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. Shelby County Government

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against J.A. Blackwell, Shelby County, and the Shelby County Board of Commissioners, alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act on behalf of fourteen female employees. The court found that female employees performing substantially equal work to male counterparts received lower wages. Defendants failed to prove that wage disparities were based on seniority, merit, quality/quantity of work, or any factor other than sex. The court concluded that sex was a 'but for' cause of the disparity, ruled the violation was willful, and awarded backpay and prospective wage increases to the claimants.

Equal Pay ActWage DiscriminationGender DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationFair Labor Standards ActWillful ViolationBackpayLiquidated DamagesSubjective Pay SystemCivil Rights
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Russell v. Belmont College

Dr. Anne L. Russell, a former assistant professor at Belmont College, filed a sex discrimination lawsuit against the college and its officials, alleging discriminatory discharge and treatment in compensation under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. She also brought several pendent state claims, including breach of contract and defamation. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the Equal Pay Act did not apply to church-controlled colleges and that Dr. Russell's Title VII claim was untimely. The Court denied summary judgment on the Equal Pay Act and Title VII claims, finding the Equal Pay Act applicable to Belmont College and Dr. Russell's EEOC charge timely filed. However, the Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff's pendent state law claims, concluding she failed to demonstrate disputed issues of material fact.

Sex DiscriminationTitle VIIEqual Pay ActReligious InstitutionsFirst AmendmentFree Exercise ClauseEstablishment ClauseSummary JudgmentEEOC TimelinessPendent State Claims
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2013

Sauceda v. University of Texas

Plaintiff Mary Jane Sauceda, an associate professor at The University of Texas at Brownsville’s School of Business, alleged unlawful pay discrimination based on sex and national origin. She brought claims under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) and the federal Equal Pay Act of 1963. The Court dismissed her TCHRA claim as time-barred, finding no cognizable act of intentional discrimination occurred within the 180-day limitations period. However, the Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the Equal Pay Act claim, concluding that genuine fact issues exist regarding the defendant's affirmative defense that salary differentials were based on factors other than sex. The case will proceed on the Equal Pay Act claim.

Equal Pay ActNational Origin DiscriminationSex DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActStatute of LimitationsAdministrative RemediesSalary DiscriminationMarket Forces DefenseAcademic Employment
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Detrick v. H & E MACHINERY, INC.

The plaintiff, Sherry Kellogg Detrick, sued her former employer, H & E Machinery, Inc., alleging sexual harassment under Title VII, Equal Pay Act violations, and state law claims including the New York Human Rights Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Detrick contended she endured a hostile work environment and unequal pay compared to her male successor. H & E moved for summary judgment, arguing the Title VII and state law claims were time-barred, and the Equal Pay Act claim lacked a prima facie showing. The court granted H & E's motion, finding Detrick's harassment claims untimely and her Equal Pay Act claim unsupported by sufficient evidence of substantially equal jobs, and declined jurisdiction over the remaining state human rights claim.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIEqual Pay ActStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation DoctrineNew York Human Rights LawHostile Work EnvironmentTimeliness of Claims
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2007

Heinemann v. Howe & Rusling

Plaintiff Marion Heinemann sued her former employer, Howe & Rusling, Inc., and several individual defendants, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as retaliation and Equal Pay Act violations. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court denied summary judgment for the plaintiff's Title VII claims (sex discrimination and retaliation) and the Equal Pay Act claim, finding sufficient evidence of pretext and discriminatory intent to warrant a jury trial. However, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims, concluding that the plaintiff failed to present enough evidence for these specific allegations. The case will proceed to trial on the sex discrimination, retaliation, and Equal Pay Act claims.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliationEqual Pay ActSummary Judgment MotionFederal CourtWestern District of New YorkWorkplace HarassmentPerformance ManagementAdverse Employment Action
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schulte v. Wilson Industries, Inc.

