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

People v. Smith

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The appeal concerned the prosecutor's peremptory challenges during jury selection. The trial court found a pattern of intentional discrimination against black prospective jurors, specifically noting the prosecutor's inability to provide a race-neutral reason for one challenge and finding another pretextual. The appellate court focused on the prosecutor's challenge of a prospective juror based solely on his employment as a postal worker, ruling that such a reason must relate to the case facts or the juror's qualifications. Finding this explanation pretextual, the appellate court reversed the defendant's conviction and ordered a new trial.

Jury SelectionPeremptory ChallengeBatson ChallengeRace-Neutral ReasonEmployment-Based ChallengePretextual ExplanationRacial DiscriminationCriminal Possession of a WeaponNew TrialAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. 05-20-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2022

William J. Kanen v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc.

William J. Kanen appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of his former employer, DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc., in an age discrimination case. Kanen, who was 69 at the time of his termination, argued that he established a prima facie case of age discrimination and that DeWolff's reason for termination (poor performance) was pretextual. The Fifth District Court of Appeals in Texas at Dallas reviewed the trial court's decision de novo, applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis for discrimination cases. The Court found that Kanen presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination and raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether DeWolff's nondiscriminatory reason for discharge was pretextual. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding a jury could determine the termination was motivated by age discrimination.

age discriminationsummary judgmentemployment lawTexaspretextprima facie caseMcDonnell Douglasburden-shiftingFifth Circuitperformance evaluation
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vinokur v. Sovereign Bank

Plaintiff Faina Vinokur sued Sovereign Bank for employment discrimination based on disability (rheumatoid arthritis), age (born 1954), and national origin (Russian), under the New York State Executive Law and New York City Human Rights Law. She also alleged failure to reasonably accommodate her disability and retaliatory termination. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court found that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for age and national origin discrimination, or that the bank's reason for termination (violation of Bank Secrecy Act policies regarding suspicious transactions) was a pretext for discrimination. Regarding disability discrimination, the court concluded that the plaintiff was reasonably accommodated and that her termination was not linked to her disability. The court also dismissed the retaliation claim, finding that while there was temporal proximity between her accommodation request and termination, the bank had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her discharge that the plaintiff failed to show was pretextual. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationAge DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationReasonable AccommodationBank Secrecy Act ViolationsFinancial TransactionsPrima Facie Case
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1987

Ensor v. Painter

Plaintiffs Abby Jo Guss and Martha Ensor initiated a civil rights action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Frank Painter, operating Mountaineer Restaurant, alleging discriminatory discharge due to pregnancy. The defendant claimed the plaintiffs were fired for being poor and unreliable workers, denying pregnancy as the reason. The Court found that both plaintiffs established a prima facie case of sex discrimination, concluding that their pregnancies directly influenced the defendant's decision to terminate their employment and that the defendant's stated reasons were merely pretextual. Despite the Court finding that both plaintiffs failed to fully mitigate their damages, judgment was entered in their favor. Marsha Ensor was awarded $2,532.11 and Abby Guss received $2,973.60, along with costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

Employment DiscriminationPregnancy Discrimination ActTitle VII Civil Rights ActDisparate TreatmentPretext for DiscriminationBack Pay AwardMitigation of DamagesPrima Facie CaseFederal Court RulingWrongful Termination
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snapp-Foust v. National Construction, LLC

Plaintiff Jonna Snapp-Foust alleged sexual harassment and retaliation against Defendant National Construction under Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act, stemming from daily verbal and physical harassment by a coworker, William Finney. Snapp-Foust reported the harassment to several supervisors, but the harassment escalated. Defendant sought summary judgment, arguing it took prompt remedial action by transferring Finney and that her subsequent termination was for legitimate business reasons, specifically job consolidation. However, the Court identified a material factual dispute regarding whether Finney's transfer was a genuine disciplinary response or merely coincidental, and noted inconsistencies in the defendant's explanation for the plaintiff's discharge. Consequently, the Court denied the motion, finding that a jury could reasonably conclude the stated reasons for termination were pretextual for retaliation.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment MotionTitle VIITennessee Human Rights ActEmployer LiabilityRemedial ActionCausal ConnectionPretext for Discrimination
References
21
Case No. 09-24-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2025

