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
Mar 22, 1977

Falcon v. General Telephone Co.

Mariano S. Falcon, a Mexican-American, filed a class-action lawsuit against General Telephone on April 3, 1975, alleging discrimination in hiring and promotion. The court found that Falcon himself was discriminated against in promotions but not in hiring. For the class, General Telephone discriminated in hiring but not in promotions. The relief granted includes awards for backpay, overtime pay, loss of job security, and six percent interest. The court denied monetary relief for shift differential pay, potential promotions, and "individual initiative" as too speculative. Damages were granted up to the end of "phase I" of the trial, and attorney fees were awarded to the plaintiffs.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIClass ActionRacial DiscriminationMexican-AmericanBackpayPromotionsHiring PracticesBurden of ProofAttorney Fees
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falcon v. General Telephone Co. of Southwest

This Memorandum Opinion addresses remands from the Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit in the landmark employment discrimination case Falcon v. General Telephone Co. The court, presided over by District Judge Buchmeyer, conducted a 'rigorous analysis' and evaluated statistical evidence. It concluded that the individual plaintiff, Mariano S. Falcon, who claimed promotion discrimination, could not represent a class of Mexican-American applicants who were not hired, as their claims were not 'fairly encompassed' and Falcon lacked standing. Despite this, due to prior Fifth Circuit rulings, the court would permit intervention by one of 13 original class members to pursue the class hiring claims. However, the court ultimately found the class claims of hiring discrimination to be 'baseless' after a 'more specific evaluation' of the statistical evidence, determining that General Telephone did not discriminate in hiring. For Falcon's individual claim of promotion discrimination, a new trial on liability was deemed necessary due to conflicting testimony and the application of Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine standards. However, any potential damages for Falcon were capped at $1,040.33, an amount significantly less than the $7,373.27 in appeal costs Falcon owed to General Telephone. Therefore, the court conditionally dismissed the case unless Falcon paid the appeal costs or posted a bond, after which only the liability of his individual promotion claim and related attorneys' fees would proceed to trial.

Employment DiscriminationClass ActionRacial DiscriminationPromotion DiscriminationHiring DiscriminationRule 23(a)Statistical EvidenceDisparate ImpactDisparate TreatmentRes Judicata
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goden v. Runyon

This case concerns Judith Goden's claim of age discrimination against Marvin T. Runyon, Postmaster General, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Ms. Goden alleged she was denied a promotion to Investigative Program Analyst due to her age, with a younger, less experienced employee, Jo Skiles, being selected instead. The court found that postal officials, specifically Joseph M. Kelly and Stephen A. Schmerbeck, deliberately manipulated job requirements, altered the selecting official, and provided preferential training to Ms. Skiles to ensure her promotion. This constituted blatant age discrimination and disparate treatment. Consequently, the court granted judgment to Ms. Goden, awarding her promotion, back pay, liquidated damages for willful violation, costs, and attorney's fees, while enjoining future discrimination.

Age discriminationADEAemployment discriminationpromotion denialdisparate treatmentpre-selectionwillful violationU.S. Postal Servicejob requirements manipulationtraining discrimination
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moylan v. National Westminster Bank USA

James Moylan, a 59-year-old assistant vice-president at National Westminster Bank USA (NatWest) with 27 years of service, sued NatWest for age discrimination following his early retirement in 1985. Moylan alleged constructive discharge and refusal to promote due to age after receiving his first-ever unfavorable job rating, being denied a promotion, and being threatened with probation and discharge by his new superior, Ernest Geib. NatWest moved for summary judgment, arguing Moylan was an at-will employee, not constructively discharged, and failed to apply for a promotion, and that the state age discrimination claim was barred by election of remedies. The court granted NatWest's motion to dismiss the breach of contract and state age discrimination claims (Counts III and IV) but denied summary judgment on the federal age discrimination claims (Counts I and II), finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding constructive discharge and pretext.

Age discriminationConstructive dischargeSummary judgmentEmployment at willRefusal to promoteFederal law claimsState law claimsPrima facie casePretextMcDonnell Douglas standard
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mock v. City of Rome

Plaintiff Michael Mock sued the City of Rome and its Police Department, alleging discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and New York Military Law. Mock claimed harassment based on his military status and denial of promotions. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the absence of a hostile work environment, lack of direct evidence for promotional discrimination, and the non-existence of a private right of action under New York Military Law section 318, also asserting the defense of laches. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the harassment claim and dismissed the City of Rome Police Department as a suable entity. However, the court denied summary judgment on the failure to promote claim and the state law discrimination claim, finding genuine issues of material fact. The laches defense was also denied.

