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

Connell v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York

Plaintiff Lawrence J. Connell filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., alleging unlawful termination due to age. Connell, 43, was discharged along with three other supervisors for violating Con Edison's "no retaliation policy" against employees reporting environmental infractions. Defendant moved for summary judgment, presenting evidence that the termination was due to inappropriate conduct, not age. The court examined Connell's arguments of pretext and discriminatory remarks, but found the evidence insufficient to establish age discrimination. The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Age DiscriminationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentEnvironmental PolicyRetaliationWorkplace HarassmentMcDonnell Douglas TestPretextFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56ADEA
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grogan v. Savings of America, Inc.

This case concerns a lawsuit filed by Connie Grogan against her former employer, Home Savings of America, Inc., alleging age discrimination, harassment, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The action was removed to federal court on diversity grounds. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff was terminated for performance issues related to her failure to adapt to a new sales culture, rather than for discriminatory reasons. The court reviewed the legal standards for age discrimination, defamation, and emotional distress claims, considering arguments regarding prima facie case requirements, pretext, and the applicability of collateral estoppel from prior unemployment commission findings. Ultimately, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof for all asserted claims.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTexas Labor CodeFederal Civil ProcedurePretextHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful Termination
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lupo v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories

Plaintiff James Doyle Lupo sued Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories and American Home Products Corporation for age discrimination under Section 21.051 of the Texas Labor Code and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on both claims. Lupo, a 53-year-old sales representative, was terminated in a Reduction-in-Force (RIF) and alleged that the criteria for his termination were pretextual, claiming his duties were assumed by a younger, less qualified person. The court found that Lupo failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the defendants' legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his termination and his arguments of pretext were insufficient. Additionally, the court determined that Wyeth's conduct during the discharge process did not constitute "extreme and outrageous" behavior necessary for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentReduction-in-Force (RIF)Texas Labor CodeIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployment LawDisparate TreatmentPretextMotion for Summary JudgmentSales Force
References
80
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fadia v. New Horizon Hospitality

Plaintiff Deepak C. Fadia, proceeding pro se, filed an action against his former employer, New Horizon Hospitality, alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) following his termination. The Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that Fadia was a substandard employee who failed in his duties and was found sleeping on the job. Fadia contended that he was exploited, underpaid, and subject to a conspiracy by his supervisors, driven by a personal vendetta unrelated to age. The Court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Fadia failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination and could not demonstrate that the employer's stated non-discriminatory reason was a pretext for age-based bias. Additionally, the Court disregarded the Plaintiff's sur-reply arguments that contradicted his prior sworn deposition testimony.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentADEAEmployment LawPro Se LitigantDiscriminatory IntentPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas TestPretextCircumstantial Evidence
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 1999

Hardy v. General Electric Co.

Plaintiff, a 58-year-old engineer, was discharged from defendant's Corporate Research and Development Center in Schenectady County in August 1993. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination under New York's Human Rights Law and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, along with contract claims. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment for the defendant on the contract claims but denied it for the age discrimination claim. On appeal, the order was modified, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the age discrimination cause of action was granted, dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The appellate court found that the defendant successfully demonstrated legitimate economic reasons for the workforce reduction and the plaintiff's termination, and the plaintiff failed to establish that these reasons were a pretext for age discrimination, despite presenting arguments regarding alleged age-related statements and statistical evidence.

age discriminationemployment lawsummary judgmentHuman Rights LawADEAworkforce reductioneconomic justificationpretextappellate reviewemployer-employee dispute
References
18
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. 12-14-00155-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Brenda Brewer, Deanna Meador, Penny Adams and Sabra Curry v. Lowe's Home Centers Inc.

There are two glaring infirmities in the argument presented by Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. (“Lowe’s”) in its brief to this Court. First, Lowe’s misunderstands or misapplies the standard of review for a directed verdict, arguing how evidence 'weighs' in its favor, while the Court's task is to determine if there is at least a scintilla of evidence to support the Cont’l Coffee factors. Second, Lowe's fails to distinguish Echostar Satellite, L.L.C. v. Aguilar, a highly relevant case where the court found sufficient evidence of retaliatory motive when a company deviated from its policies by forcing an employee with workers' compensation claims to work against restrictions or be fired, and failing to provide written notice of leave expiration. The appellants argue that similar deviations and negative attitudes from Lowe's management, including forcing employees to work against light duty restrictions and placing them on unauthorized 'personal leave' without their knowledge, demonstrate a retaliatory motive and that the stated reason for termination was a false pretext. Appellants assert that the directed verdict was error and the judgment should be reversed and remanded for a full trial.

Workers' CompensationRetaliationDirected VerdictStandard of ReviewCircumstantial EvidenceCont'l Coffee FactorsLight DutyLeave of Absence PolicyPretextTexas Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cavallaro v. Corning Inc.

Rosario Cavallaro, a former employee of Corning Incorporated, brought an employment discrimination action alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Cavallaro was terminated in 1995 after repeatedly refusing to wear steel-toed safety shoes, a new company requirement based on OSHA standards, citing pain in his right foot. The Court granted Corning's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The court found Cavallaro's claims time-barred as his EEOC charge was filed over 300 days after he knew of the alleged discriminatory conduct, and rejected his "continuing violation" argument. His disparate impact claim was also dismissed for not being reasonably related to his EEOC charge. Furthermore, the court determined Cavallaro failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, concluding that his inability to wear safety shoes did not constitute a "disability" under the ADA, as it did not substantially limit a major life activity like walking or working generally, nor did Corning regard him as disabled. Finally, Cavallaro failed to show pretext for the non-discriminatory reason for his termination (failure to follow safety rules) or establish a causal link for his retaliation claim.

Americans with Disabilities ActEmployment LawDisability DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsEEOC ExhaustionDisparate ImpactSubstantial LimitationMajor Life Activities
References
56
Case No. 866 F.Supp.2d 196
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2011

Howard v. MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Wendell Howard, an African-American locomotive engineer trainee, sued his former employer, MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad, for racial discrimination and harassment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, following his termination from a training program. Howard alleged discriminatory treatment by his instructors regarding test answers and derogatory remarks, and that his termination for leaving his worksite without proper authorization and insubordination was pretextual. He also claimed other non-African-American trainees were not disciplined similarly. The court granted summary judgment in favor of MTA Metro-North, finding that Howard failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that the employer's stated non-discriminatory reasons for termination were a pretext for racial discrimination. Subsequently, Howard filed a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), citing alleged mistakes, fraud by the defendants, and newly discovered evidence concerning other trainees. The court denied this motion, concluding that Howard's arguments were either rearguments of prior points, lacked clear and convincing evidence of fraud, or the "new evidence" was either available during discovery or not sufficiently convincing to warrant relief.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Summary JudgmentPro Se LitigantMotion to Vacate JudgmentRule 60(b)Pretext for DiscriminationLocomotive Engineer Training Program
References
66
Case No. 05-12-00223-CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2013

Skief, Tiwian Laquinn

Tiwian Laquinn Skief was convicted of murder and sentenced to fifty years in prison. He appealed his conviction, raising four issues, including errors in jury instructions on self-defense, jury contamination, confrontation clause violations, and improper jury argument. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found sufficient evidence to support the self-defense limitation instruction, that Skief failed to preserve his argument regarding jury admonishment, and that his confrontation clause rights were not violated by the admission of an excited utterance to a co-worker. Lastly, Skief failed to preserve his argument concerning improper jury argument.

Murder ConvictionSelf-DefenseJury Charge ErrorConfrontation ClauseExcited UtteranceHearsay ExceptionJury ArgumentAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureConstitutional Rights
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 3,225 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