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. 01A01-9602-CH-00073
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 1998

Devore v. Deloitte & Touche

This appeal concerns an employment discrimination action filed by Maurice DeVore against Deloitte & Touche. DeVore, a computer programmer, alleged he was terminated due to race discrimination and in retaliation for filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The trial court granted summary judgment to Deloitte & Touche, determining DeVore failed to present sufficient evidence of discrimination or pretext. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that DeVore's statistical evidence and personal beliefs were insufficient to prove pretext for the employer's stated reason of inadequate job performance.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CasePretextual ReasonStatistical EvidenceJob PerformanceTraining DisparityEEOC Charge
References
65
Case No. 04-23-01096-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2025

Patricia Y. Mayers v. United Independent School District

Patricia Mayers, a teacher, sued United Independent School District (UISD) alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Labor Code and Title VII. The trial court granted summary judgment for UISD, which Mayers appealed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Mayers failed to present sufficient evidence of an adverse employment action, a comparator, or pretext to overcome summary judgment on her discrimination claim. It also found insufficient evidence for a materially adverse action or causation for her retaliation claim, and no evidence of pretext for the employer's actions.

Sex DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActTexas Labor CodeAdverse Employment ActionPrima Facie CaseBurden ShiftingMcDonnell Douglas TestPretext
References
84
Case No. 01-24-00087-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2026

Li Li v. TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company

Justice Gunn's concurring opinion argues that trial courts should never issue 'pretext instructions' to juries in employment litigation. He contends that such instructions improperly sway jury decisions by highlighting one side's testimony and suggesting inferences, thereby placing a 'judicial thumb on the scale.' Gunn traces Texas's historical ban on judicial commenting on the weight of evidence, codified in Rule of Civil Procedure 277, asserting that pretext instructions violate this principle through 'tilting,' 'nudging,' and creating 'surplusage.' He notes the division among federal circuits and Texas appellate courts on this issue, advocating for a clear prohibition to ensure a fair and level playing field where lawyers, not judges, guide the jury's interpretation of evidence.

Jury InstructionsPretextJudicial CommentingWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureEmployment LitigationTrial PracticeEvidence LawJury Role
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bowen v. El Paso Electric Co.

Charlene Bowen, an African American employee, was terminated by the Electric Company during her six-month probationary period. She alleged race discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act after experiencing a racially charged incident and an alleged physical altercation with a coworker. Despite being cleared of the assault accusation, she was terminated, with the employer citing reasons like not being a team player, displaying hostility, and absenteeism, which Bowen argued were pretextual. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the employer. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the case, ruling that Bowen had presented sufficient evidence to raise a fact question on pretext, especially in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s clarification on the 'pretext plus' standard in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSummary JudgmentPretext StandardMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkReeves v. Sanderson Plumbing ProductsTexas Commission on Human Rights ActAppellate ReversalBurden of ProductionPrima Facie Case
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parker v. Zale Corp.

The District Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in this civil action alleging age discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under the Tennessee Human Rights Act. The plaintiff, a former sales associate, claimed she was improperly terminated after returning merchandise, citing manager favoritism towards younger employees. However, the court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for age discrimination or demonstrate that the defendant's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination was a pretext. Furthermore, the plaintiff abandoned her hostile work environment claim, and her retaliation claim also failed due to insufficient evidence of pretext. The court also ruled against applying judicial estoppel, noting the plaintiff's good faith efforts to disclose her claim in bankruptcy proceedings.

Age DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTennessee Human Rights ActADEAEmployment LawWrongful TerminationCorporate Policy ViolationCat's Paw Theory
References
50
Case No. Docket No. 16
Regular Panel Decision

Issac v. City of New York

Steven Isaac, a 53-year-old African American male, brought claims of employment discrimination and retaliation against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction, and Deputy Commissioner Kathleen Coughlin. His claims under Title VII, ADEA, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 alleged age discrimination for denial of promotions to three positions and retaliation for filing a prior discrimination complaint. Isaac also claimed retaliation regarding a Staff Analyst title and an incorrect phone number listing. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that Isaac failed to establish a prima facie case for most age discrimination claims and, where he did, could not prove pretext. The retaliation claims also failed due to lack of a causal connection and insufficient evidence of pretext.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIADEACivil Rights ActFirst AmendmentSummary JudgmentCausal ConnectionPretext
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.

Allen Scott Smith sued his former employer, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., for retaliatory discharge after filing a worker's compensation claim and for failure to report the injury. Smith was discharged for allegedly leaving plant premises and falsifying a time card, though co-workers disputed his absence. He was later reinstated through a union grievance but denied back pay, which he accepted as a settlement. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on all issues, including the retaliatory discharge and the accord and satisfaction. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment on the retaliatory discharge claim, finding that Smith presented enough evidence for a jury to find pretext under the "permissive pretext" standard. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment on the accord and satisfaction claim, ruling that Smith's voluntary settlement of the grievance precluded further action for the same relief.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensationSummary judgmentEmployment discriminationAccord and satisfactionGrievance settlementPretextBurden shiftingMcDonnell Douglas frameworkPermissive pretext
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Standley v. Rogers

Plaintiff David W. Standley, an African American, sued Defendant Michael S. Rogers (National Security Agency) for race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment after his employment was terminated. Standley alleged negative performance reviews, a predetermined Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), and termination were discriminatory and retaliatory. The court found Standley failed to establish a prima facie case for race discrimination due to a lack of similarly-situated employees and insufficient evidence of pretext. For retaliation, the court found no causal link between Standley's prior EEO activity and adverse actions, and no evidence of pretext. Lastly, his hostile work environment claim, based on performance issues and workplace conflicts, was also dismissed for lack of severe or pervasive harassment and no evidence of racial basis. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's, dismissing all claims with prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentEmployment LawTitle VIIFederal EmployeeEEO ComplaintPrima Facie CasePretext
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cheng v. New York Telephone Co.

Plaintiff Victor Cheng sued New York Telephone Company (NYT) and Communications Workers of America, Local 1101 (CWA) for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, NYHRL, and NYC Administrative Code. Cheng, an Asian male service technician, was fired by NYT for allegedly violating its competitive activities policy by working for rival companies. He claimed this was a pretext for racial discrimination and that the CWA failed to vigorously pursue his grievance due to his race. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court found NYT presented ample non-discriminatory reasons for Cheng's discharge and that Cheng failed to provide sufficient evidence of pretext or discriminatory animus from either defendant, dismissing his allegations as unsupported hearsay and conclusory. The Court also noted CWA's claim for breach of duty of fair representation was time-barred. Therefore, the Court granted both defendants' motions for summary judgment.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. § 1981New York State Human Rights LawNYC Administrative CodeDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementCompetitive Activity PolicyWrongful Termination
References
11
Case No. ADJ7811358
Regular
Jan 22, 2016

PABLO ORTEGA vs. PRAVIN PATEL, TJ, LLC dba SANTA CRUZ BEACH INN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration of an award for unlawful discrimination. The employer argued the applicant was laid off due to business slowdown and failed to mitigate wages, but the Board upheld the finding of pretext and discrimination. The Board also confirmed that medical-legal expenses are considered employee compensation and are subject to the one-half increase for discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. Therefore, the employer is liable for the increased compensation including the PQME's medical-legal costs.

Labor Code 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical-legal expenseIncreased compensationBack-payPretextDiscriminationLayoff
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 255 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