Texas State Technical College System v. Ted H. Donavan

Ted H. Donavan sued Texas State Technical College System (TSTC) for employment discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. The trial court initially granted TSTC's motion to dismiss the retaliation claim but denied it for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. On appeal, the Court of Appeals considered whether Donavan established a prima facie case of disability discrimination and whether TSTC's reason for termination was a pretext. The court determined that TSTC presented a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination (sleeping on the job), which Donavan failed to prove was pretextual or that his disability was the "but-for" cause. Furthermore, Donavan failed to timely notify TSTC of his disability and suggest reasonable accommodations. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of TSTC's plea to the jurisdiction and rendered judgment dismissing Donavan's claims.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationFailure to AccommodateRetaliation ClaimTexas Commission on Human Rights ActSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionMotion for Summary JudgmentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPretext for Discrimination
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giscombe v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiff, Delroy Giscombe, a physical education teacher, brought a retaliation claim against the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Giscombe alleged that the DOE retaliated against him for engaging in protected activities, including complaining about discrimination and filing a lawsuit and an EEOC charge, by reopening a previous sexual misconduct allegation against him, which led to his suspension without pay. The DOE moved for summary judgment, arguing a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for their actions, specifically a review of past sexual misconduct cases by Chancellor Walcott. However, the court found that Giscombe established a prima facie case of retaliation due to temporal proximity and evidence suggesting the DOE may have known the original allegations were fabricated but proceeded with disciplinary action. The court denied the DOE's motion for summary judgment on both the Title VII and § 1983 retaliation claims, concluding that a reasonable jury could find the DOE's reasons were pretextual.

RetaliationTitle VIISection 1983Employment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CasePretextCausationTemporal ProximityMunicipal Liability
References
52
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 30531(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2007

Schirmer v. Athena-Liberty Lofts, LP

This case is an appeal from an Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a personal injury action. The plaintiff, a worker at a construction site, sustained injuries, leading to the site owner, Lofts, settling the claim after being found liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). Lofts then pursued indemnity claims against lighting contractor HP and the plaintiff's employer, Burgess. The Appellate Court modified the lower court's decision, vacating the finding that Lofts' settlement amount was reasonable due to Lofts' failure to properly demonstrate reasonableness and its mischaracterization of waiver arguments by HP and Burgess. The Court also affirmed the denial of HP's motion for summary judgment, citing unresolved factual issues concerning inadequate lighting as a cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnity ClaimLabor Law § 240(1)Appellate DivisionThird-Party ActionSettlement ReasonablenessCross ClaimsInadequate Lighting
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Agugliaro v. Brooks Bros., Inc.

Joseph Agugliaro, a 51-year-old manager, sued Brooks Brothers and other defendants for age and sex discrimination after being fired for sexually harassing a 24-year-old female stock clerk. The employer conducted an investigation, found the employee credible, and dismissed Agugliaro for sexually harassing behavior. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that no reasonable jury could conclude that the employer's reason for discharge was pretextual. The court emphasized that the employer genuinely believed Agugliaro had engaged in the misconduct, and he failed to provide sufficient evidence to dispute this or to show discriminatory motive.

DiscriminationSexual HarassmentAge DiscriminationTitle VIIADEASummary JudgmentPretextEmployment LawSupervisor MisconductRetaliation
References
20
Case No. 25
Regular Panel Decision

Middleton v. Metropolitan College of New York

Plaintiff Almethia Middleton sued Metropolitan College of New York (MCNY) alleging sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge. Middleton conceded the sexual harassment claim, focusing on retaliatory discharge. MCNY filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court found Middleton failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, specifically regarding participation in a protected activity and a causal connection to her termination. Furthermore, the court determined that MCNY presented a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for Middleton's termination based on her workplace misconduct, and Middleton failed to prove this reason was pretextual.

Sexual harassmentRetaliatory dischargeSummary judgmentPrima facie caseProtected activityCausal connectionPretextual reasonHostile work environmentNew York Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 5,625 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