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
Jun 17, 1977

Prate v. Freedman

This case involved white applicants who sued the City of Rochester, New York, alleging reverse discrimination in police officer hiring practices that favored minority applicants. The plaintiffs challenged a prior consent decree from Howard v. Freedman, which had established affirmative action measures. Chief Judge Curtin dismissed the consolidated actions, ruling it an impermissible collateral attack on the Howard decree due to the plaintiffs' failure to intervene timely. The court also held that the Constitution permits limited preferences for previously discriminated groups and dismissed pendent state law claims as superseded by federal law. Finally, the court awarded attorney fees to the defendant-intervenors, finding the plaintiffs' suit unreasonable and vexatious.

Reverse DiscriminationAffirmative ActionPolice RecruitmentEmployment LawCollateral Attack DoctrineConsent DecreeJudicial ReviewAttorney Fee AwardSubject Matter JurisdictionState Law Preemption
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Broussard v. Schlumberger Well Services

This is a class action lawsuit filed by five Negro employees against Schlumberger Well Services, alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant's past employment practices, particularly a high school education requirement for promotion into "mainstream" jobs, perpetuated the effects of earlier racial discrimination, locking them into lower-echelon positions. The court found that while the defendant was not currently engaged in discriminatory practices, the facially neutral high school requirement did perpetuate past discrimination for employees hired before the requirement was instituted. The court granted injunctive relief, prohibiting the defendant from reinstituting discriminatory practices and the educational requirement under certain conditions. Damages for back wages were awarded to four of the five plaintiffs, while the claim of Sampson Larry was denied. Plaintiffs were also awarded attorneys' fees. The decision also outlined specific discriminatory practices the defendant was enjoined from reinstituting, such as racially segregated social clubs and restroom facilities. The court distinguished its ruling by applying the precedent set in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., emphasizing the impact of pre-existing discriminatory hiring policies coupled with later educational requirements.

Employment DiscriminationClass ActionRacial DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActInjunctive ReliefBack WagesEducational RequirementsPromotion DiscriminationHistorical DiscriminationGriggs v. Duke Power Co.
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernhardt v. Interbank of New York

Donald Bernhardt, a former Chief Operating Officer, sued Interbank of New York and individual defendants, alleging he was terminated due to age and national origin discrimination, and in retaliation for his hiring practices. The plaintiff, 61 at the time of the alleged discriminatory practices and 54 at termination, claimed a preference for younger Greek men in hiring, contrasting with his own and other hires. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the discrimination and retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of material fact. However, it granted the individual defendants' motion to dismiss Title VII and ADEA claims against them, citing no individual liability under these statutes. Additionally, a motion to bifurcate the trial was denied.

Age DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentIndividual LiabilityTitle VIIADEAPrima Facie CasePretextEmployment Law
References
31
Case No. Misc. Docket No. 07-9197
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2007

Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. American Home Assurance Co.

The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether liability insurers engage in the unauthorized practice of law by using staff attorneys to defend insureds. The Court held that insurers may use staff attorneys if the insurer's and insured's interests are congruent, meaning they are aligned in defeating the claim with no conflict of interest. Staff attorneys must fully disclose their affiliation with the insurer to the insured. The Court rejected the argument that insurers' use of staff attorneys inherently creates irreconcilable conflicts or violates various professional conduct rules or statutes, emphasizing a lack of empirical evidence of harm. The judgment of the court of appeals was modified accordingly and, as modified, affirmed.

Unauthorized Practice of LawStaff AttorneysInsurance DefenseAttorney-Client RelationshipConflict of InterestCorporate Practice of LawTexas Supreme CourtLegal EthicsProfessional JudgmentInsurer Duty to Defend
References
32
Case No. W2013-00673-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2014

Practical Ventures, LLC d/b/a AAA Cash Fast v. James Neely, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, and Danyelle A. McCullough

This case involves an appeal from an administrative decision regarding unemployment benefits. Practical Ventures, LLC, the employer, appealed the decision by the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, which found claimant Danyelle A. McCullough eligible for unemployment benefits based on "constructive discharge." The employer discovered financial irregularities in McCullough's store, suspended her, and requested her keys. McCullough claimed she was planning to quit anyway due to her daughter's illness. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's affirmance, holding that the doctrine of constructive discharge is inapplicable to unemployment compensation proceedings and that McCullough's actions amounted to a voluntary termination of employment without good cause, thus disqualifying her from benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsConstructive DischargeVoluntary TerminationFinancial MisconductEmployee SuspensionAdministrative DecisionJudicial ReviewAppellate CourtLabor LawWorkforce Development
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 1987

