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

Bohlke v. General Electric Co.

Plaintiffs, former employees, initiated an age discrimination lawsuit against their former employer under the Human Rights Law, asserting claims based on both disparate treatment and disparate impact theories. The defendant contested the disparate impact claims, arguing they were not recognized under New York law. While the Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs regarding discovery and amendment, the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court determined that disparate impact claims are not cognizable under the New York Human Rights Law for age discrimination when the protected class is defined as broadly as individuals aged 18 and over, making it impossible for a subgroup (e.g., over 40) to demonstrate disparate impact on the entire class. Consequently, the court dismissed the disparate impact claims and denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint. Additionally, the appellate court reversed a sua sponte discovery order by the Supreme Court, citing a lack of notice and opportunity for the defendant to be heard on those specific demands.

Age DiscriminationDisparate ImpactDisparate TreatmentHuman Rights LawEmployment LawReduction in ForceDiscoveryAppellate ReviewNew York LawProtected Class
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2001

Levin v. Yeshiva University

Plaintiffs Sara Levin and Maggie Jones, lesbian students at Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine (AECOM), challenged the university's housing policy that restricted cohabitation in university-owned housing to students, their spouses, and dependent children. They alleged discrimination based on marital status and a disparate impact on the basis of sexual orientation, violating the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, which the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division's order, reinstating the disparate impact claim for Levin and Jones under the New York City Human Rights Law, asserting that the lower court erred in its comparison group analysis by excluding married students. The Court found no facial discrimination on marital status but allowed the sexual orientation disparate impact claim to proceed.

Sexual Orientation DiscriminationDisparate ImpactHousing PolicyMarital StatusNew York City Human Rights LawUniversity HousingLesbian RightsDiscrimination ClaimAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McClain v. Lufkin Industries, Inc.

Sylvester McClain and Buford Thomas brought claims against Lufkin Industries under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging disparate impact due to the company's subjective employment practices. The court considered the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which involved demonstrating a prima facie case of disparate impact and satisfying the criteria under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Statistical analysis presented by the plaintiffs indicated a significant disparate impact on African-American employees across various employment aspects, including hiring, promotion, compensation, and layoffs. The court determined that the proposed class met all requirements of Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation) and qualified for certification under Rule 23(b)(2), primarily seeking injunctive relief. Consequently, the court granted the motion for class certification, severing individual monetary relief claims to ensure the predominance of injunctive relief.

Employment DiscriminationClass ActionDisparate ImpactSubjective Employment PracticesRacial DiscriminationTitle VII ClaimSection 1981 ClaimRule 23 CertificationNumerosityCommonality
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Austin v. Chandler

The Appellees, a group of public safety officers over the age of 40 from the City of Austin's defunct Public Safety Emergency Management Department (PSEM), sued the City for age-based employment discrimination. They alleged that the consolidation of PSEM into the Austin Police Department (APD) disparately impacted older PSEM employees by stripping them of their years of service. A jury found in favor of the Appellees, and the trial court awarded damages, including back pay and placement on the APD pay scale consistent with their years of service. On appeal, the City challenged the judgment on five grounds, including jurisdiction, sufficiency of evidence for disparate impact, whether a reasonable factor other than age was established, and the award of overtime pay damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the Appellees had exhausted administrative remedies, established a prima facie case of age-based disparate-impact discrimination, and that the City failed to prove its employment decision was based on reasonable factors other than age.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawDisparate ImpactSeniority RightsPublic SafetyMunicipal LawConsolidationAdministrative ExhaustionSufficiency of EvidenceJury Instructions
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2012

Bazile v. City of Houston

This Title VII disparate-impact suit challenged the City of Houston’s system for promoting firefighters, specifically to captain and senior captain positions, alleging racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Title VII. Seven black firefighters sued the City, leading to a proposed consent decree that would implement changes to the promotion exams. The Houston Professional Fire Fighters Association (HPFFA) intervened, objecting that the proposed changes conflicted with the Texas Local Government Code (TLGC) and their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The court found that the 2006 senior-captain exam disparately impacted black firefighters and was not justified by business necessity. Consequently, the court approved parts of the consent decree, including the use of situational-judgment questions and assessment centers, but denied provisions that would abandon a rank-order list for job-knowledge tests and the "Rule of Three" for promotions, deeming them not sufficiently tailored to remedy the disparate impact.

