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. 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. 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

Bertheas v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.

The male plaintiff, hired by TWA in 1970 as a Flight Purser, filed a Title VII discrimination suit alleging sex discrimination due to a change in seniority practices. A 1970 collective bargaining agreement between TWA and ALSSA revised seniority rules, crediting female Cabin Attendants promoted to Purser with their prior service time for all purposes, including flight bidding, thereby disadvantaging the plaintiff. After his complaint was dismissed by state agencies, he filed a charge with the EEOC in 1973, which found no reasonable cause. The plaintiff filed suit in 1975, seeking a reversion to the prior seniority system. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, rejecting the plaintiff's 'continuing violations' and equitable tolling arguments, asserting that timely EEOC filing is a prerequisite for suit.

Title VIIDiscriminationSex DiscriminationSeniority SystemEmployment PracticesEEOCTimelinessContinuing ViolationsEquitable TollingJurisdiction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keyse v. California Texas Oil Corp.

A plaintiff brought an action against California Texas Oil Corp. (Caltex) and American Overseas Petroleum Ltd. (Amoseas) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging employment discrimination based on race and sex. Defendants moved for dismissal or summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the Section 1981 claim, finding it time-barred by New York's three-year statute of limitations, as the action was commenced in 1977 for discrimination that occurred prior to September 1968. The Title VII claim was also dismissed as untimely, as the plaintiff failed to file charges with the EEOC within the 300-day statutory period, despite her reliance on incorrect information from an EEOC official. The court declined to apply equitable tolling, emphasizing the necessity of strict compliance with Title VII prerequisites. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the entire complaint was dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Statute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentTimelinessEquitable TollingEEOCState Agency ProceedingsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Held v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

The plaintiff, a female employee, initiated this action against her employer, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (MoPac), and two unions, International Union Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks (BRAC) and Local 84, alleging sex discrimination in employment practices. She claimed a failure to promote in 1969 due to sex and a retaliatory discharge in 1973 for filing charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The Court addressed motions to dismiss and the plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction for immediate reinstatement. The Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over sex discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 but found ancillary jurisdiction for the retaliatory discharge claim despite no separate EEOC filing for the discharge. However, after considering the prerequisites for a preliminary injunction, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for immediate reinstatement, citing a severe personality conflict and potential adverse effects on all parties, opting instead for an early trial on the merits to evaluate all appropriate relief.

Sex DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActRetaliatory DischargePreliminary InjunctionEEOC ExhaustionAncillary JurisdictionUnion JoinderCollective Bargaining AgreementJurisdiction Disputes
References
65
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

Stromfeld v. Smith

Stuart Stromfeld, a DEA agent, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent his transfer from Atlantic City, New Jersey, to Miami, Florida, arguing that the transfer was in retaliation for previous Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaints alleging religious discrimination. Stromfeld had a history of promotion denials and complaints against DEA administration figures, notably John Fallon and Michael Tobin, which led to a demotion that was later reversed by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The court, presided over by District Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, acknowledged the hardships the transfer would impose on Stromfeld and his family, but ultimately denied the motion. The judge determined that Stromfeld failed to demonstrate "extraordinary" irreparable harm, a higher standard required in federal employee cases, which is a prerequisite for granting preliminary injunctive relief.

Preliminary InjunctionFederal EmployeeTransferRetaliationReligious DiscriminationEEOC ComplaintMSPB DecisionIrreparable HarmDEA AgentDistrict Court
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 545 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