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

Hugo v. Millennium Laboratories, Inc.

The plaintiff sued his former employer, Millennium Laboratories, alleging wrongful termination based on whistleblower retaliation, violation of public policy, and age discrimination under Tennessee law. The plaintiff claimed he was discharged for attempting to report illegal LSA activities, for potential testimony in a Colorado lawsuit, and due to his age. Millennium contended the termination was solely due to the plaintiff's poor job performance and dishonesty, citing multiple customer complaints and an instance of dishonesty. The Court granted Millennium's motion for summary judgment, concluding the plaintiff failed to present a prima facie case or show pretext for any of his claims, as he did not sufficiently report illegal activities, there was no evidence Millennium impeded his testimony, and age was not the 'but for' cause of termination.

Age DiscriminationWhistleblower RetaliationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentTennessee Public Protection ActTennessee Human Rights ActEmployment LawPublic Policy ViolationJob PerformancePretext Argument
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Soft Drink Workers Union, Local 812

Jose Johnson sued his former employer, Pepsi-Cola, and his union, Soft Drink Workers Union, Local 812, alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation concerning his discharge for dishonesty. Johnson was summarily discharged on April 6, 1982. The union's initial arbitration demand was denied, upholding the dismissal. Johnson later requested a second arbitration, arguing the collective bargaining agreement prohibited summary dismissal. The court analyzed Article 13 of the agreement, concluding that summary discharge for dishonesty was permissible, a conclusion supported by extrinsic evidence. As Johnson could not establish that the employer breached the contract, his claim that the union breached its duty of fair representation failed. The defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

Duty of fair representationSummary judgmentCollective bargaining agreementArbitrationEmployee dischargeUnion liabilityContract interpretationLabor lawFederal courtEastern District of New York
References
3
Case No. ADJ7673518
Regular
Jun 18, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION/CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The defendant, AO-The University Corporation/California State University Northridge, sought reconsideration of a prior decision finding the applicant sustained an industrial neck injury on January 24, 2011. Defendant argued the applicant's alleged dishonesty under oath invalidated the injury report. However, the Board previously found sufficient additional evidence supported the industrial injury finding, even considering credibility issues. The Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, reaffirming its prior decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order Granting Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsiderationindustrial injuryneck injurylied under oathcredibilitysufficient additional evidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAO-The University Corporation
References
0
Case No. ADJ2570253
Regular
Oct 18, 2012

SHIRLEY KING vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Shirley King's Petition for Reconsideration regarding her medical mileage claim. The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) findings, which found the applicant lacked credibility due to apparent willful dishonesty about her residence. However, the Board returned the case to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the employer's request for sanctions under Labor Code section 5813. The WCJ will address sanctions because the alleged misconduct occurred during proceedings before them.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJLabor Code section 5813sanctionswillful dishonestycredibilityAgreed Medical ExaminerStipulations with Request for Awardpermanent partial disability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Texas Workforce Commission

Juan Hernandez appealed the Texas Workforce Commission's (TWC) decision to disqualify him from unemployment benefits. Hernandez argued that the TWC's finding of misconduct (dishonesty during an investigation) was not the stated reason for his discharge by his employer, Greyhound Lines, Inc., which had cited personal long-distance calls. He also claimed a due process violation. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the TWC's decision, on the grounds that Hernandez failed to present sufficient controverting evidence to rebut the presumption of validity of the TWC's decision.

Unemployment BenefitsMisconductDishonestyEmployer InvestigationJudicial ReviewAppellate CourtSubstantial EvidenceDue ProcessTermination of EmploymentTexas Workforce Commission
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Millien

Claimant, a child care worker, was terminated from her employment at a group home for emotionally disturbed adolescents due to misconduct. The employer discovered she violated policy by allowing residents to attend a barbecue at a relative's home where alcohol was present and subsequently lied about her involvement during the investigation. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied her application for benefits, concluding that her dishonesty was detrimental to the employer's responsibility for resident safety. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the disqualifying misconduct and resolved credibility issues against the claimant.

Unemployment BenefitsMisconductChild CareDishonestyEmployer PolicyGroup HomeCredibilityAppeal BoardEmployment TerminationBenefit Disqualification
References
3
Case No. 03A01-9604-CV-00136
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1996

Hodges v. S.C. Toof &Amp Co., 833 S.W.2D 896 (Tenn. 1992) T

Plaintiff Tina M. Pack appealed a directed verdict against her, alleging retaliatory discharge by T.T. Enterprises, Inc. for serving on a jury, a violation of Tennessee common and statutory law. The appellate court found the directed verdict improper, noting a causal relationship between Pack's discharge during jury duty and her supervisor's disapproval. The employer's justifications for termination, including non-compliance with company rules or alleged dishonesty, were deemed factual disputes for a jury. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

retaliatory dischargejury serviceemployment lawwrongful terminationdirected verdictcommon law violationstatutory law violationemployer-employee disputeappellate reviewjury duty protection
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1997

In re the Claim of Huggins

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which had disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The Board found that the claimant was discharged from his employment at a medical center for repeatedly taking food from the facility’s cafeteria, a violation of the employer’s policy against theft. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that an employee's dishonesty or failure to comply with established employer policies constitutes disqualifying misconduct. The court also upheld the Board's right to credit the testimony of the cafeteria cashier over the claimant's general denial of wrongdoing.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductTheftEmployer Policy ViolationEmployee TerminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationAdministrative Law JudgeUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
3
Case No. M2015-01488-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2016

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v. The Civil Service Commission of The Metropolitan Government of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee

An officer with the Davidson County Sheriff's Department, Jerry Clark, was terminated for dishonesty after filing reports alleging he was attacked during training, which an investigation found to be exaggerated. An administrative law judge initially ordered his reinstatement with a ten-day suspension, a decision adopted by the Civil Service Commission. However, the Metropolitan Government sought judicial review, and the chancery court reversed the Commission's decision, finding it unsupported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancery court's ruling, concluding that the ALJ's findings were not backed by material evidence and remanded the case to the Commission for a determination of appropriate disciplinary action.

Police MisconductTermination of EmploymentDishonestyAdministrative ReviewJudicial PrecedentCivil Service LawSubstantial Evidence RuleWorkers' Compensation ClaimsRetaliation AllegationsDue Process Rights
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Farnsworth

The claimant, a hospital social worker, was terminated from her employment for taking a computer cord without permission and using the employer’s cellular phone for personal use, in violation of company policy. The Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board both ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that an employee’s dishonesty, including theft, constitutes misconduct. The court also noted that the claimant’s exculpatory explanations created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve, and found substantial evidence to support the ruling.

MisconductUnemployment BenefitsCredibility IssueTheftPersonal Use of Company PropertyHospital Social WorkerAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePolicy ViolationTermination of Employment
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 35 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