Disparate ImpactTitle VIIRacial DiscriminationFirefighter PromotionConsent DecreeJob AnalysisEmployment TestingStatistical ValidityCollective Bargaining AgreementTexas Local Government Code
References
62
Case No. 03-05-00499-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2007

Texas Parks & Wildlife Department v. Milburn Dearing, Kenneth Head, and Mike Warren, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

This case involves an interlocutory appeal concerning the re-certification of a class action. The appellees, Milburn Dearing, Kenneth Head, and Mike Warren, along with others, sued their employer, the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, for age discrimination under the Texas Labor Code. The dispute arose from the reclassification of game-warden positions, which the plaintiffs alleged had a disparate impact on older workers. While the district court initially certified the class, the appellate court reversed it, believing disparate-impact age-discrimination claims were unavailable. Following a U.S. Supreme Court decision in Smith v. City of Jackson, which clarified the viability of such claims under the ADEA, the district court reinstated the class certification. However, the appellate court again reversed, holding that although disparate-impact age discrimination claims are viable under the labor code, the district court's trial plan failed to adequately address the specific elements and burden of proof, including the 'reasonable factors other than age' justification. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Age DiscriminationDisparate ImpactClass ActionEmployment LawTexas Labor CodeADEASovereign ImmunityAdministrative RemediesLaw of the Case DoctrineClass Certification
References
85
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Parks & Wildlife Department v. Dearing

This case is an interlocutory appeal concerning the re-certification of a class action alleging age discrimination under the Texas Labor Code. The applicants, Milburn Dearing, Kenneth Head, and Mike Warren, sued the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department based on a disparate-impact theory of age discrimination related to the reclassification of game-warden positions. A previous ruling (Dearing I) had reversed the class certification, concluding that disparate-impact age discrimination claims were not viable under the labor code. However, an intervening U.S. Supreme Court decision (Smith v. City of Jackson) clarified that such claims are cognizable under the ADEA, albeit with narrower scope and specific burden of proof standards (from Wards Cove). On remand, the district court reinstated the original class certification without modification. This court reverses the district court's re-certification order, holding that while disparate-impact age discrimination claims are viable under the labor code (incorporating Smith's interpretation of ADEA), the district court's trial plan failed to adequately address the specific elements of proof and the "reasonable factors other than age" (RFOA) justification as required by Smith and Wards Cove. The case is remanded for further proceedings, allowing parties to amend pleadings and the district court to conduct a rigorous analysis for class certification consistent with the updated legal standards. The court also affirmed the application of the "single-filing rule" for administrative exhaustion.

Age DiscriminationDisparate ImpactClass ActionClass CertificationTexas Labor CodeADEAWards Cove StandardsReasonable Factors Other Than AgeJudicial PrecedentStatutory Interpretation
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richardson v. Porter Hedges, LLC

Jeanine V. Richardson, an African-American woman, sued her former employer, Porter Hedges, LLC, for employment discrimination based on race, color, and age, violating Title VII and the ADEA. Richardson alleged disparate treatment, disparate impact, pattern and practice discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The court granted Porter Hedges' motion for partial dismissal, finding Richardson failed to exhaust administrative remedies for disparate impact, pattern and practice discrimination, and hostile work environment claims. Additionally, the retaliation claim was dismissed as untimely, as it did not relate back to the original complaint. Only the disparate treatment claim remains to be litigated.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationAge DiscriminationTitle VIIADEADisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. 10-02036-F
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2011

Hernandez v. City of Corpus Christi

Plaintiff Josie Hernandez sued her former employer, the City of Corpus Christi, for employment discrimination and retaliation. She alleged discrimination based on gender, national origin, race, and age, claiming she was passed over for promotions and experienced a hostile work environment. She also brought claims for constructive discharge, disparate treatment, disparate impact, and breach of contract, and sought declaratory judgment regarding the release of her birthdate. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing claims related to conduct before November 20, 2007, hostile work environment, disparate impact, constructive discharge, retaliation, and declaratory judgment. However, claims for disparate treatment and breach of contract, along with discrimination claims for conduct after November 20, 2007, were retained for trial.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VII of Civil Rights ActAge Discrimination in Employment ActTexas Commission on Human Rights ActFailure to PromoteGender DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRace Discrimination
References
100
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooper v. New York State Office of Mental Health

Plaintiff, identified as Cooper, filed an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) against the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) and his supervisors, Bryan F. Rudes and Richard A. Lallier. Cooper alleged he was demoted and terminated based on age (disparate treatment) and that OMH's policies had a disparate impact on employees over 60. He worked for OMH from 1975 to 1992, rising to Director of Quality Assurance before being reassigned and subsequently laid off at age 63 during a reduction in force. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the disparate treatment claim, citing material issues of fact regarding pretext, as Cooper's duties were transferred to a younger employee and his new role was vaguely defined and later eliminated. However, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the disparate impact claim due to insufficient evidence and legal uncertainty.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactSummary JudgmentReduction in ForcePretextADEALayoffDemotion
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 816 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