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. 01A01-9602-CH-00073
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 1998

Devore v. Deloitte & Touche

This appeal concerns an employment discrimination action filed by Maurice DeVore against Deloitte & Touche. DeVore, a computer programmer, alleged he was terminated due to race discrimination and in retaliation for filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The trial court granted summary judgment to Deloitte & Touche, determining DeVore failed to present sufficient evidence of discrimination or pretext. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that DeVore's statistical evidence and personal beliefs were insufficient to prove pretext for the employer's stated reason of inadequate job performance.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CasePretextual ReasonStatistical EvidenceJob PerformanceTraining DisparityEEOC Charge
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stanford v. New York City Commission on Human Rights

The plaintiff, a provisional human rights specialist, sued her employer, the New York City Commission on Human Rights, and several individual defendants for employment discrimination. She alleged discrimination based on national origin and retaliation after her termination, which followed a history of insubordination and conflict with her supervisor. The court found no evidence to support either the national origin discrimination claim, noting similar racial backgrounds among parties, or the retaliation claim, as the Commission had encouraged employees to challenge the civil service examination in question. The decision concluded that the plaintiff's termination stemmed from an irreconcilable personal antagonism with her supervisor rather than any discriminatory reasons. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, affirming that federal courts should not intervene in personnel decisions based on non-discriminatory grounds.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimInsubordinationProvisional Employee TerminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActEEOC ComplaintSupervisor-Employee ConflictFederal District Court CaseWorkplace Conduct
References
5
Case No. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
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
Aug 08, 1989

Quinn v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

This is an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found that the claimant was not discriminated against by their employer. The claimant was terminated due to a work-related disability, and subsequently rejected rehire offers from the employer, despite no decrease in salary. When the claimant later sought reemployment, the employer refused. The court found that the claimant failed to prove discrimination or retaliation, and that the employer was under no contractual or legal obligation to rehire the claimant after termination. Therefore, the decision affirming that the employer did not discriminate was upheld.

Workers' CompensationDiscriminationRetaliationReinstatementTerminationEmploymentDisabilitySubstantial EvidenceRehireBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought a lawsuit against Firestone Tire & Rubber Company and its unions, alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The EEOC contended that Firestone unlawfully failed to provide severance awards to employees eligible for pensions when its Memphis plant closed in 1983. The court ruled that the EEOC's claim was time-barred due to exceeding the two-year statute of limitations, and found no willful violation by Firestone. Furthermore, the court concluded that Firestone's P&I Plan, viewed comprehensively, did not adversely affect older employees, who received greater overall benefits. The court also upheld Firestone's defense that its plan was a bona fide employee benefit plan. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Age DiscriminationSeverance PayPension PlanADEAStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentEmployee BenefitsPlant ClosureCollective BargainingWillful Violation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shafa v. Montgomery Ward & Co.

The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought an employment discrimination action against Montgomery Ward Co., Inc. under Title VII, alleging termination based on national origin. The case was tried before an advisory jury, which found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. The Court concurred, concluding that the plaintiff's termination was due to insubordination and unapproved absence, not discriminatory intent. Consequently, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice, denying all requests for relief, including the defendant's conditional motion for attorney's fees.

employment discriminationTitle VIIterminationpro se litigationinsubordinationnational origin discriminationadvisory juryprima facie caseSecond CircuitMcDonnell Douglas framework
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Buzea v. Alphonse Hotel Corp.

The claimant was terminated by his employer on June 20, 1997, shortly after sustaining a work-related head injury and seeking medical attention. He filed a workers' compensation claim and a discrimination complaint under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, alleging he was fired for seeking medical treatment for his injury. Although a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially denied the discrimination complaint, misinterpreting the requirement for filing a claim, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the employer discriminated. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the employer violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, as the prospect of a claim motivated the retaliatory discharge.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeEmployment DiscriminationWorkplace InjuryMedical TreatmentIntent to File ClaimAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationCredibility AssessmentNew York Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Melissa Castillo brought claims of sex discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge against Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., William Rappaport, and Herbie Gonzalez under Title VII. Castillo sought to intervene in the EEOC's action and assert additional state and city claims, while the defendant moved to compel arbitration of Castillo's claims based on an employment arbitration agreement. The court granted Castillo's motion to intervene and permitted her state and local claims to proceed under supplemental jurisdiction. The court also granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration for all of Castillo's claims, determining that the arbitration agreement was an employer-promulgated plan and the associated costs would not be prohibitively expensive. The EEOC's action was not stayed, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement, but Castillo's individual proceedings were stayed pending arbitration.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationConstructive DischargeTitle VIIArbitration AgreementInterventionEmployment DiscriminationFederal Arbitration ActSupplemental JurisdictionEEOC Enforcement Action
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Latanya Billings v. Dime Savings Bank

Claimant, a quality control analyst, was terminated by her employer after sustaining a non-work-related back injury and collecting disability benefits. She alleged that her termination was in retaliation for filing a disability claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the claimant in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 120 and 241 by terminating her due to her disability claim. The employer appealed, arguing that the termination was an inadvertent misinterpretation of its job guarantee policy. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that the Board’s assessment of credibility and the inference of intentional, retaliatory conduct were supported by substantial evidence. The matter was remitted for further development on the issue of damages.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeDisability Benefits ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 120Workers' Compensation Law § 241Job Guarantee Policy ViolationSubstantial Evidence ReviewAdministrative LawAppellate AffirmationCredibility Determination
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 16,078 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