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

Guzman v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.

Luis Martinez Guzman, an attorney, sued his former employer, El Paso Natural Gas Co. (EPNG), alleging constructive discharge and discrimination based on race and national origin, including denial of promotions and harassment. EPNG filed a motion for summary judgment on Guzman's various claims, including failure-to-promote under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, intentional misconduct, violations of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract (ERISA). The court granted summary judgment in part and denied in part. Claims regarding failure to promote to the Mojave board of directors, failure to promote to Vice President of Marketing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the ERISA claim were denied, allowing them to proceed. Summary judgment was granted for EPNG on the failure to promote to Executive Vice-President of Mojave, breach of good faith and fair dealing, intentional misconduct, and public policy claims.

DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationEmployment LawConstructive DischargeFailure to PromoteSummary JudgmentERISAEmotional DistressBreach of Contract
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2002

Burrell v. Crown Central Petroleum, Inc.

This amended opinion addresses motions for partial summary judgment filed by Defendant Crown Central Petroleum, Inc., against a group of plaintiffs whose claims remained after class certification was denied. The court dismissed all hostile work environment claims for plaintiffs Karen Sloan, Phyllis Miller, John Grant, John McDowell, and Susan Robertson, primarily due to statute of limitations or insufficient evidence of actionable harassment within the limitations period. Catherine McAfee's failure to promote claim was also dismissed due to being time-barred. John Grant and John McDowell's failure to promote claims were dismissed for lack of prima facie evidence or failure to show pretext. Susan Robertson's failure to promote claims were dismissed due to lack of qualifications and being time-barred. However, the court denied summary judgment on Linda K. Brown's salary grade claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding Crown's non-discriminatory reasons for salary variations between superintendents.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentFailure to PromoteSalary DisparitySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsContinuing ViolationCivil Rights Act of 1964
References
49
Case No. 01-23-00014-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2024

University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston v. Patricia Marie Carroll

Patricia Marie Carroll sued the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHSCH) for race and age discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), alleging denied promotions and a hostile work environment. UTHSCH appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction, asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction over most claims due to untimeliness and failure to state a valid claim. The appellate court found Carroll's 2020 failure-to-promote claims timely within the scope of her EEOC charge but dismissed them as time-barred under the continuing violation doctrine. It also dismissed the 2021 discrimination claims because Carroll failed to establish a prima facie case, as the promoted individual was within her protected classes. Furthermore, the retaliation claims were dismissed due to lack of a causal link and failure to rebut UTHSCH's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed Carroll's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

TexasEmployment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRetaliationTCHRASovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesContinuing Violation Doctrine
References
75
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2005

Giannone v. Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.

Plaintiff Gina Giannone brought an employment discrimination action against her former employer, Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., alleging gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Her claims included sexual harassment, reduced bonus, failure to promote, discriminatory termination, and failure to rehire. The court granted in part and denied in part Deutsche Bank's motion for summary judgment. The motion was denied with respect to Giannone's discriminatory discharge claim, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to infer gender discrimination. However, summary judgment was granted for the claims of failure to promote, failure to rehire, and retaliatory discharge due to insufficient evidence of pretext. Additionally, Giannone's motion to amend the complaint to add a breach of contract claim regarding a bonus was denied as futile, as her continued employment was deemed to have ratified the reduced bonus.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentDiscriminatory DischargeFailure to PromoteBreach of Contract
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 1998

Marshall v. New York Division of State Police

Plaintiff Margaret A. Naughton Marshall, an employee of the State of New York Division of State Police, brought a civil action alleging sex discrimination under Title VII and retaliation. She claimed two denials of promotion due to gender and subsequent retaliation after filing an EEOC complaint. Defendants moved for Summary Judgment, which the Court partially granted. While the Court dismissed Marshall's 1994 failure to promote claim and all retaliation claims due to insufficient evidence, it did not dismiss the 1992 failure to promote claim. This was because a factual issue regarding defendants' motives, stemming from an alleged conversation about gender bias, required resolution by a trier of fact.

Sex DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliation ClaimPromotion DenialSummary JudgmentEEOC ComplaintGender BiasBurden-Shifting AnalysisPretextPrima Facie Case
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lenihan v. Boeing Co.

