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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Paramount Staffing, Inc.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ernestine Tolar and other African American temporary workers, alleging race discrimination by Paramount Staffing, Inc. in violation of Title VII. The EEOC claimed Paramount Staffing, a staffing agency, systematically chose Hispanic workers over African American applicants for positions at a Technicolor warehouse. Paramount Staffing moved for summary judgment, asserting the EEOC failed to conciliate in good faith by not disclosing class member identities and misrepresenting the class size during settlement negotiations. The Court denied the defendant's motion, finding that the EEOC's conciliation efforts were adequate, it sufficiently outlined the class, and its estimated class size was subject to change as litigation progressed.

Title VIIRace DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary Judgment MotionEEOC ConciliationGood FaithClass ActionTemporary StaffingRacial BiasDamages Claims
References
11
Case No. 71 Civ 2877
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Local 638

The plaintiff, EEOC, brought an Order to Show Cause alleging that Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association and its Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee (Local 28 JAC) were successors in interest to Local 10 and Local 10 JAC. The EEOC contended that Local 10 and Local 10 JAC had violated a 1973 federal district court order prohibiting discrimination against Black and Puerto Rican individuals. A Special Master was appointed and found that Local 28 was indeed the successor in interest to Local 10. The District Court affirmed the Special Master's finding, concluding that successor liability attached to Local 28. This decision was based on several key factors: the formal merger of Local 10 into Local 28, the substantial continuity of the business enterprise, Local 28's prior notice of Local 10's liabilities and the existing judicial order, and the overarching importance of federal policies, including upholding federal court judgments and promoting equal opportunity.

Successorship DoctrineLabor LawEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIUnion MergerJudicial Order EnforcementRacial DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationSpecial Master FindingsFederal Policy
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Tepro, Inc.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) action against Tepro, Inc. on behalf of 25 former employees, alleging age discrimination in reclassification and subsequent layoffs. The Court addressed several motions, including defendant's motion to preclude expert testimony, plaintiff's motion to preclude expert testimony, defendant's motion for summary judgment, and defendant's motion for sanctions. The Court denied most of the defendant's motions, including summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding intentional discrimination. Statistical evidence and circumstantial factors suggested that older employees were targeted during reclassification and reduction in force. The case will therefore proceed to trial, with specific limitations placed on portions of the experts' testimonies.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationLayoffsReduction in ForceExpert TestimonyStatistical EvidenceDaubert StandardMotions in LimineSummary JudgmentPretext
References
76
Case No. 71 Civ. 2877
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Local 40, International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers

Plaintiffs Roysworth D. Grant and Willie Ellis initiated a contempt motion against Local 40, the Joint Apprenticeship Committee, and Allied Budding Metal Industries for non-compliance with the prior "Werker Order" and "Knapp Order". District Judge Robert L. Carter, who inherited the underlying case related to the Werker Order, declined jurisdiction over the Knapp Order contempt motion, directing it back to Judge Knapp. However, Judge Carter asserted jurisdiction over the Werker Order contempt, refuting defendants' claims that the order had expired and that plaintiffs lacked standing. The court clarified that the consent decree's termination clause only ended close supervision, not the permanent injunctions against discrimination, and affirmed the inherent power to enforce decrees. A future conference is scheduled to address specific allegations and the EEOC's investigation status.

Contempt of CourtConsent Decree EnforcementJurisdictionStandingTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Employment DiscriminationUnion PracticesHiring HallInjunctive Relief
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheahan v. Brady

Plaintiff Danielle Sheahan, a white woman, was terminated from her position at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in April 1992, after being hired in May 1991. The defendant, the Secretary of the Treasury, claimed she was fired for submitting an altered college transcript. However, the plaintiff alleged racial and color discrimination, asserting that her mostly Black co-workers and supervisors conspired against her, fabricating the transcript alteration accusation. Sheahan pursued administrative remedies, first with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which dismissed her complaint for lack of jurisdiction on October 16, 1992. Subsequently, she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which also dismissed her case on October 22, 1992, based on the erroneous belief that an MSPB appeal was still pending. Plaintiff then filed a civil suit in federal court on November 12, 1992. Critically, on November 9, 1992, the Treasury Department had filed a Request to Reopen the EEOC's October 22 decision. The court examined the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, specifically concerning the exhaustion of administrative remedies and the finality of EEOC actions. Under 29 C.F.R. § 1613.234, a timely request to reopen by either party renders an EEOC decision non-final for the purpose of initiating a civil action. Consequently, the defendant's request to reopen on November 9, 1992, made the EEOC's October 22 decision non-final before Sheahan filed her lawsuit on November 12, 1992. Therefore, the court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice, and suggested that either party could renew a request to reopen the EEOC decision, anticipating it would be granted given the EEOC's original erroneous finding.

