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

Smith v. Texaco, Inc.

This Memorandum Opinion addresses a racial discrimination class action lawsuit brought by approximately 200 salaried African-American employees against Star Enterprise and related corporate entities. The plaintiffs allege company-wide discriminatory practices in promotion, compensation, and career advancement, specifically challenging the subjective Performance Management Program (PMP) and the absence of formal job posting systems. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification under both Rule 23(b)(2) for equitable relief and Rule 23(b)(3) for legal relief, including compensatory and punitive damages. The decision includes provisions for a bifurcated trial structure to ensure Seventh Amendment rights are protected and addresses statute of limitations concerns by applying equitable tolling due to the plaintiffs' reliance on a prior, related class action.

Racial discriminationEmployment discriminationClass actionTitle VIISection 1981Disparate impactDisparate treatmentClass certificationSubjective evaluationPerformance management program
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ralph Jones Sheet Metal, Inc.

The court addressed Defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding Plaintiff's Title VII claims of racial discrimination and hostile work environment, alongside claims for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). Defendant argued the alleged harasser, Kenny Rainey, was not a supervisor, the racial slurs were not severe or pervasive, and the complaint mechanism was not utilized. However, the Court found significant disputed material facts, including Rainey's de facto supervisory authority and the pervasive nature of the racial harassment. Evidence presented by the Plaintiff indicated numerous instances of racial slurs, racial graffiti, and management's inadequate response. Consequently, the Court denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment, determining that genuine issues of fact existed for trial.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIISummary Judgment DenialSupervisory AuthorityRacial EpithetsEmployee HarassmentEmployer LiabilityAnti-Harassment PolicyUnion Collective Bargaining
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2009

Claim of Cuthbert v. Panorama Windows Ltd.

Claimant, a purchasing clerk, sought workers' compensation benefits after being assaulted by a coworker. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, finding the assault originated from work-related differences. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, concluding there was a sufficient nexus between the employment relationship and the assault, despite a history of personal animosity and racial slurs between the individuals. The Board relied on the plant manager's credible testimony, which indicated the claimant's workplace attitude created tension. The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, finding no error in their determination of a work-related nexus for the assault.

AssaultWorkplace InjuryWorkers' CompensationEmployment NexusCoworker DisputeRacial DiscriminationBoard AffirmationAppellate ReviewCredibilityPlant Manager Testimony
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2004

Stepheny v. Brooklyn Hebrew School for Special Children

Plaintiffs Maria and Gregory Stepheny, an interracial married couple, brought employment discrimination suits against their former employer, the Brooklyn Hebrew School for Special Children. Maria alleged a racially hostile work environment, race discrimination, and retaliation, while Gregory claimed a sexually hostile work environment and retaliation, citing violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Their termination in May 2001 followed a verbal and physical altercation with a co-worker, Nekeya Black, stemming from Gregory's prior extramarital affair with Black. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that any alleged harassment was due to personal animosity from the affair, not discrimination, and that the plaintiffs' termination was for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons related to workplace misconduct. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, concluding that the alleged harassment was not based on race or sex, was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, and the employer took reasonable remedial action. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of pretext in the termination decision.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIISection 1981New York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. SBC Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Earnestine Walker sued Defendant SBC Services, Inc. alleging same-sex harassment, racial discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII. The court granted partial summary judgment to SBC, dismissing Walker's same-sex harassment and retaliation claims, finding the harassment not sufficiently severe or pervasive and the retaliation claim conceded. However, the court denied SBC's motion for summary judgment on the racial discrimination (hostile work environment) claim, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the racially charged statements and conduct. The court also denied summary judgment on SBC's Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defenses, concluding that SBC failed to demonstrate it took prompt remedial action. Therefore, the racial discrimination claim and the affirmative defenses proceed to trial.

