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. 13-09-00067-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2013

CITY OF McALLEN, TEXAS v. Arnaldo Ramirez Jr., Raul Romero, Promotions of America, Inc., Nolana Entertainment, Inc.

The City of McAllen appealed a trial court judgment that found its denial of a conditional use permit for the Collage nightclub constituted an unconstitutional taking under the Texas Constitution. Appellees Arnaldo Ramirez Jr., Raul Romero, Promotions of America, Inc., and Nolana Entertainment, Inc., had sued after the permit denial led to the nightclub's closure and significant financial losses. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the City's actions demonstrated a severe economic impact and interfered with the appellees' reasonable investment-backed expectations, thus satisfying the criteria for a regulatory taking. The court also upheld the awards for lost investments, lost profits, and the loss of collateralized property (La Villa Real) and its associated rental income.

Regulatory TakingProperty RightsConditional Use PermitZoning OrdinanceTexas Constitution Article I Section 17Economic ImpactInvestment-Backed ExpectationsDue ProcessDamages AwardLost Profits
References
93
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2005

King v. State

Gayle King was convicted by a jury of two counts of promoting a pyramid promotional scheme and one count of theft by deception. She was sentenced to two concurrent years in a State Jail facility, probated for five years, a fine, and restitution. King appealed, raising eight issues including denial of a requested jury charge instruction on a defensive issue, unsupported restitution, unconstitutionality of the pyramid promotional scheme statute, legal insufficiency of evidence for pyramid scheme and theft, selective prosecution, omission of a requisite knowledge element in the jury charge, double jeopardy violations, and denial of a motion for new trial. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions and no reversible error on the points raised.

Pyramid SchemeTheft by DeceptionLegal SufficiencyJury Charge ErrorMistake of Fact DefenseConstitutionality ChallengeFirst AmendmentOverbreadthVaguenessDouble Jeopardy
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

Plaintiff Mildred W. Williams, a black female, filed a federal lawsuit against Chase Manhattan Bank alleging racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and New York State Human Rights Law. Williams claimed she was denied promotions from Assistant Manager to Branch Manager and Assistant Manager to Assistant Treasurer, and subjected to harassment based on her race. The court addressed Williams' motion to file a second amended complaint and Chase's motion to dismiss. Applying the precedent set in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, the court granted Williams' motion to amend, allowing her claim regarding the denial of promotion to Assistant Treasurer, as it constituted a "new and distinct relation" with the employer. However, the claim for denial of promotion to Branch Manager was dismissed for not meeting this criterion. The court also maintained pendent jurisdiction over Williams' state racial harassment claims.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationMotion to AmendMotion to DismissCivil Rights Act of 1866New York State Human Rights LawPatterson v. McLean Credit UnionPromotion DenialAssistant Manager to Assistant TreasurerContinuing Violations Doctrine
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bexar County, Tx v. Gant

Elvin J. Gant, Jr. filed a discrimination charge with the Texas Commission on Human Rights on July 9, 1999, alleging race/national origin, color, sex, and age discrimination, stemming from a racial slur, lack of promotion, and eventual termination. After receiving a right-to-sue letter, Gant sued the County, asserting claims under the Texas Human Rights Act for unlawful failure to hire, unlawful discharge, and unlawful retaliation. The County moved for summary judgment, arguing Gant failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing his complaint within 180 days of the alleged racial slur. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Gant's race discrimination claims (failure to hire, unlawful discharge), concluding that the racial slur itself did not constitute an unlawful employment practice triggering the 180-day filing period. However, the court reversed and dismissed Gant's retaliation claim for lack of jurisdiction, finding he failed to exhaust administrative remedies as this claim was not included in his initial complaint and was not factually related to the race discrimination charge.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionSummary Judgment AppealTexas Human Rights ActJurisdictional DefectUnlawful Employment PracticeProbational PeriodRacial Slur
References
9
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00502 [234 AD3d 1215]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2025

Matter of Ito (International Business Promotion, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Eriko Ito filed for unemployment insurance benefits after her employment with NHK Cosmomedia America, Inc. was terminated. The Department of Labor initially determined that International Business Promotion, Inc. (IBP), a recruiting and marketing company that placed Ito with NHK, was her employer and liable for unemployment insurance contributions. Although an Administrative Law Judge later ruled NHK was the true employer, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed this, finding IBP to be Ito's employer. IBP appealed the Board's decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding that IBP exercised sufficient control over Ito's work, including screening, hiring, setting pay rates, direct payment, and handling complaints, to establish an employment relationship.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorStaffing AgencyRecruiting BusinessControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawJudiciary Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lloyd v. WABC-TV

