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 26, 2002

Hill v. Children's Village

Plaintiff Jamillah Hill sued The Children’s Village for sex discrimination and sexual harassment under Title VII and New York Human Rights Law, alleging both quid pro quo and hostile work environment theories. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court found that Hill could not proceed under a quid pro quo theory as her termination was remedied by reinstatement, but allowed her hostile work environment claims to proceed due to disputed facts regarding the employer's response and implementation of its harassment policy. However, Hill's retaliation claims were dismissed as she did not suffer an adverse employment action.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentEmployment DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActNew York Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentQuid Pro QuoRetaliationEmployer LiabilitySupervisor Misconduct

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Figueroa v. RSquared NY, Inc.

The plaintiff, Marlen Figueroa, commenced an action against her former employer, RSquared NY, Inc., and individuals Altai Hirji and Ain “Doe”, alleging quid pro quo sexual harassment and sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The sex discrimination claim against RSquared NY, Title VII claims against the individual defendants, and the NYSHRL claim against Hirji were dismissed. However, the quid pro quo sexual harassment claims against RSquared NY under both Title VII and NYSHRL, and the NYSHRL claim against Ain “Doe” were allowed to proceed.

Sexual HarassmentSex DiscriminationTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawQuid Pro Quo HarassmentMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Employer LiabilityIndividual LiabilityDe Facto Supervisor

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Sysco Food Services of Dallas, Inc.

Plaintiff Mia Wilson sued her former employer, SYSCO Food Services of Dallas, Inc., and her supervisor, Carroll Bonneau, alleging sexual harassment under Title VII and various state law claims. Wilson claimed Bonneau created a hostile work environment and engaged in quid pro quo harassment, leading to her termination. The defendants moved for summary judgment on several grounds. The court denied the defendants' objection to Wilson's affidavit. It granted summary judgment for the defendants on the hostile work environment, due process, and all state law claims. However, the court denied summary judgment on Wilson's quid pro quo sexual harassment claim against Bonneau in his official capacity, finding genuine factual disputes.

Sexual HarassmentTitle VIIQuid Pro QuoHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentEmployment LawRetaliationDue ProcessIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressBreach of Contract

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Carter v. New York

The plaintiff, an African-American woman, filed a complaint against the New York State Department of Education (DOE), James Gaughan, and the New York State Department of Civil Service (DSC) alleging sex and race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She claimed hostile work environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment by her supervisor, James Gaughan, along with disparate treatment and disparate impact race discrimination, including denial of promotions. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted summary judgment to Defendants on all claims, finding some claims time-barred and others lacking sufficient evidence or failing to meet legal thresholds for hostile work environment, quid pro quo harassment, and retaliation.

DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro QuoRetaliationRace DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentExhaustion RequirementTimeliness

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 15, 1996

Carlson v. Rockwell Space Operations Co.

Michelle Carlson filed a lawsuit against Rockwell Space Operations Company (RSOC), Rockwell International Corp., and Jesse Castillo, alleging Title VII violations (hostile environment, quid pro quo, retaliation) and common law claims (intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, negligent hiring, training, and supervision). The court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants. It determined that Castillo was not an "employer" under Title VII and his conduct, though inappropriate, did not meet the legal thresholds for intentional infliction of emotional distress or assault. Rockwell International was also found not to be Carlson's employer. RSOC successfully argued that Carlson failed to establish a hostile work environment, quid pro quo harassment, or retaliation, and that her common law claims lacked independent actionable torts, leading to their dismissal.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo HarassmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAssaultNegligent HiringTexas Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 24, 1998

Hernandez v. Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman

Plaintiff Sumaira Hernandez filed an action against her employer, Defendant Jackson Lewis, alleging quid pro quo and hostile work environment sexual harassment, unlawful retaliation, and unlawful discrimination based on race and national origin, pursuant to Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law. Hernandez claimed that a billing coordinator, Mr. Mack, solicited sexual favors in exchange for overtime, and that the comptroller, Mr. Patterson, engaged in discriminatory practices regarding work assignments, bonuses, and promotions, and responded inappropriately to her complaints. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing prompt action and insufficient evidence for various claims. The Court denied the motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding triable issues of fact regarding employer liability, quid pro quo harassment, hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro QuoRetaliationDiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion

References

Case No. 45

Regular Panel Decision

Humphreys v. Medical Towers, Ltd.

Plaintiff Humphreys filed suit against Medical Towers, Ltd., Diva Corporation, and David A. Lawson, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, hostile environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment, sex discrimination, retaliation, constructive discharge, and violations of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, also contesting Lawson's personal liability and specific damage elements. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and individual liability for Lawson as a supervisor. However, the court denied summary judgment on claims of hostile work environment sexual harassment, sex discrimination, retaliation, constructive discharge, and issues related to Lawson's liability as a limited partner or alter ego. Remaining factual disputes regarding these claims, as well as the mitigation of damages and entitlement to lease commissions, necessitate further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo Sexual HarassmentSex DiscriminationRetaliationConstructive DischargeEmployer LiabilityPersonal LiabilityMitigation of Damages

References

Case No. 09-22-00222-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 12, 2024

Colleen Paige Simmons v. Top Deck, Inc.

