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. 13-05-055-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2006

Scott Cerre v. Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP

Scott Cerre, an employee of Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP, was injured on the job and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. He was later terminated under Odfjell's absence-control policy after taking a six-month leave of absence. Cerre sued Odfjell, alleging retaliatory discharge and discrimination in violation of chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Odfjell. On appeal, Cerre contended that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on both his discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Odfjell successfully negated elements of the discrimination claim and that Cerre's termination was due to a uniformly enforced absence-control policy, not retaliation.

Retaliatory DischargeDiscrimination ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Labor Code Chapter 451Absence Control PolicyEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewCausal ConnectionHarassment
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1973

Guerra v. Manchester Terminal Corporation

Guerra, a Mexican National and resident alien, was transferred from his job at Manchester Terminal Corporation's Dock and Commodity Department to the Cotton Compress and Warehouse Department in 1965 due to a discriminatory policy by Local 1581 against Mexican Nationals with families in Mexico. Guerra filed charges with the NLRB and EEOC, and later a civil action in district court in 1971, alleging discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court ruled that filing with the NLRB tolled the statute of limitations. While rejecting the Title VII claim, the court found that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 protects aliens from private discrimination and concluded that the defendants engaged in a discriminatory practice, issuing an injunction and scheduling a damages hearing.

Civil Rights Act of 1964Title VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Employment DiscriminationAlienage DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationStatute of LimitationsTollingNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB)Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scott v. Workers' Compensation Board

A probationary employee's termination by the Workers' Compensation Board was upheld on appeal. The employee initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, claiming the dismissal was arbitrary, capricious, and in bad faith, but the Supreme Court dismissed the application. The appellate court affirmed, emphasizing that probationary employees can be terminated without explanation or a hearing unless the discharge is for constitutionally impermissible reasons, legal violations, or bad faith. The petitioner failed to demonstrate bad faith or that the termination was unrelated to job performance, as evidence showed deficiencies in understanding Workers' Compensation Law, lack of improvement after training, and improper conduct.

Employment TerminationProbationary EmployeeUnsatisfactory PerformanceBad FaithCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardCivil Service LawAdministrative LawPublic Employment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carr v. New York State Department of Transportation

Petitioner James Carr, a Highway Maintenance Worker I, was terminated by the Department of Transportation after his commercial driver's license (CDL) was revoked due to an off-duty alcohol-related driving offense. A CDL was a minimum qualification for his position under Civil Service Law § 118 (2) (a). Carr and his union, Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., challenged the termination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging it was arbitrary and capricious, violated due process, and failed to adhere to collective bargaining agreement (CBA) disciplinary procedures. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, which the appellate court affirmed. The court distinguished between termination for misconduct, subject to CBA disciplinary action, and termination for lacking a minimum job qualification, which is not. Given that Carr's termination stemmed from failing to meet a fundamental job requirement, unrelated to job performance or misconduct, the CBA's disciplinary provisions were inapplicable, and his due process rights were upheld as he received notice and an opportunity to respond.

Employment terminationCommercial Driver's LicenseOff-duty conductMinimum qualificationsCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementDue processCPLR article 78Appellate reviewPublic employment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeFORD LBR. CO., INC. v. Roys

Tome Roys, an employee of DeFord Lumber Co., Inc., was discharged after filing a worker’s compensation claim for an on-the-job injury. Roys sued for wrongful termination, alleging a violation of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c. A jury initially found in favor of Roys, awarding $23,500 in damages, later remitted to $15,570. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding no evidence to support the jury's findings that Roys was discharged solely for filing a worker's compensation claim and that the damages awarded were speculative. The court concluded that Roys failed to meet the burden of proof for both the reason for termination and the extent of damages.

Wrongful terminationWorker's compensationEmployment lawBurden of proofTexas lawAppellate reviewNo evidence ruleDamagesLost wagesJury findings
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Horton

M. C. Horton sued Dallas Railway & Terminal Company to recover damages for personal injuries to his wife, Mrs. Adeline Horton, sustained when her coat was caught while alighting from a street car, causing her to be thrown and dragged. The jury found the defendant negligent and awarded Horton $3,000. The Dallas Railway & Terminal Company appealed the judgment, raising three main issues: alleged double recovery allowed by the jury charge on damages, juror misconduct during deliberations, and alleged coercion of the jury by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury charge, upholding the trial court's discretion regarding juror misconduct, and concluding that the court's instructions to the jury regarding conflicting answers were not coercive.

Personal InjuryStreet Car AccidentNegligenceDamagesJury MisconductCoercionAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionCivil ProcedureLoss of Earning Capacity
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 1994

Lawson v. Getty Terminals Corp.

Plaintiff Fred A. Lawson, an African-American male, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Getty Terminals Corp. and Gordon Rodgers, alleging racial discrimination in promotion opportunities and wrongful termination, as well as retaliation for internal complaints. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court found that Lawson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, disparate impact, or retaliation. Specifically, the court noted Lawson's poor job performance and that he was replaced by another African-American male. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint in its entirety, including all associated state law claims.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 198142 U.S.C. § 1983RetaliationDisparate ImpactPrima Facie CaseJob Performance
References
28
Case No. 2016-05-0727
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2017

Edwards, Malcolm S. v. Job Shoppe USA

Malcolm S. Edwards, an employee of Job Shoppe USA, filed for an expedited hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits for a neck injury sustained on May 10, 2016, during his second day of work. The employee, who had a history of neck problems and surgeries, alleged the injury occurred while lifting automobile seats. The Court found Edwards established a specific incident but failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove the incident was the primary cause of his current symptoms, thus denying temporary disability benefits. However, the Court ordered Job Shoppe to authorize a return visit to neurosurgeon Dr. Jacob Schwarz to allow him to address the question of causation, as the employer had prematurely terminated medical treatment before a definitive causation opinion was rendered.

Workers' Compensation LawExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsCausation StandardPre-existing ConditionTreating PhysicianEmployer ObligationsNeck InjuryCervical Radiculopathy
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vann v. New York City Transit Authority

Vincent Vann filed a complaint against the New York City Transit Authority and several individuals, alleging his employment was unlawfully terminated due to his exercise of First Amendment free speech rights. Vann claimed he was fired for complaining about unsafe job conditions. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting Vann was terminated for unsatisfactory job performance, including violating safety rules and insubordination. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that Vann failed to provide evidence to refute the defendants' claims, thus failing to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial. The action was dismissed because Vann did not support his allegations with admissible evidence, and the defendants' contention that Vann was terminated for poor job performance was uncontroverted.

Wrongful TerminationFirst Amendment RightsFree SpeechPublic EmployeeSummary JudgmentRule 56InsubordinationSafety ViolationsProbationary Employment42 U.S.C. § 1983
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 5,024 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