Marilyn Schulte, a former employee of Wilson Industries, Inc., filed an employment discrimination lawsuit under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, alleging unequal pay, discriminatory denial of promotions, and constructive discharge based on sex. The court found that Wilson Industries, Inc. discriminatorily denied Schulte equal pay for equal work, constituting a willful violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. However, her claims for discriminatory denial of promotion and constructive discharge were denied due to insufficient evidence that her working conditions were intolerable or that a direct causal link existed between the defendant's actions and her depression. Schulte is entitled to back pay for three years and attorney's fees for the successful unequal pay claim.

Employment DiscriminationEqual Pay ActTitle VIISex DiscriminationWage DisparityConstructive DischargePromotional DiscriminationSufficiency of EvidenceBurden of ProofPrima Facie Case
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Georgen-Saad v. Texas Mutual Insurance

Plaintiff, a former Senior Vice President of Finance, sued her employer (Defendant) alleging gender discrimination, equal pay violations under federal and state law (Equal Pay Act and TCHRA), hostile work environment, constructive discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and fraud. Defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims. The Court granted summary judgment, dismissing the Equal Pay Act and TCHRA equal pay claims due to lack of male comparators with equal skill, effort, and responsibility. The hostile work environment claim was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The constructive discharge claim failed as Plaintiff could not establish a prima facie gender discrimination case. The IIED claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Finally, the fraud claim was dismissed as the alleged misrepresentations were either legally insufficient, lacked evidence of fraudulent intent, or did not cause legally cognizable injury. All of Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Gender DiscriminationEqual Pay ActSummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressFraudTexas Commission on Human Rights ActStatute of LimitationsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heap v. County of Schenectady

Plaintiff Kathleen Heap sued the County of Schenectady and Robert McEvoy, alleging sex discrimination regarding promotion and pay, in violation of Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Equal Protection Clause, and the New York Executive Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the Personnel Administrator position was policy-making and exempt from Title VII, and that Heap failed to establish prima facie cases for her claims. The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the claims of pattern and practice discrimination, Title VII pay discrimination, and Equal Pay Act violations. However, the court denied summary judgment on the claims of discrimination in promotion, Equal Protection, and New York Executive Law, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained for trial.

Gender DiscriminationFailure to PromoteEqual Pay ActTitle VIISection 1983Equal Protection ClauseNew York Executive LawSummary Judgment MotionPrima Facie CasePretext
References
34
Case No. 04 Civ. 4272(BSJ)
Regular Panel Decision

Lifrak v. New York City Council

Safora M. Lifrak, an employee of the New York City Council, filed an action alleging gender and religious discrimination under the Equal Pay Act and New York State/City Human Rights Laws. The Council moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The District Court, presided over by Judge Stein, granted the Council's motion to dismiss the Equal Pay Act claim, finding that Lifrak lacked statutory standing. The Court determined that as an unclassified employee of a legislative body not subject to civil service laws, Lifrak did not meet the definition of 'employee' under the FLSA, which governs the Equal Pay Act. Consequently, the federal claim was dismissed, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationEqual Pay ActFLSAStatutory StandingSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissNew York City CouncilUnclassified Employees
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doria v. Cramer Rosenthal McGlynn, Inc.

Plaintiff Donna I. Doria brought suit against Cramer Rosenthal McGlynn, Inc. and three individual defendants, alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and New York State Human Rights Law. Doria claimed gender, age, and retaliatory discrimination related to a denied promotion, unequal wages, and denied benefits during her employment as a Vice President and acting CFO. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the Equal Pay Act and retaliation claims, along with specific gender discrimination claims such as loan denial and constructive discharge. However, the court denied summary judgment on several gender-based discrimination claims, including those concerning the hiring and salary of a male CFO, pay disparities among Vice Presidents, opportunities for share ownership, expectations to work during maternity leave, exclusion from social events, and alleged harassing conduct.

Equal Pay ActTitle VIIGender DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationWage DisparityHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargePromotion Denial
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 9,265 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