DiscriminationHarassmentTitle VIISummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentRace DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRetaliationEmployment LawFederal Court
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Broad Elm Auto Centers, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

The determination that petitioner engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in the conditions of complainant’s employment is supported by substantial evidence. The hearing testimony established that a store manager frequently made derogatory racial comments about the complainant, including referring to him as his 'little nigger slave,' in the presence of customers and co-workers. A compensatory award of $5,000 for mental anguish was found to be supported by the evidence and not excessive. The court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the Administrative Law Judge and Commissioner lacked authority to determine discriminatory practice based on racial slurs, even though the original complaint focused on unlawful termination due to racial discrimination. The Human Rights Law's predominant purpose is to eliminate discrimination in basic opportunities, and it considers racial insults and harassment in employment as unlawful discriminatory practice.

Racial discriminationUnlawful discriminatory practiceEmployment conditionsRacial slursHarassmentMental anguish awardHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAppellate decisionSubstantial evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grice v. Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District

Plaintiff Kimberly Grice sued Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District (WTH) for racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act. The court reviewed WTH's motion for summary judgment and found that Grice failed to establish a prima facie case for discriminatory discipline. While she established a prima facie case for discriminatory demotion, she did not provide sufficient evidence of pretext. Her failure to promote claim was also denied due to insufficient evidence of racial motivation. Furthermore, her hostile work environment claim lacked evidence of racial harassment, and her retaliation claim failed because her internal grievances did not explicitly mention racial discrimination. Finally, the THRA claim was dismissed due to WTH's sovereign immunity in federal court. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActTennessee Human Rights ActMcDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingDisparate TreatmentFailure to Promote
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacK v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Plaintiff Michael Mack sued The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Dr. Scott Bergman for racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination under 42 U.S.C. sections 1981 and 1983, and New York Executive Law section 296. Mack, an African-American employee, alleged his supervisor, Iannacone, and Dr. Bergman subjected him to racial jokes, disparate treatment, and a hostile work environment. Mack was terminated after failing a drug test and refusing to provide a second urine sample, which he claimed was racially motivated. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing all claims, finding that Mack failed to demonstrate a municipal policy or custom for the Port Authority's liability and did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of wrongful termination or a racially hostile work environment. Additionally, state law claims were dismissed as New York anti-discrimination laws do not apply to the bi-state Port Authority.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Port AuthorityBi-State AgencyMunicipal LiabilityDrug Testing
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

Plaintiff Tametra Y. Moore, an African-American woman, sued her employer, Cricket Communications, Inc., alleging sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Moore claimed her manager, Travis Mikkola, made sexually explicit and racially discriminatory remarks, including displaying a nude photo of himself. After Moore complained, she alleged Mikkola retaliated by attempting to have her fired, turning co-workers against her, and assigning her extra tasks. The Court denied Cricket's Motion for Summary Judgment, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to consider claims of hostile work environment, racial discrimination (due to adequate administrative exhaustion), and retaliation, as well as the existence of damages.

Sexual harassmentRacial discriminationRetaliationHostile work environmentSummary judgment motionTitle VIIEEOC exhaustionProtected activityAdverse employment actionCausal link
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moodie v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Vincent Moodie, a Black male, sued the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for racial discrimination under Title VII after his termination due to an altercation with a white co-worker. Moodie claimed his dismissal was racially motivated and that the bank's stated reason—that he was the aggressor in a workplace fight—was a pretext. The incident involved Moodie confronting his co-worker, Tony Riolo, over a derogatory remark, which escalated into a physical engagement. The court, presided over by Judge Lasker, found that Moodie failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the bank's internal investigation or dismissal decision was tainted by racial prejudice. The complaint was therefore dismissed, as the bank provided credible non-discriminatory explanations for its actions and demonstrated a consistent policy regarding workplace violence.

Race DiscriminationTitle VIIWorkplace ViolenceWrongful TerminationEmployer PolicyPretextDisparate TreatmentInternal InvestigationFederal Reserve BankAggressor
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 419 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