Colleen Simmons sued her former employer, Top Deck, Inc., for employment discrimination, alleging sexual harassment (quid pro quo and hostile work environment) and retaliation by a Top Deck employee, Justin Bufford. Simmons claimed Bufford requested sexually explicit photos and engaged in sexual banter, leading to a lack of work assignments. Top Deck moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, finding no genuine issues of material fact. The court concluded there was no evidence of quid pro quo harassment because the sexual text messages occurred after Simmons had already decided to cease employment. Furthermore, Top Deck successfully invoked the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense for the hostile work environment claim, as Simmons failed to report the alleged harassment through established company procedures. Finally, Simmons's retaliation claim failed because her actions did not constitute 'protected opposition' under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentQuid Pro QuoHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentFaragher-Ellerth DefenseTexas Labor CodeText MessagesWorkplace Policy

References

Case No. 2022-01-0054

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 13, 2023

Espinosa, Rodolfo v. Maestro’s Pro Services, LLC

Laura Estrella de Espinosa sought death benefits following the passing of her husband, Rodolfo Espinosa, who died from heatstroke while employed by Maestro’s Pro Services, LLC. The employer, being uninsured for workers’ compensation, did not appear at the hearing. Mrs. Espinosa testified regarding her husband’s work and the circumstances leading to his death. However, the Court concluded that she failed to meet her burden of proof by not providing expert medical testimony establishing that her husband's death arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, specifically that the work-related cause contributed more than fifty percent. Consequently, the Court denied the requested benefits, though it did tax the filing fee against Maestro’s Pro Services.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsHeatstrokeCardiac ArrestMedical CausationBurden of ProofUninsured EmployerEmployee DeathTennessee LawFactual Insufficiency

References

Case No. NO. 12-09-00283-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 28, 2011

the Glidden Company D/B/A ICI Paints, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. CDNE, Inc. D/B/A All Pro Services, Appellee/Cross-Appellant

The Glidden Company appealed a trial court judgment awarding CDNE, Inc. damages for defective paint and attorney's fees, while All Pro Services cross-appealed regarding Glidden's award. The primary dispute centered on interpreting the 1582 Agreement concerning reimbursement for remediation costs incurred due to failed paint. The appellate court found the term 'costs' ambiguous and upheld the trial court's decision that All Pro Services was entitled to reimbursement at a rate of $32.50 per hour, including overtime. The court also affirmed that Glidden had effectively disclaimed consequential damages and that the replacement paint was not provided free of charge. However, the court reversed and remanded the case for reconsideration of Glidden's attorney's fees.

Contract InterpretationBreach of ContractConsequential DamagesAttorney's FeesContract AmbiguityReimbursementOvertime WagesDisclaimer ClauseSales AgreementPainting Contract

References

Showing 1-10 of 697 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

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 26, 2002

Hill v. Children's Village

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentEmployment DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActNew York Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentQuid Pro QuoRetaliationEmployer LiabilitySupervisor Misconduct

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Figueroa v. RSquared NY, Inc.

Sexual HarassmentSex DiscriminationTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawQuid Pro Quo HarassmentMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Employer LiabilityIndividual LiabilityDe Facto Supervisor

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Sysco Food Services of Dallas, Inc.

Sexual HarassmentTitle VIIQuid Pro QuoHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentEmployment LawRetaliationDue ProcessIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressBreach of Contract

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Carter v. New York

DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro QuoRetaliationRace DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentExhaustion RequirementTimeliness

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 15, 1996

Carlson v. Rockwell Space Operations Co.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo HarassmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAssaultNegligent HiringTexas Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 24, 1998

Hernandez v. Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro QuoRetaliationDiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion

References

Case No. 45

Regular Panel Decision

Humphreys v. Medical Towers, Ltd.

References

Case No. 09-22-00222-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 12, 2024

Colleen Paige Simmons v. Top Deck, Inc.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentQuid Pro QuoHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentFaragher-Ellerth DefenseTexas Labor CodeText MessagesWorkplace Policy

References

Case No. 2022-01-0054

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 13, 2023

Espinosa, Rodolfo v. Maestro’s Pro Services, LLC

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsHeatstrokeCardiac ArrestMedical CausationBurden of ProofUninsured EmployerEmployee DeathTennessee LawFactual Insufficiency

References

Case No. NO. 12-09-00283-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 28, 2011

the Glidden Company D/B/A ICI Paints, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. CDNE, Inc. D/B/A All Pro Services, Appellee/Cross-Appellant

Contract InterpretationBreach of ContractConsequential DamagesAttorney's FeesContract AmbiguityReimbursementOvertime WagesDisclaimer ClauseSales AgreementPainting Contract

References

Showing 1-10 of 697 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.