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. 14-05-00831-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2006

Joseph Earl Bias v. State

Joseph Earl Bias appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, asserting errors in the trial court's granting of the State's challenges for cause to two venirepersons and factual insufficiency of the evidence. The case originated from an incident where Bias allegedly pulled a gun and fired shots in a shoe store. The jury found Bias guilty, assessing a twenty-year confinement. The appellate court found the evidence factually sufficient, citing positive identification of Bias by the complainant and corroborating testimony. The court also determined that any error in excusing venirepersons did not deprive Bias of a lawfully constituted jury, thus affirming the trial court's judgment.

Aggravated AssaultFactual SufficiencyEvidentiary ReviewVoir DireJury SelectionChallenges for CauseCredibility of WitnessesCriminal AppealTexas LawCourt of Appeals
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wing Shung Lam v. Chung-Ko Cheng

The case involves a labor dispute between plaintiffs, the Chinese Staff and Workers Association (CSWA) and its director Wing Shung Lam, and defendants, Jing Fong Restaurant and its shareholders. Plaintiffs sued for defamation and emotional distress, but a jury found no liability or awarded no damages. The trial court subsequently granted plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, citing juror misconduct based on alleged racial bias. This document is a dissenting opinion, arguing for the reversal of the trial court's decision. The dissent contends there was insufficient proof of racial bias affecting the verdict and that any claims of jury misconduct were waived by the plaintiffs' attorneys due to their failure to object during in-camera meetings. Additionally, the dissent disputes the trial court's findings regarding verdict inconsistency and whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

Juror MisconductRacial BiasDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressLabor DisputeVerdict ImpeachmentPosttrial AffidavitsWaiverInconsistent VerdictWeight of Evidence
References
23
Case No. ADJ10084731, ADJ10084732
Regular
Nov 27, 2017

TIMOTHY BEECHAM vs. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC

This case involved the striking of a Qualified Medical Evaluator's (PQME) report due to concerns of racial or ethnic bias. The WCJ found the PQME's deposition testimony, where she referred to the applicant's "Negro blood" and linked it to her assessment of his muscle tone and strength, indicated bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed this decision, agreeing that such statements suggested reliance on stereotypes and improper medical conclusions. Consequently, the PQME's report was deemed not substantial evidence and was struck, with a new medical evaluation ordered.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorRacial BiasEthnic BiasSubstantial EvidenceStriking ReportNew PanelNeurologyIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell v. Cellco Partnership

Patrick Campbell initiated a diversity action against Verizon Wireless, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Campbell, an African-American, claimed he was unfairly denied promotions, subjected to discriminatory transfers, and ultimately terminated as part of a discriminatory scheme by management. Verizon moved for partial summary judgment, asserting legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its employment decisions, including Campbell's documented performance issues and failure to meet sales quotas. The court granted Verizon's motion, dismissing Campbell's discrimination claims, finding insufficient evidence to support his allegations of racial bias in promotions, transfers, hostile work environment, or termination, and noting that several claims were time-barred.

Race DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentHuman Rights LawPerformance Improvement PlanDisparate TreatmentHostile Work EnvironmentFailure to PromoteDiscriminatory Discharge
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2000

Jordan v. Olsten Corp.

Angela Jordan, an African-American woman, sued her former employer, Olsten Health Services and Olsten Corporation, under Title VII for alleged racial discrimination following her termination in November 1996 from her client care coordinator position. Olsten sought summary judgment, asserting Jordan was fired for violating a confidentiality policy by discussing administrative salaries. Jordan argued this reason was a pretext for racial discrimination, highlighting alleged bias from another supervisor, insufficient policy notice, a flawed investigation, and disparate treatment. The court found no evidence of discriminatory animus by the primary decision-maker, Joyce Markiewicz, and concluded that Markiewicz genuinely believed Jordan breached confidentiality. Consequently, the court granted Olsten's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Jordan's complaint.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentConfidentiality PolicyEmployee TerminationPretextDisparate TreatmentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkEmployer LiabilityWorkplace Discrimination
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'LOUGHLIN v. Procon, Inc.

Plaintiff Hugh O’Loughlin, a black male of Cuban origin, brought suit against Procon, Inc., alleging discriminatory discharge based on race and national origin under Title VII and 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981, alongside a common law claim for wrongful discharge. O'Loughlin, a material control supervisor, experienced an antagonistic work environment, claiming racial epithets and obstruction from co-workers, while the defendant asserted his delinquency in processing purchase orders. Despite O'Loughlin establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, the court found Procon, Inc. provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his termination—his unwillingness to cooperate and perform duties—which the plaintiff failed to prove was a pretext for racial bias. Furthermore, the court dismissed the wrongful discharge claim, affirming Texas's at-will employment doctrine given no illegal act was refused by the plaintiff. Consequently, judgment was entered for the Defendant, denying O'Loughlin relief under all asserted claims.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationTitle VII42 U.S.C.S. § 1981Wrongful DischargePrima Facie CasePretextAt-will EmploymentBusiness Necessity
References
19
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. SDO 0335244
Regular

FREDDY GOMEZ vs. EL TORITO RESTAURANT, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

This case involved a petition to disqualify a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) based on a prior declaration of bias and an alleged appearance of bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition. The WCAB found that while a previous case established a past appearance of bias, the current petition lacked specific evidence of present bias or appearance thereof. Furthermore, the WCAB concluded that sufficient time had passed since the prior proceedings, and the appearance of bias, if any, had sufficiently attenuated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10452Appearance of BiasActual BiasBlanket RecusalMandatory Settlement ConferenceIndustrial Injury
References
1
Case No. SDO 341698
Regular
Jul 23, 2007

EVA STERBA vs. CARDIFF SOFWARE, INC., CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: A petition to disqualify a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) based on a past admitted bias against the applicant's law firm was denied. The Appeals Board found that the six-year-old declaration of bias had been sufficiently attenuated and lacked present evidence of actual or apparent bias. Future disqualification would require specific evidence demonstrating bias.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDisqualificationAdministrative Law JudgeBiasTrovillion Inveiss Ponticello DemakisAppearance of BiasBlanket RecusalRobbins v Sharp HealthcareDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement Conference
References
1
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
Showing 1-10 of 752 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