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. 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

Stanford v. New York City Commission on Human Rights

The plaintiff, a provisional human rights specialist, sued her employer, the New York City Commission on Human Rights, and several individual defendants for employment discrimination. She alleged discrimination based on national origin and retaliation after her termination, which followed a history of insubordination and conflict with her supervisor. The court found no evidence to support either the national origin discrimination claim, noting similar racial backgrounds among parties, or the retaliation claim, as the Commission had encouraged employees to challenge the civil service examination in question. The decision concluded that the plaintiff's termination stemmed from an irreconcilable personal antagonism with her supervisor rather than any discriminatory reasons. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, affirming that federal courts should not intervene in personnel decisions based on non-discriminatory grounds.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimInsubordinationProvisional Employee TerminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActEEOC ComplaintSupervisor-Employee ConflictFederal District Court CaseWorkplace Conduct
References
5
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. 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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haglund v. St. Francis Episcopal Day School

Plaintiff Linda Haglund, a teacher, sued Defendant St. Francis Episcopal Day School for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after her contract was not renewed. Haglund, 63, alleged her termination was age-based, citing comments from the Head of School about the need for older teachers to adapt to technology or retire. The School denied discrimination, presenting several legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the non-renewal, including performance issues related to literacy approach, classroom management, leadership skills, technology integration, and parental concerns. The court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Haglund failed to provide direct evidence of age discrimination and could not raise a genuine issue of material fact that the School's stated reasons were a pretext for age discrimination, leading to the dismissal of her claim with prejudice.

Age DiscriminationADEASummary JudgmentEmployment LawPretextCircumstantial EvidenceDirect EvidenceTeacher EmploymentContract Non-RenewalWorkplace Discrimination
References
25
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Plaintiff Patrick Anderson sued Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company for age discrimination and wrongful termination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alongside claims of constructive discharge, failure to promote, hostile work environment under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) violations. Goodyear moved for summary judgment on all claims. Anderson subsequently abandoned all claims except for age discrimination under the ADEA. The court found that Anderson established a prima facie case for age discrimination. Although Goodyear provided a non-discriminatory reason for his termination (violation of a safety shoe reimbursement policy), Anderson presented sufficient evidence of pretext, including prior reimbursements for non-steel-toed shoes, evidence of disparate treatment for other employees, and Goodyear's post-termination revision of the policy. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for the abandoned claims but denied it regarding the ADEA age discrimination claim, allowing it to proceed to trial.

Age DiscriminationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentADEATCHRAERISAEmployment LawDisparate TreatmentPretext for DiscriminationSafety Shoe Policy
References
78
Showing 1-10 of 2,408 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