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

Ballard v. CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

Plaintiff Pamela Ballard sued The Children’s Aid Society (CAS), Jacqueline Francis, and Stephen Douglas, alleging retaliation under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Ballard claimed various retaliatory actions by defendants, including salary issues, office assignments, performance evaluations, job reclassification, and ultimate termination, following her complaints to the NYSDHR. The court evaluated the claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for Title VII and NYSHRL, and a more liberal standard for NYCHRL. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for their actions, which Ballard failed to sufficiently refute with admissible evidence. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing all of Ballard's retaliation claims, including those against the individual defendants, due to lack of a causal link or insufficient evidence of pretext.

Retaliation ClaimTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL)Summary JudgmentEmployment LawBurden-Shifting FrameworkPrima Facie CaseAdverse Employment ActionCausal Connection
References
32
Case No. 13-07-00082-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2008

Lorenzo Gomez v. Vertex Aerospace, LLC, the Boeing Company, and McDonnell Douglas Corporation

The case involves Lorenzo Gomez appealing a trial court's summary judgment in favor of his former employers, Vertex Aerospace, LLC, The Boeing Company, and McDonnell Douglas Corporation. Gomez had sued for employment discrimination based on national origin, age, and disability, as well as negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, following his layoff and subsequent re-employment in a lower-skilled role, leading to his resignation. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for Boeing due to Gomez's failure to file a timely discrimination charge. While Gomez's charge against Vertex was deemed timely regarding the constructive discharge claim, the court ultimately upheld the summary judgment for Vertex, concluding that Vertex had successfully negated an essential element of the discrimination claim by providing legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its hiring decision.

Employment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTimelinessContinuing ViolationRetaliationConstructive DischargePrima Facie CaseBurden-ShiftingAge Discrimination
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lynn v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

This case concerns a negligence action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff John Lynn in an airplane elevator accident during his employment with Pan Am. After receiving workers' compensation, Lynn and other plaintiffs sued Pan Am (as successor to National Airlines) and McDonnell Douglas Corp. A jury apportioned fault primarily to Pan Am. Pan Am appealed the denial of its motion to vacate and the interlocutory judgment. Plaintiffs cross-appealed against McDonnell Douglas. The appellate court dismissed both the appeal from the order and the cross-appeal. It modified the interlocutory judgment, affirming in part, but ordered a new trial for plaintiffs' claims against Pan Am due to errors in the jury charge regarding successor liability and the consideration of post-merger negligence.

Negligence ActionPersonal Injury DamagesAppellate ProcedureJury Instruction ErrorSuccessor Corporation LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityInterlocutory Judgment AppealNew Trial GrantedCross-Appeal DismissalCorporate Merger Liabilities
References
10
Case No. 03-01-00214-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

Hobert T. Douglas, II, Attorney at Law, P.C. And Hobert T. Douglas, II, Individually v. Edward J. Petrus

Appellee Edward J. Petrus sued appellants Hobert T. Douglas, II, Attorney at Law, P.C., and Hobert T. Douglas individually, seeking $47,200 for consulting and expert services provided in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Petrus. Douglas appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for new trial due to inadequate notice of the trial setting and his unpreparedness resulting from mistake. The appellate court found Douglas's amended motion for new trial was untimely and that the record did not support his claim of inadequate notice. Furthermore, the court determined that even if the Craddock test for default judgments applied, Douglas's timely-filed motion failed to establish a meritorious defense with supporting evidence. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

AppealMotion for New TrialNotice of TrialDue ProcessDefault JudgmentCraddock TestAbuse of DiscretionMeritorious DefenseAttorney UnpreparednessSworn Account
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moini v. University of Texas

Plaintiff Mehdi Moini brought claims of discrimination based on national origin and age, and retaliation against Defendant University of Texas at Austin. Moini alleged various adverse employment actions, including removal of titles, reprimands, failure to be hired for a tenure-track position, and non-renewal of his appointment. The Defendants asserted legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their actions and denied discriminatory or retaliatory intent. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the Court found Moini failed to establish a prima facie case for most claims or rebut the Defendants' proffered reasons. Consequently, the Court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CaseAdverse Employment ActionPretextNational Origin DiscriminationAge Discrimination
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Augustus v. AHRC Nassau

Plaintiff Susan Augustus sued her former employer, AHRC Nassau, for racial discrimination under Title VII and retaliation under FMLA. Augustus alleged stricter performance standards and termination based on race, and retaliation for advocating for a pregnant client's FMLA rights. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. While Augustus established a prima facie case of racial discrimination, the court found AHRC Nassau provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her termination, and Augustus failed to prove pretext or discriminatory intent. The court also found no evidence of FMLA retaliation. The court dismissed the action with prejudice, ruling in favor of AHRC Nassau.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTitle VIIFMLA RetaliationAdverse Employment ActionMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretextWork PerformanceCommunication Issues
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mathews v. Huntington

Plaintiff Joseph Mathews filed an age discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, Atria Huntington, and an employee, Alex Stehly, alleging violations of the ADEA and NYHRL following his termination. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his dismissal, including resident complaints about food quality, non-compliance with purchasing policies, and an incident where Mathews yelled at a subordinate. The court reviewed the evidence under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and found that Mathews failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendants' reasons were a pretext for age discrimination. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationADEANYHRLSummary JudgmentBurden-ShiftingPretext for DiscriminationEmployee TerminationWorkplace MisconductFood Service Industry
References
48
Case No. 04-14-00746-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2014

Alamo Heights ISD v. Catherine Clark

Alamo Heights Independent School District (AHISD) appeals a trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a case brought by former teacher Catherine Clark. Clark alleges gender discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). AHISD argues that Clark failed to establish a prima facie case for her claims and did not provide sufficient evidence of pretext for her termination, which AHISD asserts was based on numerous performance deficiencies and unprofessional conduct. The district contends the trial court erred by not applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework as part of its jurisdictional analysis, praying for a reversal of the trial court's order and dismissal of Clark's claims.

TexasEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentGovernmental ImmunityMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkTCHRAPlea to JurisdictionAppellate Law
References
85
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doverspike v. International Ordinance Technologies

Plaintiff Louise Marie Doverspike, proceeding pro se, initiated an action against her former employer, International Ordnance Technologies, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation. Her claims were based on race, national origin, religion, age, and disability under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA. Defendant responded with a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a plausible claim. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio, analyzed the claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard. Ultimately, the court found that Plaintiff had not presented sufficient factual allegations to support her claims and, therefore, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing for a potential amended complaint.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIADEAADAMotion to DismissPro Se PlaintiffPlausibility StandardMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkDisability Discrimination
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hyek v. Field Support Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Audra Hyek initiated an action against her former employer, Field Support Services, Inc. (FSSI), alleging gender discrimination under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). FSSI moved for summary judgment, which the court reviewed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The court found that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination, specifically regarding disparate treatment in equipment, training, policy enforcement, or her termination compared to a male co-worker. Additionally, Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim was deemed abandoned due to her failure to address Defendant's arguments in opposition papers. Consequently, the court granted FSSI's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Plaintiff's claims.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationTitle VIINYSHRLSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentHostile Work EnvironmentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretext
References
70
Showing 1-10 of 2,030 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