Plaintiff Saundra Lloyd, an African-American, filed an employment discrimination charge against WABC-TV and Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She claimed a discriminatory atmosphere, harassment, denial of seniority and promotion, and insufficient compensation. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment, ruling that most of Plaintiff's claims were untimely due to the 300-day statute of limitations. For the remaining timely claim regarding a 1992 promotion denial, the court found that Plaintiff established a prima facie case, but Defendants provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason (superior qualifications of the hired candidate), which Plaintiff failed to rebut with evidence of intentional discrimination.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of LimitationsRace DiscriminationPromotion DenialEEOC ChargeDisparate Treatment
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schulte v. Wilson Industries, Inc.

Marilyn Schulte, a former employee of Wilson Industries, Inc., filed an employment discrimination lawsuit under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, alleging unequal pay, discriminatory denial of promotions, and constructive discharge based on sex. The court found that Wilson Industries, Inc. discriminatorily denied Schulte equal pay for equal work, constituting a willful violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. However, her claims for discriminatory denial of promotion and constructive discharge were denied due to insufficient evidence that her working conditions were intolerable or that a direct causal link existed between the defendant's actions and her depression. Schulte is entitled to back pay for three years and attorney's fees for the successful unequal pay claim.

Employment DiscriminationEqual Pay ActTitle VIISex DiscriminationWage DisparityConstructive DischargePromotional DiscriminationSufficiency of EvidenceBurden of ProofPrima Facie Case
References
42
Case No. 03-23-00100-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Julius Kadia

Julius Kadia sued the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (Commission) for workplace discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), alleging he was denied promotions to an LVN position due to his race and national origin despite being qualified. The Commission appealed an interlocutory order denying its plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment. The court found that Kadia raised a fact issue on a prima-facie case of discrimination and retaliation for several claims, including temporary reassignment to a "facility jail" and some promotion denials, allowing those claims to proceed. However, some of Kadia's claims for specific job postings and an overtime denial were dismissed or required repleading due to issues with exhaustion of administrative remedies, causal link, or pretext.

Workplace DiscriminationRetaliationTexas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA)Failure to PromoteLVNSovereign ImmunityAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionGupta ExceptionCat's Paw TheoryMaterially Adverse Employment Action
References
65
Case No. 13-03-028-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2005

Gayle King v. State

The case involves Gayle King's appeal after being convicted by a jury of two counts of promoting a pyramid promotional scheme and one count of theft by deception. The trial court sentenced King to concurrent sentences of two years in a State Jail facility, probated for five years, a fine, and restitution. King raised eight issues on appeal, challenging the trial court's denial of a jury charge instruction, restitution order, constitutionality of the statute, legal sufficiency of evidence for the convictions, selective prosecution, omission of a knowledge element in the jury charge, double jeopardy, and denial of a new trial motion. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the pyramid scheme and theft convictions, no error in the jury instructions, and no constitutional violations or double jeopardy issues.

Pyramid schemeTheft by deceptionCriminal appealJury convictionLegal sufficiency of evidenceDouble jeopardyJury charge instructionMistake of fact defenseConstitutional challengeStatutory overbreadth
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. City of Corpus Christi

Regina Lee sued the City of Corpus Christi alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under federal civil rights statutes, including Title VII and §§ 1981, 1983. Her claims involved unequal pay, denial of promotion, a hostile work environment, isolation, and the destruction of her computer files. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing claims related to initial hiring, job reclassification attempts, and some promotion denials due to statute of limitations or lack of merit. However, the court denied summary judgment on her claims regarding being the lowest-paid superintendent, retaliatory isolation/exclusion from meetings, and the retaliatory destruction of her work computer's hard drive, allowing these specific claims to proceed to trial. Additionally, the § 1983 claims that accrued after August 5, 2007 were denied summary judgment without prejudice.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIICivil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationSummary Judgment MotionUnequal PayHostile Work EnvironmentStatute of LimitationsFederal Court
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 5,336 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