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. Docket No. 16
Regular Panel Decision

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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. 04-23-01096-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2025

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

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

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

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

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

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

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Plaintiff Shari Dembin sued LVI Services, Inc., LVI Parent Corp., and Scott E. State, alleging discriminatory retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court had previously granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Dembin's NYCHRL claims, a ruling confirmed in this Memorandum Order. The primary focus of this order is the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Dembin's remaining ADEA retaliation claim, stemming from her termination after her father complained of age discrimination. Defendants argued their cost-cutting measures were not pretextual and that the Supreme Court's *Thompson* precedent, concerning family member retaliation under Title VII, did not extend to ADEA claims. The Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ADEA claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext and concluding that *Thompson*'s reasoning applies to ADEA retaliation claims due to similar statutory language. The ADEA retaliation claim will proceed to trial.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentPretextADEATitle VIIEmployment LawFamily Member RetaliationSouthern District of New YorkFederal Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Plaintiff Pamela Blanco, a police officer for the Village of Scarsdale, sued Chief John Brogan and the Village, alleging gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and N.Y. Human Rights Law § 296. The retaliation claim stemmed from her not being promoted to Sergeant after filing an EEOC complaint. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that while Blanco established a prima facie case of retaliation, she failed to demonstrate that the defendants' legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the promotion decision—such as superior performance in interviews, attendance, commendations, and recommendations of other candidates—were a pretext for discrimination. The judge concluded that no reasonable jury could find intentional retaliation, leading to the dismissal of the entire complaint.

Employment RetaliationGender DiscriminationSummary Judgment MotionPolice PromotionEEOC ComplaintCausal ConnectionPretext EvidenceSubjective CriteriaDisparate TreatmentScarsdale Police Department
References
54
Case No. 08-22-00043-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2023

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Appellee David Sepulveda sued Appellants Texas Health & Human Services and El Paso State Supported Living Center, alleging age and gender discrimination and retaliation after being denied promotions. The State filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court partially denied, leaving an age discrimination claim and two retaliation claims. On appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the plea for the age discrimination claim, finding Sepulveda presented sufficient evidence of pretext regarding the State's hiring reasons. However, the Court reversed the trial court's denial for the two retaliation claims, concluding Sepulveda failed to establish a causal link or but-for causation for the adverse employment actions. Consequently, the two retaliation claims were ordered dismissed.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawTexas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA)McDonnell-Douglas FrameworkPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityPrima Facie CasePretextCausal Link
References
62
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Plaintiff Oscar Levias, an African-American male, sued Defendant Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) under Title VII, alleging failure to promote and retaliation. Levias claimed he was denied promotions to Assistant Plant Manager in November 2000 (when Danny Ticknor, a white male, was reassigned) and February 2002 (when James McDaniel, a white male, was hired), and to Plant Manager in April 2001 (when Alan Albright, a white male, was assigned). He also filed an EEOC complaint in June 2001, asserting discrimination and later retaliation. The court granted TDCJ's motion for summary judgment regarding Albright's appointment, finding Levias failed to establish he sought the position. However, the court denied summary judgment for the other failure-to-promote claims and the retaliation claim, concluding that Levias presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find pretext or a mixed motive for discrimination and retaliation. The court discussed the impact of Desert Palace v. Costa on the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting paradigm, affirming that direct evidence is not required for a mixed-motive instruction in Title VII cases.

Title VIIEmployment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationFailure to PromoteRetaliationSummary JudgmentMcDonnell DouglasMixed-Motive TheoryPretextEEOC
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 1997

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Zbigniew S. Petrykiewicz, a contract employee, sued Xerox Corporation alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and retaliation. Petrykiewicz claimed Xerox failed to hire him because of his age and terminated his contract employment in retaliation for complaining about age discrimination. Xerox filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted Xerox's motion, finding that Petrykiewicz failed to demonstrate that Xerox's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions (lack of a bachelor's degree for hiring and staffing reductions for termination) were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. The plaintiff's complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActSummary JudgmentRetaliation ClaimEmployment DiscriminationContract EmploymentQualification RequirementsPretextPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingFederal Civil Procedure
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 1,617 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