USERRAMilitary DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationFailure to PromoteHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentNew York Military LawLachesPolice DepartmentPublic Employee Rights
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bucknell v. Refined Sugars, Inc.

Plaintiff Lloyd Bucknell, an electrician employed by Refined Sugars, Inc. (RSI), filed an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York Executive Law § 296, alleging age discrimination after being denied a promotion to electrical technician. Bucknell, 60 years old at the time, had previously failed a 1994 training program for the position and subsequently failed an oral examination for the same position in 1998, correctly answering only two out of nine questions. RSI promoted two younger employees, aged 30 and 31, who demonstrated their qualifications by passing the test. The court granted RSI's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Bucknell failed to demonstrate that RSI's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not promoting him (lack of qualifications) was pretextual or that age was the real motivating factor behind the decision, as deviations from seniority policies alone were insufficient to prove age discrimination.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CasePretextSeniorityCollective Bargaining AgreementQualificationPromotion DenialADEA
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cardoza v. Healthfirst, Inc.

Plaintiff Paula Cardozo sued Health-first, Inc. under Title VII and New York Human Rights Laws, alleging gender discrimination for being denied a promotion and subsequently terminated. She claimed a less qualified man was promoted over her and that her termination was gender-based. Defendant Healthfirst moved for summary judgment, arguing legitimate non-discriminatory business reasons for its actions, including the promoted individual's strong performance and a shift in business emphasis leading to the plaintiff's position becoming less significant. The court, presided over by Judge Berman, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the failure to promote claim and did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendant's stated reasons were a pretext for discrimination regarding either the promotion or the termination. Consequently, the federal claims were dismissed, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Gender DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment LawFailure to PromoteWrongful TerminationNew York Human Rights LawPrima Facie CasePretextDisparate Treatment
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Day v. KRYSTAL COMPANY

Plaintiff Kristen Madison Day filed a lawsuit against Krystal Company, alleging gender discrimination, failure to promote, gender-based hostile work environment, and wage discrimination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted on all claims. The Court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for gender discrimination, hostile work environment, or failure to promote. For the wage discrimination claims, the Court determined the defendant provided sufficient evidence that wage disparities were based on factors other than sex, such as experience and job responsibilities. Consequently, all of the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

Gender DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTennessee Human Rights ActEqual Pay ActHostile Work EnvironmentFailure to PromoteWage DiscriminationEmployment LawFederal Civil ProcedureEmployee Benefits Manager
References
52
Case No. 02-22-00305-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2023

University of North Texas Health Science Center v. Marcy Paul

Marcy Paul sued the University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) for age and sex discrimination, and retaliation, after her employment contract was not renewed and she was not hired for a tenure-track position or promoted to Department Chair. UNTHSC filed a plea to the jurisdiction on sovereign-immunity grounds. Paul conceded the lack of jurisdiction for the failure-to-promote to Department Chair claim. The Court of Appeals found that Paul presented sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue on her age- and sex-discrimination claims related to the failure to hire her for a tenure-track professor position, and her age-discrimination claim for the contract nonrenewal. However, the court found insufficient evidence for her sex-discrimination claim related to the contract nonrenewal. Consequently, the trial court's denial of UNTHSC's plea to the jurisdiction was affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part.

Age DiscriminationSex DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionPrima Facie CasePretextMcDonnell DouglasTenure-track position
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heap v. County of Schenectady

Plaintiff Kathleen Heap sued the County of Schenectady and Robert McEvoy, alleging sex discrimination regarding promotion and pay, in violation of Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Equal Protection Clause, and the New York Executive Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the Personnel Administrator position was policy-making and exempt from Title VII, and that Heap failed to establish prima facie cases for her claims. The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the claims of pattern and practice discrimination, Title VII pay discrimination, and Equal Pay Act violations. However, the court denied summary judgment on the claims of discrimination in promotion, Equal Protection, and New York Executive Law, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained for trial.

Gender DiscriminationFailure to PromoteEqual Pay ActTitle VIISection 1983Equal Protection ClauseNew York Executive LawSummary Judgment MotionPrima Facie CasePretext
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 2,554 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