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

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

Bexar County, Tx v. Gant

Elvin J. Gant, Jr. filed a discrimination charge with the Texas Commission on Human Rights on July 9, 1999, alleging race/national origin, color, sex, and age discrimination, stemming from a racial slur, lack of promotion, and eventual termination. After receiving a right-to-sue letter, Gant sued the County, asserting claims under the Texas Human Rights Act for unlawful failure to hire, unlawful discharge, and unlawful retaliation. The County moved for summary judgment, arguing Gant failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing his complaint within 180 days of the alleged racial slur. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Gant's race discrimination claims (failure to hire, unlawful discharge), concluding that the racial slur itself did not constitute an unlawful employment practice triggering the 180-day filing period. However, the court reversed and dismissed Gant's retaliation claim for lack of jurisdiction, finding he failed to exhaust administrative remedies as this claim was not included in his initial complaint and was not factually related to the race discrimination charge.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionSummary Judgment AppealTexas Human Rights ActJurisdictional DefectUnlawful Employment PracticeProbational PeriodRacial Slur
References
9
Case No. docket no. 54
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Bohls Bearing Equipment Co.

Plaintiff Robert D. Martinez, a Hispanic male, initiated claims against his employer, referred to as "Defendants," alleging violations of the Thirteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Martinez contended that the company president, Louis Bohls, subjected him to persistent racial harassment, including daily slurs, and that he faced retaliation for complaining about overtime pay and subsequently filing a wage claim with the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on Martinez's Thirteenth Amendment, § 1981, Title VII discrimination and retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, citing either a lack of a legal cause of action or insufficient evidence. However, the Court denied summary judgment on the Plaintiff's Title VII hostile work environment harassment claim and FLSA retaliation claim, determining that genuine issues of material fact remained, particularly regarding the pervasive racial slurs and the circumstances surrounding Martinez's termination. Finally, the Court certified its amended summary judgment order for interlocutory appeal, specifically addressing the complex legal question of whether private settlements of FLSA claims, even with a bona fide dispute as to liability, are permissible, and consequently stayed the entire case pending the outcome of this appeal.

Employment DiscriminationRacial HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationFair Labor Standards ActFLSAOvertime PaySummary JudgmentInterlocutory AppealWage Claim
References
60
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

Booker v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems

Plaintiff Anthony Booker, a black employee of Budget Rent-A-Car in Nashville, alleges race discrimination and racial harassment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, along with retaliation. He claims General Manager Guy Grundman subjected him to severe verbal abuse, racial slurs, and disproportionately harsh treatment, leading to a demotion in January 1993. Booker further alleges he was denied a promotion in April 1993 and retaliated against with a negative performance evaluation and denial of an Airport Manager position after filing an EEOC charge. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Booker's claims of racial harassment and discrimination regarding his demotion may proceed, but his failure to promote, retaliation, and wage discrimination claims were dismissed.

Racial HarassmentRace DiscriminationTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Hostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentDemotionEmployment LawSupervisor LiabilityDisparate Treatment
References
49
Case No. 86 CV 0698
Regular Panel Decision

Cassells v. University Hospital at Stony Brook

Plaintiff Casserene Cassells, a registered nurse, sued her former employer, University Hospital at Stony Brook, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York Human Rights Law. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims. The court denied the motion for summary judgment on the Title VII claim, citing genuine issues of material fact regarding racial animus and retaliatory conduct by the plaintiff's supervisors, including racial slurs and xenophobic remarks. However, the court dismissed the Human Rights Law claim, holding that New York State had not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to be sued in federal court for such state-law claims. The Title VII claim will proceed to trial.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentEleventh AmendmentFederal JurisdictionSupervisor HarassmentWrongful Termination
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooper v. Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District

Joe B. Cooper filed an employment discrimination suit against Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District (JMCGHD) on May 12, 2009, alleging race, color, and sex discrimination under Title VII. Cooper, a licensed clinical social worker, claimed his supervisor, Sheila Odom, created a hostile work environment through condescending behavior and racial slurs like "whitey" and "white boy," leading to his constructive discharge. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court dismissed claims of sex and color discrimination due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies with the EEOC. While acknowledging Odom's African-American race satisfied the "background circumstances" for reverse discrimination, the court found Cooper failed to present evidence of similarly situated African-American employees receiving better treatment. The court also concluded that most of Odom's alleged harassing behavior was racially neutral and that the racial comments lacked sufficient specificity and pervasiveness to establish a hostile work environment or constructive discharge. Consequently, the court granted JMCGHD's motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims.

Employment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentReverse DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIRacial HarassmentConstructive DischargeFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEEOCWorkplace Harassment
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2013

Kemp v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

This case involves five current or former train conductors who sued their employer, CSX Transportation, Inc., alleging racial discrimination under federal and New York state law. Plaintiffs claimed disparate treatment in discipline and work opportunities, and a hostile work environment characterized by racial slurs and graffiti. The court addressed CSX's motions for summary judgment, which challenged the timeliness and merits of the claims. While some disparate treatment claims related to work opportunities were dismissed as time-barred, the court found sufficient material facts for hostile work environment claims and certain disparate treatment claims regarding suspensions and terminations to proceed to trial. Additionally, the defendant's motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert witness was denied.

Racial discriminationHostile work environmentDisparate treatmentSummary judgmentEmployment lawCivil Rights Act of 1866New York Human Rights LawTrain conductorsAbsenteeism policyDisciplinary action
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sowemimo v. D.A.O.R. Security, Inc.

Plaintiff Debrah Sowemimo sued D.A.O.R. Security, Inc., her supervisor Mohammed Islam, the NYC Department of Homeless Services (DHS), and Deputy Director Leandra Barbieri, alleging employment discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliatory discharge, racial discrimination, negligence, and intentional torts. Sowemimo claimed Islam sexually harassed and assaulted her, and Barbieri made racial slurs. The court denied summary judgment for D.A.O.R. on sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge claims, and for Islam on sexual harassment and intentional torts. However, summary judgment was granted for DHS and Barbieri on all claims, and for D.A.O.R. on negligence and intentional torts, finding DHS was not Sowemimo's employer and D.A.O.R.'s conduct didn't meet the threshold for emotional distress.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliatory DischargeRacial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment MotionTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawEmployer LiabilityVicarious Liability
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holmes v. FSR/TENNESSEE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOUNDATION

Plaintiff Henry Holmes brought an action against FSR, PMG, and Boss alleging discriminatory treatment based on race and age, violating Title VII and the ADEA, after previous claims and a defendant were dismissed. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court denied summary judgment on the Title VII termination claim, finding direct evidence of racial discrimination from a decision-maker's use of racial slurs. However, summary judgment was granted for the ADEA claim because Holmes failed to rebut the defendants' legitimate, non-discriminatory reason of budgetary constraints and Holmes' lack of HVAC certification. Finally, the Court denied summary judgment regarding FSR's status as a joint employer, identifying a genuine issue of material fact concerning its control over employment terms. The unequal pay claims under Title VII and ADEA were not addressed and remain.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationAge DiscriminationTitle VIIADEASummary JudgmentDirect EvidencePretextJoint Employer DoctrineDiscriminatory Animus
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 392 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