Karen A Lenihan, an employee of The Boeing Company, filed a lawsuit alleging sexual discrimination, including unequal pay, failure to promote, denial of overtime, and sexual harassment, alongside a breach of contract claim. The court granted Boeing's motion for summary judgment on the claims of failure to promote, failure to provide overtime, sexual harassment, and breach of contract, finding these either time-barred or lacking a prima facie case. However, the court denied summary judgment for Lenihan's claims of unequal pay under the Equal Pay Act and pay discrimination under Title VII, allowing these claims to proceed to trial due to outstanding issues of material fact.

Sexual DiscriminationGender DiscriminationEqual Pay ActTitle VIIWage DiscriminationFailure to PromoteSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentContinuing Violation
References
173
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miller v. Swissre Holding, Inc.

Arthur Miller, a black man, sued SwissRe Holding (North American) Inc. under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII, alleging racial discrimination including harassment, failure to promote, and retaliatory termination after filing an EEOC complaint. SwissRe moved for partial summary judgment on the § 1981 claim, citing Patterson v. McLean Credit Union. The court granted summary judgment for SwissRe on the harassment and retaliatory discharge claims under § 1981, finding them not cognizable post-Patterson. However, the court denied summary judgment on the failure to promote claim under § 1981, ruling that the promotion from Production Coordinator to Supervisor could constitute a 'new and distinct relationship' under the Patterson standard. Additionally, Miller's motion for a jury trial was denied due to untimeliness.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment Discrimination42 U.S.C. § 1981Title VIISummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteRetaliatory DischargeHarassmentJury TrialFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 38(b)
References
22
Case No. 04CV0650
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Nassau County Department of Corrections

This case involves plaintiff Donna Anderson, a Correction Officer in the Nassau County Sheriff's Department, who alleges gender discrimination, hostile work environment, failure to promote, and retaliation. Anderson claims she was passed over for a lieutenant promotion despite achieving the top exam score, subjected to sexually explicit harassment and disparate treatment regarding work assignments and vehicle use. She further alleges retaliation after complaining about these issues and reporting clerical problems in her unit, leading to disciplinary actions and demotion. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing claims were time-barred and without merit, and that the plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim was invalid. The court denied most of the defendants' motions, allowing the hostile work environment, failure to promote, and most retaliation claims to proceed, but dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim.

Gender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentFailure to PromoteRetaliationCivil RightsTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1983Executive LawSummary JudgmentPublic Employment
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. Firestone Polymers, LLC

Eight African-American male plaintiffs, employed at Firestone's chemical manufacturing facility in Orange, Texas, filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination. Their claims include denial of training, promotions, and overtime opportunities, discriminatory demotion, and a hostile work environment, asserting violations of Title VII, Section 1981, the ADA, LLFPA, and Executive Order 11246. The court granted Firestone's motions for summary judgment in part and denied in part. Most 'failure to train' and 'failure to promote' claims were dismissed as time-barred or for not constituting adverse employment actions. Hostile work environment claims were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and ADA and Executive Order claims were found non-actionable or waived. Ricky Ruffin's 2009 discriminatory demotion claim and all plaintiffs' denial of overtime claims survived summary judgment.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Hostile Work EnvironmentFailure to TrainFailure to PromoteDiscriminatory DemotionDenial of OvertimeSummary Judgment
References
279
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peake v. Brownlee

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against her employer, Les Brownlee, as Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of the Army, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiff claimed a hostile work environment due to a coworker's aggressive behavior and further alleged retaliatory actions, including a forced transfer, exclusion from meetings, denied training, and failure to promote after filing EEO complaints. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted the defendant's motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for sexual harassment because the conduct was not based on her sex, nor was it sufficiently severe or pervasive, and the employer took prompt and reasonable remedial action. Additionally, the court ruled that the plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action for her retaliation claims and that her failure-to-promote claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Consequently, the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Sexual harassmentRetaliationTitle VIIHostile work environmentSummary judgmentPrima facie caseAdverse employment actionEEO complaintEmployment discriminationFederal court
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 4,956 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