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. 412 U.S. 755
Regular Panel Decision

Graves v. Barnes

This case, a remand from the Supreme Court following White v. Regester, addresses the constitutionality of state legislative redistricting in Texas. A three-judge court examined multi-member districts across several counties for racial gerrymandering and vote dilution, finding historical discrimination and political exclusion of minority groups. The court concluded that seven districts (Tarrant, Jefferson, McLennan, Travis, Lubbock, El Paso, and Nueces Counties) unconstitutionally minimized minority voting strength and ordered the implementation of single-member districts for the 1974 elections. Additionally, the redistricting plan for Galveston County's Districts 17 and 19 was declared an impermissible racial gerrymander.

Legislative RedistrictingMulti-member DistrictsRacial GerrymanderingVote DilutionEqual ProtectionFifteenth AmendmentMinority Voting RightsPolitical AccessRacial DiscriminationSingle-member Districts
References
20
Case No. docket no. 1339
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2017

Perez v. Abbott

This Amended Order addresses Plaintiffs' claims against Texas's 2011 congressional redistricting plan (Plan C185), focusing on Voting Rights Act (§ 2) and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The Court found that the configurations of districts CD23, CD27, and CD35 in South/West Texas were invalid due to intentional vote dilution and Shaw-type racial gerrymandering. In the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) area, the Court also found intentional vote dilution through packing and cracking of minority voters, and a Shaw-type racial gerrymandering claim for CD26. However, claims for additional compact minority districts in DFW and Houston under § 2 results claims were denied, as were intentional vote dilution claims in the Houston area and claims from African-American Congresspersons. The decision highlights ongoing issues in balancing partisan redistricting with the protection of minority voting rights.

RedistrictingVoting Rights ActFourteenth AmendmentEqual Protection ClauseVote DilutionRacial GerrymanderingShaw-type ClaimsIntentional DiscriminationCompactnessMinority Opportunity Districts
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vera v. Richards

This case addresses a challenge to the 1991 Texas Congressional Redistricting Plan (HB1), specifically regarding allegations of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. Plaintiffs, a group of six Texas voters, argued that various congressional districts, particularly Districts 18, 29, and 30, were drawn with irregular boundaries solely to segregate voters by race. The court found that these three districts indeed exhibited extraordinarily convoluted shapes, which were unexplainable by traditional districting principles and were primarily designed to achieve specific racial compositions for electing minority representatives. The state's arguments, including incumbent protection and Voting Rights Act compliance, were deemed insufficient to justify the racially driven boundaries or to demonstrate narrow tailoring. Consequently, the court declared Congressional Districts 18, 29, and 30 unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

RedistrictingRacial GerrymanderingVoting Rights ActEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentMajority-Minority DistrictsIncumbency ProtectionCongressional DistrictsShaw v. RenoRacial Segregation
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Harris County

This case addresses a challenge by Plaintiffs, including individuals and the League of United Latin American Citizens, against Harris County, Texas, and its County Judge, regarding the legality of the 2011 redistricting plan, Revised Plan A-l. Plaintiffs alleged the plan diluted the voting strength of politically cohesive Latinos in Harris County Commissioner’s Precinct 2, thereby violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They further contended that the plan was developed with intentional discrimination against Hispanics and an unjustified use of racial data. The Court meticulously examined the three Gingles preconditions for a Section 2 violation—numerosity, cohesion, and racial bloc voting—along with the totality of circumstances. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to establish the first Gingles factor, specifically regarding the compactness and numerosity of a majority-minority district, which precluded a finding of vote dilution. Additionally, the Court found no evidence of discriminatory intent or predominant racial gerrymandering in the County's redistricting process, leading to the denial of all Plaintiffs' claims.

RedistrictingVoting Rights ActSection 2Equal Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentVote DilutionRacial GerrymanderingPolitical CohesionRacial Bloc VotingHarris County
References
0
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

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
Showing 1-10 of 386 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