Federal employment discriminationTitle VIICivil Rights ActRacial discriminationColor discriminationWrongful terminationAdministrative exhaustionEEOC decision finalitySubject matter jurisdictionMotion to dismiss
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Porter v. Texaco, Inc.

Plaintiff Mona C. Porter filed an action against her employer, Texaco, Inc., alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress. The core issue was whether Porter's sex discrimination claims were jurisdictionally sound, given that her EEOC charge only cited age discrimination and retaliation for participating in a class action, without alleging sex discrimination. The court determined that Porter's sex discrimination claims were not included in or reasonably related to her EEOC charge under any of the three established criteria (retaliation for filing EEOC charge, further incidents of discrimination in the same manner, or within the scope of a reasonable EEOC investigation). Furthermore, the retaliation claims in her Title VII complaint were also deemed not reasonably related to her EEOC charge due to differing conduct and forms of alleged retaliation. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction over the Title VII sex discrimination claim, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of all federal claims. The supplemental state law claims were subsequently dismissed without prejudice.

Sex DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIEEOC ExhaustionSummary JudgmentFederal JurisdictionHuman Rights LawEmployment LawDiscrimination Claim
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kidder, Peabody & Co.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Kidder, Peabody & Co. Incorporated, alleging a pattern and practice of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) against investment bankers over the age of 40. Kidder Peabody moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the EEOC should be precluded from obtaining individual relief for claimants who had signed valid securities industry arbitration agreements. The Court, citing Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., determined that the EEOC could not seek monetary relief on behalf of individuals subject to arbitration agreements, as this would frustrate the purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act. The Court also rejected the EEOC's waiver argument. Consequently, Kidder Peabody's motion to dismiss was granted, closing the action.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawADEAArbitration AgreementMotion to DismissFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)EEOC EnforcementMonetary ReliefClass ActionWaiver
References
10
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

Stafford v. Sealright, Inc.

Plaintiff Tina Stafford sued Sealright, Inc., alleging gender-based discrimination under Title VII and New York Executive Law § 296 after experiencing sexually inappropriate remarks and resigning in 1998. Stafford filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC and received an 'early' Right to Sue letter, allowing her to file suit before the 180-day administrative investigation period expired. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the early Right to Sue letter was jurisdictionally defective and violated Title VII's mandatory waiting period for EEOC investigation and conciliation. The Court agreed with the defendant, holding that Title VII prohibits the issuance of a Right to Sue notice prior to the 180-day period, especially when no meaningful inquiry was conducted by the EEOC. Therefore, the Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss Stafford's Title VII claim and remanded the action to the EEOC for further proceedings, declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

Gender discriminationEEOCRight to Sue letterTitle VIIAdministrative exhaustionMotion to dismissFederal jurisdictionStatutory interpretationEmployment lawSexual harassment
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Luellen v. Henderson

Eddie O. Luellen, an injured USPS employee receiving FECA benefits, filed a Rehabilitation Act claim alleging disability discrimination after refusing a reassignment he deemed inconsistent with his medical limitations. The Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) initially found the reassignment suitable, terminated his FECA benefits, but later reversed its decision. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) then found the USPS in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. Defendant William Henderson, U.S. Postmaster General, moved to dismiss Luellen's request for judicial enforcement of the EEOC decision, arguing that the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) prevents the EEOC and the court from reviewing job suitability determinations made by the Secretary of Labor. The court, referencing Sixth Circuit precedent, concluded that FECA's unreviewability provision (5 U.S.C. § 8128(b)) bars collateral attacks on OWCP suitability decisions, even by the EEOC. Therefore, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationRehabilitation ActFECASubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissDisability DiscriminationJudicial ReviewEEOC DecisionOWCPFederal Employees
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 266 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