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
Jan 14, 2010

Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Xerces Society (plaintiffs) sued the United States Environmental Protection Agency (defendant) and intervenor Bayer CropScience, challenging the EPA's registration of the insecticide spirotetramat. Plaintiffs alleged procedural and substantive deficiencies, primarily that the EPA failed to publish notice of applications, invite public comment, and publish registration decisions as required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The court found the EPA had indeed committed serious procedural errors. Despite arguments from the EPA and Bayer against vacatur, the court decided to vacate the EPA's approvals of spirotetramat registrations and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with FIFRA and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Environmental LawInsecticide RegulationFIFRAAPAAdministrative LawNotice and CommentAgency ActionVacaturRemandSpirotetramat
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tesillo v. Emergency Physician Associates, Inc.

Manuel Tesillo sued Emergency Physician Associates, Inc. (EPA) for medical malpractice, alleging vicarious liability for the negligence of Dr. William C. Shepherd, an emergency physician at Schuyler Hospital. EPA moved for summary judgment, arguing Dr. Shepherd was an independent contractor. The court found material issues of fact regarding the extent of EPA's control over Dr. Shepherd and its managerial obligations to the Emergency Department, which could establish an employer-employee relationship despite contractual terms. Consequently, the court denied EPA's motion for summary judgment, indicating that the determination of Dr. Shepherd's employment status requires further discovery and possibly a trial.

Medical MalpracticeVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorAgency by EstoppelSummary JudgmentPhysician NegligenceEmergency DepartmentControl TestMaterial Issues of Fact
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2003

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine v. Horinko

This Amended Opinion and Order addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in a case brought by various environmental and animal rights organizations against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Plaintiffs challenged EPA's voluntary High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program, asserting violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and sought injunctive relief. The court granted the EPA's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims alleging ultra vires action and FACA violations, finding that EPA did not exceed its authority or establish an advisory committee under FACA. However, both parties' motions for summary judgment concerning the TSCA claim were denied without prejudice due to insufficient factual record. Additionally, Plaintiffs' request for further discovery was denied, resulting in a decision that largely favored the defendant on the resolved claims.

Environmental LawToxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)Summary JudgmentAdministrative LawRegulatory ComplianceChemical TestingHigh Production Volume (HPV) ChemicalsAnimal RightsEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCullough v. Xerox Corp.

Plaintiff Loretha McCullough, a former Xerox employee, brought an action against Xerox alleging unlawful salary disparities based on race and sex under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. McCullough claimed she was paid less than male and/or Caucasian employees in similar positions since 2004. Xerox moved for summary judgment to dismiss the entire complaint. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing McCullough's Title VII race and sex-based discrimination claims and her EPA claim related to her participation in the Black Belt Program. However, the court denied summary judgment on McCullough's EPA claims arising from her employment as a Human Resources Manager, allowing these specific claims to proceed.

Equal Pay ActTitle VIIRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationSalary DisparitySummary JudgmentHuman Resources ManagerBlack Belt ProgramEEOCPrima Facie Case
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Payne v. Goodman Manufacturing Co.

Plaintiff Connie Payne filed a lawsuit against her former employer, Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P., alleging claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for interference and retaliation, violations of the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) for maternity leave, pregnancy discrimination, and retaliation, and claims under the Equal Pay Act (EPA). The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court denied summary judgment on the plaintiff's FMLA interference and retaliation claims, allowing them to proceed to trial, citing sufficient evidence of a causal connection due to temporal proximity between the FMLA request and termination. However, the court granted summary judgment on all THRA claims (pregnancy discrimination, maternity leave, and retaliation) and the EPA claim, dismissing them with prejudice. The THRA pregnancy discrimination claim failed due to a lack of direct evidence and insufficient temporal proximity. The THRA maternity leave and retaliation claims were also dismissed as they were analyzed under similar standards as the failed THRA discrimination claims. The EPA claim was dismissed because the plaintiff could not establish "equal work" compared to male co-workers, as they possessed more technical certifications and skills.

FMLATHRAEqual Pay ActPregnancy DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawDiscriminationWorkplace RightsWage Disparity
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 1996

Tarango v. Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc.

