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. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Federation of Government Employees Local 1 v. Stone

Plaintiff Justin McCrary, a federal employee at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1 (AFGE Local 1) sued the United States for alleged non-payment of his promised salary, citing violations of Fifth Amendment and contract rights under the Little Tucker Act. The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court first dismissed AFGE Local 1 as a party due to lack of representational standing. Subsequently, the Court addressed McCrary's claims, finding his constitutional claim for back pay preempted by the Civil Service Reform Act and unexhausted administratively, thus lacking subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court determined McCrary had no protected property interest in a specific salary due to his conditional appointment and probationary status, and no actionable breach of contract claim as federal employees derive benefits from appointment, not contract. Consequently, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was granted, and the Plaintiffs' Complaint was dismissed with prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Motion to DismissFederal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)Rule 12(b)(6)Fifth AmendmentDue ProcessLittle Tucker ActCivil Service Reform ActBreach of Contract
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Express Corp. v. Dutschmann

Marcie Dutschmann, a former Federal Express employee, sued Federal Express for retaliatory discharge and breach of contract. A jury found that Federal Express terminated Dutschmann in retaliation for sexual harassment complaints and failed to exercise good faith in its Guaranteed Fair Treatment Procedure (GFTP) following her termination. Federal Express appealed the $89,000 judgment, raising five points related to sufficiency of evidence, contract formation from employee handbooks, breach of contract submission, good faith and fair dealing in employment, and attorney’s fees. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence for retaliatory discharge and that Federal Express's GFTP created a contractual duty of good faith, which it breached by manipulating the review process.

Retaliatory DischargeSexual HarassmentEmployment ContractEmployee HandbookGood Faith and Fair DealingPunitive DamagesAppellate ReviewJury VerdictDue ProcessGrievance Procedure
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Humphrey v. Council of Jewish Federations

Tyrone Humphrey sued his former employer, Council of Jewish Federations, Inc., alleging racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Humphrey claimed experiences of retrenchment, demotion, a racially hostile environment, denial of leave, unequal pay, negative performance evaluations, and retaliatory termination. The defendant moved to dismiss, citing untimely EEOC filings, unincluded claims, mootness, and statute of limitations. The court found Humphrey's EEOC filings timely due to a worksharing agreement and his hostile environment claim reasonably related. The court also ruled § 1981 claims were timely and prior arbitration did not preclude federal civil rights claims, ultimately denying the motion to dismiss in its entirety.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Motion to DismissTimeliness of ClaimsEEOC Worksharing AgreementStatute of LimitationsArbitration PreclusionHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Highland Village Parents Group v. United States Federal Highway Administration

The plaintiff, Highland Village Parents Group, challenged a federally-funded road construction project in Denton County, Texas, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, through the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The lawsuit named federal and state transportation agencies and their administrators as defendants. The court dismissed claims against the state defendants, Texas Transportation Commission and Ric Williamson, ruling that the APA applies only to federal agencies. Furthermore, the court found the plaintiff's claims against the federal defendants were time-barred by a 180-day statute of limitations, which superseded the general six-year APA limitation. The court also determined that a subsequent reevaluation of the project did not reopen the claims or provide a new basis for a lawsuit, as the modifications were considered minor. Consequently, the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the entire case was dismissed with prejudice due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Administrative Procedure Act (APA)National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)Section 4(f) Department of Transportation ActMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Highway Administration (FHWA)Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

This case involves an appeal concerning the commencement of county service for employees initially hired under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) for purposes of a collective bargaining agreement between the Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (plaintiff) and the County of Nassau (defendant). The plaintiff sought to include CETA employment prior to December 31, 1976, as commencement of county service under 'Plan A' of the agreement. The defendant appealed a Supreme Court judgment that had initially granted this relief. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that CETA employment, despite county supervision, should not be considered the commencement of county service for employment agreement purposes due to its temporary nature. The court concluded that service should only be deemed to begin when a position is obtained under Civil Service Law procedures. Consequently, CETA employees hired by the county after December 31, 1976, are excluded from Plan A, regardless of prior CETA service.

CETA EmploymentCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementCounty Service CommencementTemporary EmploymentIncremental Salary PlanPublic Sector EmploymentEmployee Benefits EligibilityAppellate DivisionNassau County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federated Insurance Co. v. Lethcoe

Vernon Lethcoe died in 1995 from work-related injuries. His employer's insurance carrier, Federated Insurance Company, initially agreed to a settlement of $153,116.00 for his family, the Lethcoes, which was approved by the chancery court. Nearly two years later, following a new interpretation of workers' compensation law by the Supreme Court in Spencer v. Towson Moving & Storage, Federated sought to modify the judgment, arguing for a reduced benefit of $105,548.00 based on a mutual mistake of law. The trial court and Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel granted the modification. This Court reversed, holding that Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02(5) cannot be used to relieve a party from a freely made, calculated, and deliberate settlement agreement, even if a subsequent legal interpretation proves more favorable.

Workers' CompensationJudgment ModificationRule 60.02(5)Settlement AgreementsMutual Mistake of LawFinality of JudgmentsAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTennessee Supreme CourtWorkers' Compensation Benefits Calculation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 1991

Bonilla v. New York City Civil Service Commission

In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the petitioner challenged a determination disqualifying him from a civil service eligible list for a sanitation worker position due to a psychiatric disorder. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the respondents' cross motion to dismiss the petition, citing the petitioner's failure to commence the proceeding before the eligible list expired. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, relying on established case law such as Matter of Deas v Levitt, which mandates dismissal if a challenge to an eligible list determination is not initiated prior to the list's expiration. This ruling emphasizes the procedural requirement for timely legal action concerning civil service eligible lists.

Civil Service LawEligible ListDisqualificationPsychiatric DisorderNervous BreakdownTimeliness of PetitionExpiration of Eligible ListProcedural DismissalJudicial ReviewAppellate Affirmation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 1987

American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. County of Nassau

Plaintiffs, employees in "traditionally female jobs," brought a sex discrimination suit against Nassau County under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. This Memorandum and Order addresses the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The court first dismisses the Title VII claims of two male plaintiffs, Stephen Goldberg and Fred Jordan, finding they lack standing because their alleged injury stems from discrimination against women, not against them as men. The court then analyzes whether the remaining female plaintiffs and the union (AFSCME) satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) for commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Concluding that the plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing, particularly given the allegation of a common compensation plan based on sex discrimination, the court grants the motion for class certification.

Sex DiscriminationEqual Pay ActTitle VIIClass ActionClass CertificationEmployment DiscriminationWage DiscriminationFederal Civil ProcedureStandingEastern District of New York
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bivins v. Helsby

This case involves an appeal by the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) against a decision by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to divide a single bargaining unit of Sullivan County employees into three separate units. CSEA had previously been the sole bargaining agent. The fragmentation into units for Department of Public Works (DPW) employees, supervisory DPW employees, and all other county employees followed petitions from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). CSEA challenged both PERB's jurisdiction due to an untimely filing of exceptions by AFSCME and the merits of the unit fragmentation. The court affirmed PERB's decision, holding that the procedural rule deviation caused no prejudice and that PERB's determination was supported by substantial evidence, aligning with the "community of interest" standard under Civil Service Law § 207.

Collective BargainingBargaining UnitPublic EmployeesLabor RelationsAdministrative LawPERBCivil Service LawUnit FragmentationCommunity of InterestDecertification
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 7,475 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