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. 23-0697
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

State of Texas Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas Texas Medical Board Texas Health and Human Services Commission And Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Lazaro Loe, Individually and as Next Friend of Luna Loe, a Minor Mary Moe and Matthew Moe, Individually and as Next Friends of Maeve Moe, a Minor Nora Noe, Individually and as Next Friend of Nathan Noe, a Minor Sarah Soe and Steven Soe, Individually and as Next Friends of Samantha Soe, a Minor Gina Goe, Individually and as Next Friend of Grayson Goe, a Minor Pflag, Inc. Richard Ogden Roberts III, M.D. David L. Paul, M.D. Patrick W. O'malley, M.D. And American Association of Physicians for Human

The Supreme Court of Texas reversed and vacated a temporary injunction against Senate Bill 14, which prohibits certain medical treatments for minors related to gender transition. Parents of children with gender dysphoria, along with physicians and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, had challenged the law as unconstitutional, alleging infringements on parental rights, occupational freedom for physicians, and discrimination based on sex and transgender status. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish a probable right to relief, asserting that parental rights are not absolute and the Legislature has constitutional authority to regulate medicine, especially regarding novel treatments for new conditions. The Court also found no unconstitutional discrimination, stating the law treats males and females equally in its prohibitions and that "transgender status" is not a protected class under the Texas Constitution.

Parental RightsMedical RegulationGender DysphoriaConstitutional LawDue Course of LawEqual ProtectionTransgender RightsMinors' Medical TreatmentLegislative AuthorityTexas Supreme Court
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lowcher v. Beame

Plaintiff, a former school secretary, initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, the New York Teachers’ Retirement System, and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System. She alleged deprivation of her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection after her application for accident disability benefits was denied. The Medical Board of the New York Teachers’ Retirement System determined her disability was not proximately caused by a 1970 assault, and denied her requests for legal representation, witnesses, and access to a referred physician's report. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Judge Metzner denied the motion, ruling that while a full adversarial hearing was not required, the plaintiff was entitled to know the evidence upon which the Retirement System made its determination, implying a due process violation in denying access to the medical report.

Due ProcessEqual ProtectionCivil Rights ActionDisability BenefitsAccident DisabilityAdministrative LawMedical BoardRight to CounselCross-ExaminationAccess to Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation

The Washington Legal Foundation, along with a Texas attorney and a legal services consumer, challenged the mandatory Texas Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Program, alleging violations of their First and Fifth Amendment rights. They claimed the program constituted a taking of property without just compensation and compelled financial support for objectionable organizations. The Defendants, including the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation and Supreme Court Justices, sought summary judgment, arguing the IOLTA program did not infringe on constitutional rights and served a legitimate state interest in providing legal services to the indigent. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that no cognizable property interest in the IOLTA-generated interest existed and no First Amendment violations occurred. Consequently, all plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Fifth AmendmentFirst AmendmentIOLTA ProgramTaking ClauseFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationSummary JudgmentTexasState BarLegal Services
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayes v. Equality Specialities

Plaintiff Bonnie Hayes initiated an action against Equality Specialties, Inc., MNC Stribbons Inc., and MNC Sourcing Solutions, Inc., asserting claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and violations of New York Labor Law §§ 190-99, stemming from the termination of her employment by Equality. Her claims against MNC entities were predicated on a theory of successor liability for Equality's alleged wrongs. MNC moved for summary judgment, contending that Hayes failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact regarding successor liability. The Court evaluated Hayes's arguments for de facto merger, implied assumption of liabilities, and fraud, ultimately finding insufficient evidence to establish any of these exceptions to the general rule against successor liability. Consequently, the Court granted MNC's motion for summary judgment, ordering Hayes to pursue a default judgment against Equality or dismiss the action.

Successor LiabilitySummary JudgmentBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelUnjust EnrichmentQuantum MeruitWage ClaimsDe Facto MergerAsset Sale AgreementCorporate Law
References
10
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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Access for El Paso, Inc. v. Hawkins

This case involves Medicaid recipients, providers, and an association in El Paso County, Texas, suing the Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), Albert Hawkins. Plaintiffs allege that HHSC's low Medicaid payment rates have led to inadequate access to medical services for El Paso Medicaid recipients, violating several provisions of the Medicaid Act, the Supremacy Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The Court found that Recipient Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Equal Access had standing for claims under the Equal Access Provision of the Medicaid Act, but Provider Plaintiffs did not have third-party standing for their patients. All other claims under the Medicaid Act, Equal Protection Clause, and most of the Supremacy Clause claim were dismissed. The Court ultimately found only one cognizable claim: Recipient Plaintiffs' claim that HHSC's low payment rates violate the Equal Access Provision. The case was certified for interlocutory appeal due to substantial grounds for difference of opinion on controlling questions of law, particularly concerning standing and the private right of action under the Equal Access Provision post-Gonzaga.

Medicaid ActHealthcare AccessPayment RatesStanding DoctrinePrivate Right of ActionSupremacy ClauseEqual Protection ClauseRule 12(b)(1) MotionRule 12(b)(6) MotionInterlocutory Appeal
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2009

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc. and Townsend Oil Corporation on behalf of ten claimants, alleging sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendants moved to compel the production of claimants' medical and mental health records. The court addressed the psychotherapist-patient privilege, finding that Claimant #2, who saw mental health professionals, did not waive her privilege because she only asserted a "garden variety" emotional distress claim and did not intend to use privileged communications at trial. The court clarified that the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not extend to medical, non-mental health providers. For seven claimants, including the Charging Party and Claimant #2, the court ordered the disclosure of medical records relevant to emotional distress, limiting the scope to one year prior to, through one year subsequent to, their employment with Nichols, subject to a protective order to safeguard privacy.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentDiscovery MotionPsychotherapist PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeEmotional DistressWaiverFederal Civil ProcedureCivil Rights ActHostile Work Environment
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 7,144 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