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

Pollard v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, Inc.

This case concerns the determination of compensatory damages and front pay for Plaintiff Sharon Pollard against Defendant E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. The Court previously found DuPont liable for Title VII discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After a damages hearing in July 2003, the Court concluded Plaintiff could not return to work due to severe anxiety and depression stemming from harassment and DuPont's insufficient response. The Court awarded Plaintiff $1,004,374.00 in front pay through age 65, determining she had adequately mitigated her damages. Additionally, $950,000.00 in compensatory damages was awarded for emotional distress, with a future hearing scheduled to determine punitive damages.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISexual HarassmentCompensatory DamagesFront PayIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderMajor Depressive DisorderMitigation of DamagesExpert Witness Testimony
References
16
Case No. 08-02-00452-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2003

Jesse Davila v. Pay & Save Corporation D/B/A Lowe's Market Place, Inc.

Jesse Davila appealed a summary judgment against him in favor of his former employer, Pay & Save Corporation, doing business as Lowe's Market Place, Inc. Davila was fired after another employee accused him of sexual harassment. He sued Pay & Save, alleging defamation, negligence, invasion of privacy, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment for Pay & Save on all claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Davila failed to establish error regarding his claims, and denied Pay & Save's motion for damages for frivolous appeal.

Sexual HarassmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment AppealDefamation ClaimNegligence ClaimInvasion of PrivacyFraud AllegationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployer LiabilityScope of Employment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Buy Buy Baby, Inc.

Plaintiff Erika Flores was fired by defendant Buy Buy Baby, Inc. on December 31, 1998, and filed suit alleging pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and New York State Human Rights Law. Flores claims her supervisor's demeanor changed after disclosing her pregnancy and that her termination was discriminatory, despite no prior warnings. The defendant argued the termination was due to absenteeism and poor performance. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Flores presented sufficient evidence to create a material issue of fact regarding pretext. The court also denied the defendant's motion to strike claims for reinstatement and front pay, citing outstanding issues regarding the applicability of after-acquired evidence.

Pregnancy Discrimination ActTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationPretextPrima Facie CaseAfter-Acquired EvidenceReinstatementFront Pay
References
20
Case No. M1998-00938-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2001

Rhonda Lowrimore v. Certified Industries, Inc.

This appeal concerns an award of front pay damages in a retaliatory discharge case. Rhonda Lowrimore, an employee, filed suit against Certified Industries, Inc., alleging she was discharged in retaliation for filing workers' compensation claims. A jury awarded back pay and punitive damages, and the trial court subsequently awarded front pay in lieu of reinstatement. On appeal, the employer challenged the entitlement and amount of the front pay award. The Court of Appeals affirmed the employee's entitlement to front pay but reduced the award due to a computational error, modifying it from $36,327 to $25,429.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationFront Pay DamagesBack PayPunitive DamagesEmployment LawMitigation of DamagesWage DifferentialAppellate ReviewJudicial Error
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coffey v. Fayette Tubular Products

Geneva Coffey sued Fayette Tubular Products for retaliatory discharge after being fired subsequent to filing a worker's compensation claim. The trial court initially awarded Coffey compensatory and punitive damages, along with front pay, but the Court of Appeals remitted the punitive damages and vacated the front pay. This Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, reinstating the trial court's full award. The court emphasized that punitive damages, intended for punishment and deterrence, should not influence the determination of front pay, which compensates for future earnings. The judgment affirmed the trial court's adherence to legal factors in reviewing punitive damage awards.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensationPunitive damagesFront payEmployer liabilityEmployment lawAppellate reviewTrial court discretionDamage awardsJudicial review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Edwards v. Aaron Rents, Inc.

