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

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. 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

Wilkins v. University of Houston

Plaintiffs Jeannine Wilkins and Sharon Hill initiated a class-action civil suit against the University of Houston and KUHT-TV, alleging sex discrimination in employment practices under Title VII, the Texas Constitution, and the Equal Pay Act. The plaintiffs contended discrimination in hiring, job assignments, promotions, and wages. The case was tried from June 20 to July 3, 1978. The court found no evidence of systemic discrimination, attributing disparities to market factors and a lack of qualified female applicants rather than discriminatory practices. The individual claims of Plaintiff Hill and Plaintiff Wilkins, including allegations of unequal pay, retaliatory termination, and discriminatory hiring, were also denied due to legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the employment actions. Consequently, the court ruled against the plaintiffs and the certified class, stating they would take nothing from the defendants and would bear the court costs.

Sex DiscriminationEmployment PracticesEqual Pay ActTitle VIIClass ActionWage DisparityPromotion DiscriminationHiring DiscriminationAcademic EmploymentUniversity
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 1977

MATTER OF QUEENSBOROUGH CMTY. COLL. OF THE CITY UNIV. OF NEW YORK v. State Human Rights Appeal Bd.

The court affirmed the order, determining that the one-year statute of limitations for filing a complaint about an unlawful discriminatory practice begins when notice of the alleged discriminatory practice, such as a decision not to reappoint, is given. It is not delayed until the completion of the employee's current term. The court drew an analogy to general civil practice statutes of limitation and noted that invoking a grievance procedure does not toll the limitation period, citing similar conclusions in Federal practice.

Statute of LimitationsDiscriminatory PracticeReappointmentGrievance ProcedureExecutive LawCPLRFederal PracticeCourt of AppealsEmployment Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernhardt v. Interbank of New York

Donald Bernhardt, a former Chief Operating Officer, sued Interbank of New York and individual defendants, alleging he was terminated due to age and national origin discrimination, and in retaliation for his hiring practices. The plaintiff, 61 at the time of the alleged discriminatory practices and 54 at termination, claimed a preference for younger Greek men in hiring, contrasting with his own and other hires. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the discrimination and retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of material fact. However, it granted the individual defendants' motion to dismiss Title VII and ADEA claims against them, citing no individual liability under these statutes. Additionally, a motion to bifurcate the trial was denied.

Age DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentIndividual LiabilityTitle VIIADEAPrima Facie CasePretextEmployment Law
References
31
Case No. 03-14-00112-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2016

Dr. James Jones v. Angelo State University

Dr. James Jones, an associate professor at Angelo State University, sued his former employer for religious discrimination, alleging he was discharged due to his religious beliefs and practices, specifically making religious statements in class. The University cited violation of policy, declining performance, and insubordination as reasons for his non-reappointment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the University. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Jones's discriminatory discharge claim based on disparate treatment. However, it reversed and remanded the portion of the judgment regarding the University's alleged failure to accommodate Jones's religious practice, finding the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on this ground.

Religious DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeFailure to AccommodateDisparate TreatmentAcademic EmploymentUniversity PolicyReligious Freedom
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jeffries v. Harris County Community Action Ass'n

The plaintiff, Dafro M. Jeffries, a black female, sued her former employer, Harris County Community Action Association (HCCAA), along with C. B. Davis, Janet Walker, and Mario Silva. She alleged violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, claiming discrimination based on race and sex in promotion policies and retaliatory termination for opposing unlawful employment practices. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove race or sex discrimination. Regarding the retaliatory discharge claim, the court determined that the defendants were unaware of her EEOC filing at the time of her termination. The court concluded that her dismissal was due to the unauthorized dissemination of confidential personnel records, a conduct deemed prejudicial to HCCAA, rather than retaliation for opposing alleged discriminatory practices. Consequently, the case was dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeConfidential Personnel RecordsEmployee TerminationHoustonHarris CountyFederal Court
References
14
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
Apr 30, 1999

Dews v. Town of Sunnyvale, Tex.

The case involves a challenge to the Town of Sunnyvale, Texas's zoning and planning practices, which allegedly discriminate against minority families by excluding multi-family and affordable housing. Plaintiffs Mary Dews, Hammer-Smith Construction Co., Inc., and The Walker Project, Inc. sued the Town of Sunnyvale under the Fair Housing Act and Civil Rights Acts. The court found that Sunnyvale's one-acre zoning ordinance, ban on apartments, and refusal to approve a planned development application had a discriminatory effect and purpose on African-Americans, perpetuating segregation. The Town's justifications were deemed pretextual. The court granted injunctive relief, enjoining Sunnyvale from its current discriminatory practices and ordering the adoption of new policies to promote affordable housing and remedy past exclusionary actions. Costs and attorneys' fees were also awarded to the plaintiffs.

Housing DiscriminationFair Housing ActZoning OrdinancesRacial SegregationCivil RightsDiscriminatory IntentDisparate ImpactAffordable HousingMulti-family HousingSingle-family Housing
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 1987

Kincade v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

This is a class action lawsuit filed against Firestone Tire and Rubber Company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging racial discrimination in various employment practices at its LaVergne, Tennessee plant. The plaintiffs, comprising black applicants, current, and former employees, and the Nashville NAACP, claimed discrimination in recruitment, hiring, promotions, disciplinary actions, and terminations. The Court found insufficient evidence to establish a systemwide pattern or practice of intentional discrimination or disparate impact for the class claims, thus entering judgment for the defendant on these matters. However, for individual claims, the Court ruled in favor of Bobby Lee Kincade for a racially hostile work environment, Mary Pope Fite for discriminatory failure to promote, and Bobby W. Ivy for discriminatory failure to hire, while denying all other individual claims.

Racial discriminationEmployment discriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act42 U.S.C. § 1981Disparate treatmentDisparate impactClass actionHiring discriminationPromotion discrimination
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 14,159 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