Plaintiff Tarango sued her employer, Johnson and Johnson, alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act (EPA), Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and Title VII (sex discrimination), along with a retaliation claim. The lawsuit stemmed from her transfer from an Expediter to a Warehouse Clerk II position during a company downsizing, which she considered a demotion. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Tarango's claims. It found her EPA claim time-barred and, on merits, she failed to establish a prima facie case. Furthermore, the court determined that the transfer did not constitute an adverse employment action for her sex and age discrimination claims, nor did her retaliation claims have merit.

Employment DiscriminationEqual Pay ActAge Discrimination in Employment ActTitle VIISex DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentReduction-in-ForcePrima Facie CaseStatute of Limitations
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. United States

Plaintiff Robert Garcia filed a lawsuit against a special agent of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after a car accident. The agent was on official duty in Austin, driving a government vehicle, but became intoxicated and caused the collision. The United States was later substituted as the defendant, asserting the agent was acting within the scope of his employment. The plaintiff sought to avoid the application of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) by arguing the agent was not within the scope of employment. The Court found that the EPA agent was acting within the scope of his employment under both general common law of agency and Texas law, denying the plaintiff's motion to remand. The case was ultimately dismissed because the plaintiff failed to pursue the required administrative remedies under the FTCA.

Federal Tort Claims ActWestfall ActScope of EmploymentRespondeat SuperiorGovernment EmployeeIntoxicationAutomobile AccidentEnvironmental Protection AgencyVicarious LiabilityMotion to Remand
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. 175 Inwood Associates LLP.

The United States initiated a civil action under CERCLA against 175 Inwood Associates, 175 Roger Corporation, and individuals Abraham Woldiger, Abraham Taub, and Peter Hoffman to recover EPA costs for hazardous substance cleanup at the Inwood Site. The government also sought civil damages for non-compliance with EPA administrative orders. The court found Woldiger, Taub, Hoffman, and 175 Inwood Associates liable as "owners" under CERCLA, rejecting their various affirmative defenses including the third-party defense. However, 175 Roger Corporation was deemed not liable due to not owning the site during the hazardous material disposal. The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge to determine the specific amounts of damages, interest, fees, costs, and civil penalties.

CERCLAEnvironmental LiabilityHazardous Waste CleanupProperty Owner LiabilityPartnership LiabilityCorporate LiabilityFederal Civil ActionEPA EnforcementStrict LiabilityAffirmative Defenses
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

County of Suffolk v. Amerada Hess Corp.

The Suffolk County Water Authority and the County of Suffolk sued Exxon Mobil Corporation and Lyondell Chemical Company, among other oil companies, for groundwater contamination by the gasoline additive MTBE. Plaintiffs brought a claim under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), alleging defendants failed to report information regarding MTBE releases and their substantial environmental risks to the EPA. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the information was not reportable or that the EPA was already informed. The court denied summary judgment concerning notifications of MTBE releases, clean-up information, and studies on MTBE's taste and odor effects in water. However, summary judgment was granted for the aspect of the claim related to defendants' potential liability assessments, due to a lack of evidence from the plaintiffs.

MTBE contaminationGroundwater pollutionToxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)Environmental lawSummary judgmentFederal jurisdictionEPA reporting requirementsChemical substance regulationOil industry liabilityChemical industry liability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boaz v. Federal Express Corp.

Margaret Boaz filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against FedEx, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically wage discrimination under the Equal Pay Amendment (EPA) and unpaid overtime compensation. Boaz claimed she performed substantially equal work as a male predecessor but received lower pay, and was not properly compensated for on-call hours. The court determined that while Boaz established a prima facie EPA violation, FedEx successfully demonstrated a legitimate, gender-neutral business reason for the pay disparity based on a company-wide reorganization and job reclassification. Furthermore, the court found Boaz was properly classified as an exempt employee under the FLSA during the relevant period, therefore not entitled to overtime. Consequently, judgment was granted in favor of FedEx.

Employment DiscriminationFair Labor Standards ActEqual Pay ActWage DiscriminationOvertime CompensationExempt EmployeeJob ReclassificationOrganizational RestructuringFedExGender-Neutral Policy
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 36 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