employment practices, particularly a high school education requirement for promotion into "mainstream" jobs, perpetuated the effects of earlier racial discrimination, locking them into lower-echelon positions. The court found that while the defendant was not currently engaged in discriminatory practices, the facially neutral high school requirement did perpetuate past discrimination for employees hired before the requirement was instituted. The court granted injunctive relief, prohibiting the defendant from reinstituting discriminatory practices and the educational requirement under certain conditions. Damages for back wages were awarded to four of the five plaintiffs, while the claim of Sampson Larry was denied. Plaintiffs were also awarded attorneys' fees. The decision also outlined specific discriminatory practices the defendant was enjoined from reinstituting, such as racially segregated social clubs and restroom facilities. The court distinguished its ruling by applying the precedent set in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., emphasizing the impact of pre-existing discriminatory hiring policies coupled with later educational requirements.

Employment DiscriminationClass ActionRacial DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActInjunctive ReliefBack WagesEducational RequirementsPromotion DiscriminationHistorical DiscriminationGriggs v. Duke Power Co.
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Beach

Jesse P. Beach was killed in an automobile accident while returning home from work, transporting three other members of his drilling crew. His wife and son sought workmen’s compensation from Texas Employers’ Insurance Association. A jury rendered judgment for Beach’s wife and son, but the insurance carrier appealed. The core legal question was whether Beach’s fatal injuries were sustained in the course of his employment, particularly concerning the use of his personal vehicle for transport and the employer's compensation practices. The appellate court found that Beach's employment contract explicitly excluded payment for transportation time and the use of his vehicle, overturning the jury's verdict and ruling that he was not in the course of his employment.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentAutomobile AccidentTravel TimeEmployment ContractCustom and UsageAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance ClaimDrilling Company
References
13
Case No. 21 NY3d 861
Regular Panel Decision

Town of Islip v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Town of Islip challenged a determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) that the Town committed an improper practice by unilaterally discontinuing the permanent assignment of town-owned vehicles to certain employees for commuting. PERB had found this practice to be an economic benefit and a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Town argued that the practice was illegal under its local code of ethics and therefore not subject to negotiation. The Court affirmed PERB's finding that the Town engaged in an improper practice, concluding that the past practice of providing 'take-home' vehicles was not illegal under the Town's code. However, the Court modified PERB's remedial order, finding it unreasonable to compel the Town to repurchase vehicles it had sold, and remitted the case for PERB to fashion a more practical remedy.

Public Employment Relations BoardImproper PracticeUnilateral ChangePast PracticeMandatory Subject of BargainingTake-Home VehiclesCommuting BenefitEconomic BenefitCivil Service LawTaylor Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Broad Elm Auto Centers, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

The determination that petitioner engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in the conditions of complainant’s employment is supported by substantial evidence. The hearing testimony established that a store manager frequently made derogatory racial comments about the complainant, including referring to him as his 'little nigger slave,' in the presence of customers and co-workers. A compensatory award of $5,000 for mental anguish was found to be supported by the evidence and not excessive. The court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the Administrative Law Judge and Commissioner lacked authority to determine discriminatory practice based on racial slurs, even though the original complaint focused on unlawful termination due to racial discrimination. The Human Rights Law's predominant purpose is to eliminate discrimination in basic opportunities, and it considers racial insults and harassment in employment as unlawful discriminatory practice.

Racial discriminationUnlawful discriminatory practiceEmployment conditionsRacial slursHarassmentMental anguish awardHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAppellate decisionSubstantial evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Syracuse v. Public Employment Relations Board

This case involves the City of Syracuse's unilateral implementation of procedures to terminate General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits for firefighters. Two firefighters were injured and receiving benefits; one reported late and left early for light duty, the other refused to report. The City held hearings and terminated their benefits, prompting the Syracuse Fire Fighters Association (Union) to file an improper practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging a violation of the Taylor Law. The Administrative Law Judge initially dismissed the charge, but PERB reversed this decision, finding that the procedures for terminating such benefits are a subject of mandatory bargaining. The City then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination. The court confirmed PERB's determination, holding that the City's unilateral implementation of benefit termination procedures constituted an improper practice and that a City Charter's notice of claim provision did not apply to improper practice charges filed with PERB.

Taylor LawCivil Service LawGeneral Municipal Law § 207-aImproper Practice ChargeMandatory BargainingCollective Bargaining AgreementDue ProcessLight Duty AssignmentNotice of ClaimCPLR Article 78 Proceeding
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lippman v. Public Employment Relations Board

This proceeding involved the Unified Court System (UCS) challenging a determination by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB had found that UCS violated the Taylor Law by unilaterally issuing an administrative order in December 1997 that amended regulations (22 NYCRR part 108) related to court reporters' fees for selling transcripts to litigants. The court reviewed PERB's findings that the new page-rate guidelines and a mandatory "Minute Agreement Form" constituted an improper practice by altering terms of employment. The court concluded that there was no substantial evidence to support PERB's finding that the page-rate guidelines actually limited reporters' compensation. Furthermore, while the Agreement Form did alter some aspects of employment, its impact was minimal and outweighed by UCS's broader mission to ensure understandable, uniform, timely, and affordable access to justice. Therefore, the court annulled PERB's determination and granted the petition.

Public Employment RelationsTaylor LawCourt ReportersTranscript FeesAdministrative OrderCollective BargainingTerms of EmploymentJudicial AdministrationAccess to JusticePublic Policy
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 16,441 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