Kincade v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

This is a class action lawsuit filed against Firestone Tire and Rubber Company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging racial discrimination in various employment practices at its LaVergne, Tennessee plant. The plaintiffs, comprising black applicants, current, and former employees, and the Nashville NAACP, claimed discrimination in recruitment, hiring, promotions, disciplinary actions, and terminations. The Court found insufficient evidence to establish a systemwide pattern or practice of intentional discrimination or disparate impact for the class claims, thus entering judgment for the defendant on these matters. However, for individual claims, the Court ruled in favor of Bobby Lee Kincade for a racially hostile work environment, Mary Pope Fite for discriminatory failure to promote, and Bobby W. Ivy for discriminatory failure to hire, while denying all other individual claims.

Racial discriminationEmployment discriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act42 U.S.C. § 1981Disparate treatmentDisparate impactClass actionHiring discriminationPromotion discrimination
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilkins v. University of Houston

Plaintiffs Jeannine Wilkins and Sharon Hill initiated a class-action civil suit against the University of Houston and KUHT-TV, alleging sex discrimination in employment practices under Title VII, the Texas Constitution, and the Equal Pay Act. The plaintiffs contended discrimination in hiring, job assignments, promotions, and wages. The case was tried from June 20 to July 3, 1978. The court found no evidence of systemic discrimination, attributing disparities to market factors and a lack of qualified female applicants rather than discriminatory practices. The individual claims of Plaintiff Hill and Plaintiff Wilkins, including allegations of unequal pay, retaliatory termination, and discriminatory hiring, were also denied due to legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the employment actions. Consequently, the court ruled against the plaintiffs and the certified class, stating they would take nothing from the defendants and would bear the court costs.

Sex DiscriminationEmployment PracticesEqual Pay ActTitle VIIClass ActionWage DisparityPromotion DiscriminationHiring DiscriminationAcademic EmploymentUniversity
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woods v. Littleton

Jackie and Cheryl Woods sued B. L. Littleton and Joe S. Thomson, doing business as Superior Construction Company, for defective sewer systems and faulty repairs, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found the Act applicable and actions deceptive but declined to treble damages. The court of civil appeals reversed and remanded, questioning the Act's applicability. This court affirmed the remand, ruling that the Act applies to deceptive practices occurring after its effective date (May 21, 1973), even if the initial sale was earlier, and that treble damages are mandatory once liability is established. The case was remanded for a retrial to determine actual damages solely attributable to post-effective date deceptive practices, which must then be trebled.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer ProtectionMandatory Treble DamagesStatutory InterpretationRemand for RetrialSewer System DefectsFaulty Repair ServiceReal Estate TransactionPost-Effective Date ApplicabilityMental Anguish Damages
References
18
Case No. ADJ3533713
Regular
Nov 07, 2011

JUANA LOPEZ vs. THE MERCHANT OF TENNIS, HARTFORD INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removed this matter for the purpose of imposing sanctions. The WCAB found that the petition for reconsideration filed by SIR Practice Solutions, LLC on behalf of several lien claimants was skeletal, unintelligible, and violated multiple WCAB rules regarding evidentiary and legal support. The lien claimants and SIR Practice Solutions, LLC failed to object to the Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions within the allotted time. Therefore, the WCAB imposed sanctions of $250.00 against each individual lien claimant and found SIR Practice Solutions, LLC jointly and severally liable for these sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionsLien ClaimantsSIR Practice SolutionsPetition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionAppeals Board Rule 10846Labor Code Section 5813Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions
References
6
Case No. 01801-9209-OT-00103
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1994

Petition of Burson

The Attorney General and the State Board of Equalization petitioned the Tennessee Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-5-1514, which permits non-attorney agents to represent taxpayers before boards of equalization. Petitioners argued this statute sanctioned the unauthorized practice of law, infringing upon the judiciary's inherent authority. After appointing a Special Master who found that such services did not constitute the practice of law and upheld the statute, the Supreme Court adopted the Special Master's factual findings. The Court affirmed the Special Master's legal conclusions as modified, ruling that Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-5-1514 does not sanction the unauthorized practice of law and is constitutional, thereby upholding the legislative act.

Unauthorized Practice of LawConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersJudicial AuthorityLegislative AuthorityProperty TaxationTaxpayer RepresentationAdministrative LawNon-attorney AgentsTennessee Constitution
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 2,025 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