This case concerns an employment discrimination lawsuit under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) brought by Plaintiff Edwards against Defendant Aaron Rents, Inc. A jury found in favor of the Plaintiff, awarding back pay, compensatory, and punitive damages for gender discrimination. The Court subsequently considered multiple post-trial motions, including the Plaintiff's requests for attorney's fees and equitable relief, and the Defendant's motions for judgment as a matter of law, new trial, and remittitur. The Court denied most of the Defendant's motions but granted remittitur, reducing the jury's awards for compensatory and punitive damages to a statutory cap, and adjusting back pay and front pay calculations. Ultimately, the Plaintiff was awarded attorney's fees, as well as remitted amounts for compensatory damages, punitive damages, back pay, and front pay, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and court costs.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationTCHRAAttorney FeesPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesBack PayFront PayRemittiturJudgment as a Matter of Law
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Townsend v. Exchange Insurance

Vincent Townsend sued Exchange Insurance Company, Selective Insurance Company of America, and Selective Insurance Group, Inc., alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and New York Human Rights Law (HRL), constructive discharge, compelled self-defamation, and an ERISA violation. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss claims for back pay, front pay, punitive damages, and compensatory damages under the ADEA, as well as an age discrimination claim related to James Chavanne's hiring. The court granted dismissal of punitive damages under ADEA and HRL, compensatory damages for emotional pain under ADEA, and certain periods of back pay. The court denied dismissal of back pay from April 7, 1997, onward, and front pay (with leave to renew). The court also dismissed the age discrimination claim related to Chavanne's hiring due to lack of jurisdiction and being time-barred.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary Judgment MotionBack PayFront PayPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesConstructive DischargeERISAEEOC Exhaustion
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2007

Watkins v. Input/Output, Inc.

Plaintiff Gaines Watkins sued Defendant Input/Output, Inc. for age discrimination under the ADEA after his termination at age 68. A jury found in Watkins' favor, awarding $450,000 in back pay and deeming I/O's conduct willful. Watkins moved for final judgment, seeking back pay, liquidated damages, reinstatement or front pay, attorneys' fees, costs, and post-judgment interest. The court granted back pay and an equal amount of liquidated damages totaling $900,000. Reinstatement was denied as unfeasible, and front pay was also denied, as the substantial liquidated damages were deemed sufficient to make the plaintiff whole. The court awarded adjusted attorneys' fees of $336,010.50 and costs of $34,475.07, reducing the requested amounts due to excessive billing and non-taxable items. Post-judgment interest was set at 4.78%.

Age DiscriminationADEAWillful ViolationBack PayLiquidated DamagesFront Pay DeniedReinstatement DeniedAttorneys' FeesCourt CostsPost-Judgment Interest
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stanley Stores, Inc. v. Chavana

This is an age discrimination case where Stanley Stores appealed a judgment in favor of Chavana. Stanley Stores argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to untimely filing of a discrimination complaint by Chavana with the Texas Commission on Human Rights, and challenged the sufficiency of evidence for age discrimination, as well as the awards for front pay, back pay, and expert witness fees. The court affirmed the trial court's finding of jurisdiction and intentional age discrimination, and upheld the back pay award. However, the court reversed and rendered the award for expert witness fees and remanded the front pay award for reformulation, specifically requiring periodic payments rather than a lump sum.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationFront PayBack PayExpert Witness FeesJurisdictionTimely ComplaintTexas CHRAEEOCPrima Facie Discrimination
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. North Shore Orthopedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, P.C.

Frank Fernandez, an x-ray technician, sued his former employer, North Shore Orthopedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, P.C., for retaliation under Title VII after filing a national origin discrimination complaint. A jury found in favor of Fernandez, awarding back pay, front pay, and punitive damages. North Shore subsequently moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and to modify the damage awards. The court denied North Shore's motions for judgment and a new trial, affirmed the jury's back pay award, but vacated and reduced the front pay award from $160,000 to $50,000, and the punitive damages award from $100,000 to $50,000.

RetaliationTitle VIIEmployment DiscriminationBack PayFront PayPunitive DamagesMitigation of DamagesFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial DiscretionEquitable Relief
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 2,615 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