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. 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. 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

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

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Johnson & Higgins

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Johnson & Higgins (J&H) over a mandatory pre-65 retirement policy that violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court previously found J&H liable and issued an injunction. J&H then sought partial summary judgment to dismiss claims for monetary and injunctive relief based on waivers signed by thirteen retired employee-directors, who had received $1,000 in exchange for waiving ADEA rights. The retired directors later repudiated these waivers, citing conflict of interest, economic duress, and undue influence. The EEOC opposed the waivers, arguing inadequate consideration, lack of voluntariness, and that J&H negotiated them without EEOC participation after a finding of liability. The District Court denied J&H's motion for summary judgment, finding material issues of fact regarding the adequacy of consideration and the voluntariness of the waivers. The court also held that waivers entered into after a finding of liability and without EEOC participation are invalid as a matter of law.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActADEAWaiversSummary JudgmentKnowing and VoluntaryConsiderationOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActOWBPARepudiation of WaiversEEOC Litigation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halas v. Ford Motor Co.

Jeffrey N. Halas initiated an employment discrimination lawsuit against Ford Motor Company under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging failure to accommodate his disability and wrongful termination. Ford moved to dismiss, arguing Halas's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge was untimely. The court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, determined that Halas's timely submission of an EEOC questionnaire, later verified, satisfied the 300-day filing requirement, citing EEOC internal practices and assurances. Consequently, the court denied Ford's motion to dismiss and granted Halas's request for the appointment of counsel.

Employment DiscriminationADADisability AccommodationEEOC ChargeTimelinessEquitable TollingSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigantAppointment of CounselStatute of Limitations
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harrington v. Hudson Sheraton Corp.

Nell Harrington filed a lawsuit against ITT Sheraton Corporation, alleging a sexually hostile working environment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and retaliation for complaining about the harassment. ITT moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Harrington failed to name them in her initial Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge. The court considered the "identity of interest" exception, which allows a suit against an unnamed party in an EEOC charge if certain conditions are met, primarily when the plaintiff is unrepresented by counsel. As Harrington was represented by a specialized labor and employment law attorney when filing her EEOC charge, the court determined the exception did not apply. Consequently, ITT's motion to dismiss was granted, and Harrington's complaint against ITT was dismissed with prejudice.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo HarassmentRetaliationTitle VIIEEOC ChargeMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionIdentity of Interest ExceptionLegal Representation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spira v. Ethical Culture School

Bernard R. Spira, a plaintiff, sued his former employer, Ethical Culture School, and three individuals for age discrimination. He filed the complaint with the EEOC in September 1992 and received a 'Right-to-Sue' letter on November 8, 1994, which stated a 90-day period to file suit. Spira filed suit on March 7, 1995, approximately 114 calendar days after receipt. He argued that an EEOC worker orally misinformed him that the 90-day period was in working days, not calendar days. The defendants moved to dismiss based on the failure to comply with the 90-day limitations period. The court granted the motion, finding no extraordinary circumstances or affirmative misconduct by the EEOC to warrant equitable tolling of the limitations period.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingEEOC ProceduresRight-to-Sue LetterMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Affirmative MisconductFederal Courts
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 175 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