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. 13-05-055-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2006

Scott Cerre v. Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP

Scott Cerre, an employee of Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP, was injured on the job and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. He was later terminated under Odfjell's absence-control policy after taking a six-month leave of absence. Cerre sued Odfjell, alleging retaliatory discharge and discrimination in violation of chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Odfjell. On appeal, Cerre contended that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on both his discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Odfjell successfully negated elements of the discrimination claim and that Cerre's termination was due to a uniformly enforced absence-control policy, not retaliation.

Retaliatory DischargeDiscrimination ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Labor Code Chapter 451Absence Control PolicyEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewCausal ConnectionHarassment
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Horton

M. C. Horton sued Dallas Railway & Terminal Company to recover damages for personal injuries to his wife, Mrs. Adeline Horton, sustained when her coat was caught while alighting from a street car, causing her to be thrown and dragged. The jury found the defendant negligent and awarded Horton $3,000. The Dallas Railway & Terminal Company appealed the judgment, raising three main issues: alleged double recovery allowed by the jury charge on damages, juror misconduct during deliberations, and alleged coercion of the jury by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury charge, upholding the trial court's discretion regarding juror misconduct, and concluding that the court's instructions to the jury regarding conflicting answers were not coercive.

Personal InjuryStreet Car AccidentNegligenceDamagesJury MisconductCoercionAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionCivil ProcedureLoss of Earning Capacity
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1973

Guerra v. Manchester Terminal Corporation

Guerra, a Mexican National and resident alien, was transferred from his job at Manchester Terminal Corporation's Dock and Commodity Department to the Cotton Compress and Warehouse Department in 1965 due to a discriminatory policy by Local 1581 against Mexican Nationals with families in Mexico. Guerra filed charges with the NLRB and EEOC, and later a civil action in district court in 1971, alleging discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court ruled that filing with the NLRB tolled the statute of limitations. While rejecting the Title VII claim, the court found that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 protects aliens from private discrimination and concluded that the defendants engaged in a discriminatory practice, issuing an injunction and scheduling a damages hearing.

Civil Rights Act of 1964Title VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Employment DiscriminationAlienage DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationStatute of LimitationsTollingNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB)Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1948

Dallas Railway & Terminal Co. v. Orr

Mrs. Orr (plaintiff) sued Dallas Railway & Terminal Company (defendant) for personal injuries sustained in a collision between her automobile and the defendant's motor bus in Dallas on July 25, 1943. She recovered $10,000.00 in a lower court, which was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, complaining about the trial court's refusal to include a special instruction regarding pre-existing conditions and the refusal to send photographs to the jury. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' decision, finding that the evidence of prior infirmities was insufficient to warrant the requested special instruction. Additionally, the error in not sending the photographs to the jury was deemed harmless as they were merely cumulative evidence of substantially undisputed facts.

Personal InjuryAutomobile AccidentMotor BusNegligenceDamagesPre-existing ConditionsJury InstructionsProximate CauseAppellate ReviewHarmless Error
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brinson v. New York City Transit Authority

Plaintiff Jealetta Brinson, an African-American woman, sued her former employer, the New York City Transit Authority, for racial discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law, following her termination from employment as a bus operator. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or show that her termination, which followed a binding arbitration award, was pretextual. The court, giving significant weight to the Tripartite Arbitration Board's decision, found that Brinson's extensive disciplinary record, including multiple warnings and suspensions, served as a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for her dismissal. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find the termination to be merely pretextual, thus granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981New York Human Rights LawWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentArbitration AwardPretext EvidenceDisciplinary Record
References
21
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

Godineaux v. Laguardia Airport Marriott Hotel

Plaintiff Edwin Godineaux, a former employee of the LaGuardia Marriott Hotel, sued the hotel and Marriott Int’l, Inc. for creating a hostile work environment due to discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, marital status, and race, as well as retaliation for complaining about discrimination. He alleged sexual harassment by a co-worker and claimed his subsequent disciplinary actions and termination were pretextual and retaliatory. The court, applying Title VII standards to the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims, found that the alleged harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an objectively hostile work environment, and that the employer took appropriate remedial action. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between his protected activity and termination, and that the defendants provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his disciplinary actions and termination, which the plaintiff failed to prove were pretextual. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was closed.

Hostile Work EnvironmentSexual HarassmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationNYSHRL ClaimsNYCHRL ClaimsTitle VII StandardsObjective Hostile EnvironmentSubjective Hostile Environment
References
19
Case No. 01-22-00089-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2023

In Re Intercontinental Terminals Company, LLC v. the State of Texas

Relator Intercontinental Terminals Company, LLC, informed the Court of Appeals that a settlement had been reached, pending approval from the Department of Labor under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. After an initial update regarding settlement approval, no further motion to dismiss the original proceeding was filed. The Court subsequently learned that the trial court had signed orders dismissing the plaintiff's claims with prejudice. Despite an order requesting a response from the relator, only the real party in interest, Michael Grable, responded, confirming the resolution of the controversy. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus as moot.

MandamusMootnessSettlement AgreementCase DismissalAppellate ProcedureTexas Court of AppealsLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActTrial Court DismissalRelatorReal Party in Interest
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Port Terminal Railroad Association v. Inge

Lawrence Inge, Jr., an engineer for Port Terminal Railroad Association, sustained personal injuries and filed suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. The jury awarded him $282,746, including $200,000 for lost future earning capacity and $17,500 for medical expenses. The court reduced medical expenses to $15,000. On appeal, the appellant complained about the jury's consideration of future inflationary trends and the excessiveness of the lost earning capacity award. The appellate court overruled both points, stating that objections to testimony regarding inflationary trends were not preserved during trial. The court also affirmed the reduction of medical expenses and denied the appellee's cross-points.

Federal Employers’ Liability Actfuture earning capacityinflationary trendsjury verdictappellate reviewmedical expensesdamagespermanent disabilityvocational capabilitieseconomist testimony
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,755 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