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

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Johnson & Higgins

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Johnson & Higgins (J&H) over a mandatory pre-65 retirement policy that violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court previously found J&H liable and issued an injunction. J&H then sought partial summary judgment to dismiss claims for monetary and injunctive relief based on waivers signed by thirteen retired employee-directors, who had received $1,000 in exchange for waiving ADEA rights. The retired directors later repudiated these waivers, citing conflict of interest, economic duress, and undue influence. The EEOC opposed the waivers, arguing inadequate consideration, lack of voluntariness, and that J&H negotiated them without EEOC participation after a finding of liability. The District Court denied J&H's motion for summary judgment, finding material issues of fact regarding the adequacy of consideration and the voluntariness of the waivers. The court also held that waivers entered into after a finding of liability and without EEOC participation are invalid as a matter of law.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActADEAWaiversSummary JudgmentKnowing and VoluntaryConsiderationOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActOWBPARepudiation of WaiversEEOC Litigation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tuttle v. Housing Opportunities Management & Essential Services, Inc.

The plaintiff, a 30-year-old man diagnosed with retardation, suffered severe burns from an assault by a friend in his apartment. He resided in an intensive supportive apartment provided by Housing Opportunities Management and Essential Services, Inc. (H.O.M.E.S.), a non-profit organization offering housing for individuals with psychiatric or developmental conditions within a state-authorized community living program. While H.O.M.E.S. staff and other therapists had approved his move to this less restrictive setting, concerns arose regarding friends taking advantage of him, leading H.O.M.E.S. to initiate a discharge process for him to move to a more supervised environment, which was not completed before the incident. The court deliberated on whether H.O.M.E.S. owed a duty to protect the plaintiff from a third party's criminal acts. Citing Mental Hygiene Law and various precedents, the court concluded that H.O.M.E.S. had no such special duty, emphasizing that the community care system prioritizes individual liberties and the assault by the friend was not reasonably foreseeable. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Community HousingDevelopmental DisabilitiesPsychiatric ConditionsNegligenceDuty of CareForeseeabilityThird-Party Criminal ActsMental Hygiene LawCommunity Care SystemResidential Programs
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bowaters Southern Paper Corp. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

This case involves a petition by Bowaters Southern Paper Corporation to set aside a demand for access to evidence by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and a cross-petition by the EEOC to enforce its demand. The dispute arose after a Commissioner's charge alleging unlawful employment practices against Bowaters was filed, leading to an EEOC investigation and subsequently a demand for extensive personnel records. Bowaters contended the demand was invalid because the underlying charge failed to "set forth the facts upon which it is based" as required by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court found that the Commissioner's charge, which merely listed general discriminatory practices without supporting facts, was legally insufficient to invoke the Commission's investigative jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court denied the EEOC's motion for enforcement and set aside the demand for access to evidence, concluding that a valid charge is a jurisdictional prerequisite for an investigation.

Equal Employment OpportunityCivil Rights Act of 1964Administrative LawInvestigative AuthorityJudicial ReviewSufficiency of ChargeDemand for EvidenceUnlawful Employment PracticesRacial DiscriminationJurisdictional Prerequisite
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Express Publishing Corp.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against American Express Publishing Corporation, alleging age discrimination in the termination of J. Stewart Lahey's employment, violating the ADEA. American Express moved for summary judgment, arguing Lahey had released his ADEA claim by signing an agreement for severance pay. A previous summary judgment motion was denied due to factual issues regarding the knowing and voluntary nature of the release. The court, applying factors such as Lahey's education, time to review the agreement, role in negotiation, and clarity of terms, found that while some factors favored dismissal, significant factual disputes remained. These disputes include the actual time Lahey possessed the release, whether he genuinely negotiated its terms, and the extent and understanding of the consideration received. Therefore, the court denied American Express's renewed motion for summary judgment, concluding these issues require a trial.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationRelease AgreementSummary JudgmentVoluntary WaiverKnowing WaiverSeverance PayFactual DisputeADEAEmployee Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Shelby County Government

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against J.A. Blackwell, Shelby County, and the Shelby County Board of Commissioners, alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act on behalf of fourteen female employees. The court found that female employees performing substantially equal work to male counterparts received lower wages. Defendants failed to prove that wage disparities were based on seniority, merit, quality/quantity of work, or any factor other than sex. The court concluded that sex was a 'but for' cause of the disparity, ruled the violation was willful, and awarded backpay and prospective wage increases to the claimants.

