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

Thomas A. Galante & Son, Inc. v. State Division of Human Rights

The petitioner employer sought judicial review of a State Human Rights Appeal Board's determination, which found the employer discriminated against the complainant by terminating her employment due to pregnancy. The Board had ordered back pay and reemployment. The court's review focused on whether the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence, specifically regarding the employer's knowledge of the complainant's pregnancy. The court concluded that the evidence, based on a coworker's testimony that "everybody knew" about the pregnancy, was insufficient to establish the employer's management had such knowledge. Therefore, the court granted the petition and annulled the Board's determination.

Employment LawDiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationHuman Rights LawJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawSubstantial EvidenceAppellate CourtEmployer LiabilityBurden of Proof
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plasti-Line, Inc. v. Tennessee Human Rights Commission

A private employer, referred to as 'Appellant', brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of enforcement provisions within the Tennessee Human Rights Commission statutes (T.C.A. §§ 4-21-301 to 307). The Appellant argued that these statutes violated the separation of powers, the right to trial by jury, and judicial election provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. The Chancellor initially upheld the validity of the statutes and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding no merit in the Appellant's claims. The Court highlighted that the Human Rights Commission functions as an administrative agency, administering public policy, and its orders are subject to judicial review and enforcement by the chancery court, thus not violating constitutional principles.

Human Rights LawDiscrimination LawEmployment DiscriminationAdministrative LawConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersRight to Jury TrialStatutory ValidityTennessee ConstitutionAppellate Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 1983

Schuck v. State Division of Human Rights

Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, petitioned for annulment of an order by the Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a determination by the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The Commissioner found that Local 3 discriminated against minority trainees by shunting them into a slower 'M' program, denying them the 'MIJ' shortcut to 'A' journeyman status, and providing an inferior training curriculum compared to regular apprentices, thus violating the Human Rights Law. The Commissioner issued cease and desist orders and specific directives regarding training and advancement, including a conditional provision for automatic 'A' journeyman status without examination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, upon judicial review, modified the order by deleting the directive that granted full 'A' journeyman status without further examination. Instead, the court mandated that affected individuals be afforded the opportunity to take the next scheduled 'A' examination, with appropriate preparatory instruction provided if needed. The rest of the Commissioner's order and determination were confirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMinority Training ProgramApprenticeshipJourneyman StatusLabor UnionAffirmative ActionNew YorkVocational TrainingEqual Opportunity
References
9
Case No. PUC Docket No. 34298
Regular Panel Decision

Coastal Habitat Alliance v. Public Utility Commission

Justice Jan P. Patterson writes a concurring and dissenting opinion regarding the majority's decision to affirm the district court's granting of pleas to the jurisdiction in a case involving the Public Utility Commission and AEP Texas Central Company. The dissent argues that the Coastal Habitat Alliance, despite being a non-party, possesses an independent right to judicial review of the Commission's final order under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), citing Mega Child Care. Justice Patterson asserts that the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) does not prohibit such non-party review and that the Alliance has exhausted its administrative remedies. The opinion concurs with the majority on the proper dismissal of claims brought under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) and constitutional due process grounds but disputes the majority's stance on mandamus review for the Commission's discretionary denial of intervention. The dissent would reverse the district court's order in part and remand for further proceedings.

Administrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewPlea to the JurisdictionPublic Utility CommissionNon-Party InterventionExhaustion of Administrative RemediesDue ProcessWrit of MandamusStatutory InterpretationTexas Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mohawk Finishing Products, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case concerns a proceeding to review a determination by the State Human Rights Appeal Board. The Board initially found no sex-based discrimination against female office workers by an employer. However, it also found that the employer discriminated against the complainant for opposing practices she believed were discriminatory, leading to her suspension and termination. The court deemed the Board's decision inconsistent because the Board concurrently concluded the employer did not engage in practices forbidden by the Human Rights Law. Consequently, the court annulled the determination and remitted the matter to the Board for clarification of its findings and decision.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationRetaliationAdministrative ReviewInconsistent FindingsAnnulmentRemittalExecutive Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Housing Authority Tenant Selection Division v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) initiated a proceeding to review an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which had affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that NYCHA discriminated against Constance Orlando, a mentally disabled public housing applicant. The court found insufficient evidence to support the discrimination claim. While acknowledging that denying housing solely based on mental disability is unlawful, the court determined that NYCHA denied Orlando's application due to a valid reason: her persistent disruptive, harassing, and threatening behavior, which made her an undesirable tenant according to housing regulations. Consequently, the court granted NYCHA's petition, annulled the Appeal Board's order, denied the cross-application for enforcement, and dismissed the complaint.

DiscriminationMental DisabilityPublic HousingTenant EligibilityUndesirable TenantExecutive LawJudicial ReviewAdministrative OrderDisruptive BehaviorHarassment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mega Child Care, Inc. v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

Justice Jennings dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that Mega Child Care, Inc. lacks a statutory right to judicial review of the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services' (TDPRS) decision to revoke its child-care license. The dissent highlights that the Human Resources Code no longer provides for judicial review in such cases, having been amended in 1997 to repeal relevant sections. It also states that the Administrative Code sections cited by Mega do not confer a right to judicial review, and one such section has been repealed. Furthermore, Justice Jennings clarifies that Government Code section 2001.171 is merely procedural and does not establish subject matter jurisdiction for judicial review without specific statutory authorization. Finally, the dissent concludes that Mega waived any constitutional right to judicial review by failing to raise it in the trial court. Therefore, Justice Jennings would affirm the district court's decision to grant TDPRS's plea to the jurisdiction and dismiss Mega's suit.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewChild Care LicenseLicense RevocationStatutory InterpretationGovernment CodeHuman Resources CodeTravis CountyDissenting OpinionSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Casualty Insurance Co. v. Functional Restoration Associates

Continental Casualty Insurance Company (Continental) sought judicial review after the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) affirmed a decision holding Continental liable for medical treatment costs provided by Functional Restoration Associates (FRA) and Productive Rehabilitation Institute of Dallas for Ergonomics (PRIDE) to an injured employee. The trial court dismissed Continental's suit, citing a lack of statutory basis for judicial review of the Division of Medical Review (DMR) decisions. On appeal, Continental argued for both statutory and inherent rights to judicial review. The appellate court found no explicit or implied statutory right but concluded that Continental had an inherent right to judicial review because the Commission's decision affected Continental’s vested property interest (money). The court also rejected the Commission's argument regarding untimely filing. Consequently, the court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the Commission's decision was arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Judicial ReviewMedical Benefits DisputeWorkers' CompensationAdministrative LawDue ProcessProperty RightsStatutory InterpretationRemandTexas LawAppellate Court
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Club Swamp Annex v. White

The petitioner, Club Swamp Annex restaurant, sought judicial review of a determination by the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights, which found the restaurant engaged in discriminatory employment practices. The Commissioner had ruled that the restaurant unlawfully terminated a waiter because of an AIDS-related complex (ARC) disability, awarding $5,000 in compensatory damages and back pay. While an Administrative Law Judge initially recommended dismissal, the Commissioner reversed this, finding substantial evidence of discrimination. The reviewing court largely affirmed the Commissioner's findings, confirming the discrimination determination and the compensatory damages. However, the court modified the back-pay award, mandating an offset for wages and tips the complainant earned from another employer, the American Cafe, between April 1986 and November 1987, and remitted the matter for recomputation.

Disability discriminationEmployment terminationAIDS-related complex (ARC)Mental anguishBack payCompensatory damagesHuman Rights LawJudicial reviewAdministrative determinationSubstantial evidence
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 12,756 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