Equal Pay ActWage DiscriminationGender DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationFair Labor Standards ActWillful ViolationBackpayLiquidated DamagesSubjective Pay SystemCivil Rights
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought a lawsuit against Firestone Tire & Rubber Company and its unions, alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The EEOC contended that Firestone unlawfully failed to provide severance awards to employees eligible for pensions when its Memphis plant closed in 1983. The court ruled that the EEOC's claim was time-barred due to exceeding the two-year statute of limitations, and found no willful violation by Firestone. Furthermore, the court concluded that Firestone's P&I Plan, viewed comprehensively, did not adversely affect older employees, who received greater overall benefits. The court also upheld Firestone's defense that its plan was a bona fide employee benefit plan. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Age DiscriminationSeverance PayPension PlanADEAStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentEmployee BenefitsPlant ClosureCollective BargainingWillful Violation
References
17
Case No. 71 Civ. 2877
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1990

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Local 580

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sought to enforce subpoenas against entities related to defendants Local 580 and AJEF to uncover their true financial condition. The defendants claimed financial impossibility in complying with a consent judgment regarding discrimination. After a Special Master's initial denial of discovery for certain years was overturned by the court, the defendants and non-parties moved to vacate the Special Master's revised order and dismiss EEOC's appeal, citing procedural irregularities. The court denied their motion, affirming the relevance of the financial records and rejecting their procedural arguments, as well as denying a request for interlocutory appeal certification and a stay of production.

Employment DiscriminationContempt of CourtConsent Judgment EnforcementDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Duces TecumSpecial Master AuthorityFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureInterlocutory AppealUnion FinanceApprenticeship Programs
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2009

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc. and Townsend Oil Corporation on behalf of ten claimants, alleging sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendants moved to compel the production of claimants' medical and mental health records. The court addressed the psychotherapist-patient privilege, finding that Claimant #2, who saw mental health professionals, did not waive her privilege because she only asserted a "garden variety" emotional distress claim and did not intend to use privileged communications at trial. The court clarified that the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not extend to medical, non-mental health providers. For seven claimants, including the Charging Party and Claimant #2, the court ordered the disclosure of medical records relevant to emotional distress, limiting the scope to one year prior to, through one year subsequent to, their employment with Nichols, subject to a protective order to safeguard privacy.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentDiscovery MotionPsychotherapist PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeEmotional DistressWaiverFederal Civil ProcedureCivil Rights ActHostile Work Environment
References
26
Case No. 15-25-00120-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2025

Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund, LP and Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund II, LP v. Primexx Energy Corporation, M. Christopher Doyle, Angelo Acconcia, Blackstone Inc., Blackstone Holdings III LP, Blackstone EMA II LLC, BMA VII LLC, Blackstone Energy Management Associates II LLC, Blackstone Energy Partners II LP, Blackstone Management Associates VII LLC, Blackstone Capital Partners VII LP, BCP VII/BEP II Holdings Manager LLC, BX Primexx Topco LLC, and BPP Holdco LLC

This case concerns an appeal by minority investors of Primexx, a Texas oil partnership, alleging that the controlling partner, Blackstone, breached contractual and statutory duties of good faith, fair dealing, loyalty, and care during a "drag-along" sale of Primexx's assets. Plaintiffs claim Blackstone orchestrated a "fire sale" to Callon Petroleum, leading to a near-total loss on their $200 million investment. The Business Court granted summary judgment in large part to the defendants, ruling that the partnership agreement's drag-along rights and the Texas Business Organizations Code permitted the controlling partner's actions concerning the sale process and price. However, the court denied summary judgment on claims related to the improper distribution and unfair allocation of sale proceeds. The court also granted special appearances for Blackstone Inc. and Angelo Acconcia, dismissing all causes of action against other Blackstone entities and M. Christopher Doyle.

Partnership DisputeCorporate GovernancePrivate EquityOil and GasTexas LawFiduciary DutyGood Faith and Fair DealingDrag-Along RightsSummary JudgmentAppeal
References
66
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,312 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