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. 07-08-0388-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2009

Elizabeth Overstreet v. Judge Bradley S. Underwood, Individually and in His Capacity as Judge of the 364th Judicial District, Lubbock County, Texas

Elizabeth Overstreet appealed the trial court's decision regarding her employment termination and defamation claims against Judge Bradley Underwood. Overstreet, a Court Coordinator for the 364th District Court, was terminated after reporting an incident of inappropriate touching and subsequently not returning to her position. She filed complaints with the Texas Workforce Commission-Civil Rights Division, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation. The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the lawsuit was timely filed under the Texas Labor Code and considered the defamation claim. The court concluded that Overstreet's suit was not timely filed, as the first right-to-sue notice was controlling, and affirmed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment on the defamation claim, finding no defamatory statement was published.

Employment TerminationRetaliation ClaimDefamation LawsuitSummary Judgment AppealJurisdictional PleaStatute of LimitationsTexas Labor CodeCivil Rights ActCourt CoordinatorJudicial Capacity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 1995

Johnson v. City of Port Arthur

Glenn C. Johnson, a former employee of the City of Port Arthur, sought in forma pauperis status and appointment of counsel for a proposed ADA suit against his ex-employer after being terminated due to a disability. He suffered rhabdomy-dosis and could no longer perform strenuous tasks, leading to his termination. The City claimed inability to accommodate due to a lack of light-duty positions and budget cuts. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the in forma pauperis motion due to Johnson's financial hardship and diligent efforts to secure counsel, but denying appointment of counsel, finding his ADA claim lacked a substantial probability of success. The Magistrate Judge reasoned that changing a laborer to light-duty was not a 'reasonable accommodation' under the ADA. The District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, granting in forma pauperis status, denying appointment of counsel, and allowing Johnson until July 31, 1995, to file his Title VII complaint.

ADAAmericans With Disabilities ActIn Forma PauperisAppointment of CounselDisability DiscriminationEmployment LawReasonable AccommodationUndue HardshipEEOCMagistrate Judge Report
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parrott v. Commissioner SSA

The plaintiff sought judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's decision denying disability benefits. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was not timely filed. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion to dismiss, concluding the complaint was untimely. The plaintiff filed objections, introducing a new theory of constructive possession of the complaint by the clerk. The District Court, after de novo review, overruled the plaintiff's objections, citing the impropriety of raising new legal theories before the district judge that were not presented to the magistrate judge. Consequently, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss.

Social Security DisabilityJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissTimelinessFiling DeadlinesMagistrate Judge RecommendationsObjections to ReportDe Novo ReviewConstructive PossessionFederal Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hansbrough v. Titlemax of Tennessee, Inc.

Plaintiff Sharon Hansbrough sued her former employer, TitleMax of Tennessee, alleging age discrimination in denying promotions and termination of employment. The Magistrate Judge, Tu M. Pham, recommended granting TitleMax's motion for summary judgment, finding that Hansbrough failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination for both claims. Hansbrough filed objections, which the District Judge, S. Thomas Anderson, found to be non-specific reassertions of facts already in the record. Consequently, the District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, thereby granting summary judgment in favor of TitleMax. The decision highlighted Hansbrough's failure to properly apply for promotions and her inability to demonstrate that similarly situated, non-protected employees were treated more favorably in the context of her termination.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawFailure to PromoteTerminationPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkCircumstantial EvidenceObjections to Magistrate ReportFederal Civil Procedure
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2013

Bullard v. Texas Department of Aging & Disability Services

Teresa Bullard, proceeding pro se, filed a lawsuit alleging retaliation, HIPAA, FMLA, and age discrimination against her former employer, the Texas Department of Aging & Disability (DADS), and two individuals, Lance Duckworth and Velvet Archield. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the claims be dismissed with prejudice, finding that the ADEA and FMLA claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, there is no private cause of action under HIPAA, and the retaliation claim lacked sufficient factual allegations. The District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, granting the motion to dismiss and dismissing all claims with prejudice.

Pro SeMotion to DismissEleventh Amendment ImmunityADEA ClaimFMLA ClaimHIPAA ViolationRetaliation ClaimAge DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stafford v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Danny L. Stafford sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration's decision denying his application for a closed period of disability insurance benefits, marking his second federal court appearance for this claim. The court previously remanded the case for reconsideration of new evidence. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Harry L. Williams, Jr., reconsidered and again denied the application. Plaintiff alleged legal errors by the Commissioner in evaluating medical opinions and substantial evidence errors in credibility determinations and the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert. The court, led by District Judge Heartfield, adopted the Magistrate Judge's report, finding no legal error in the ALJ's evaluation of the treating physician's opinion and concluding any other errors were harmless. The court also determined that the ALJ's credibility findings and the hypothetical question were supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the Commissioner's decision was affirmed, and the plaintiff's action was dismissed.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActALJ decision reviewTreating physician opinionMedical evidenceResidual functional capacityVocational expert testimonySubstantial evidenceHarmless errorChronic pain
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eddins v. Excelsior Independent School District

These consolidated actions address whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law tort claims stemming from a dispute over the educational rights of two children, Mary W. and Christy McD. The Magistrate Judge recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction, citing the lack of a common nucleus of operative facts between the federal claim (42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for enforcing administrative orders) and the state law tort claims, and the predominance of state law claims. District Judge Hannah conducted a de novo review, affirmed these findings, and adopted the Magistrate Judge's report, thereby overruling plaintiffs' objections and declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state tort claims.

Supplemental JurisdictionState Law ClaimsTort ClaimsFederal ClaimsEducational RightsDisability LawSection 1983Magistrate Judge ReportDe Novo ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reado v. Texas General Land Office

Plaintiff, a former employee of the Texas General Land Office, filed a lawsuit alleging race and age discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA following his termination. He also sought to proceed in forma pauperis and requested appointment of counsel. Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines recommended granting the in forma pauperis motion but denying the request for counsel. After plaintiff objected, District Judge Cobb conducted a de novo review, overruled the objections, adopted the magistrate judge's report, and consequently granted the in forma pauperis motion while denying the motion for appointment of counsel.

Employment DiscriminationAge Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)Title VII Civil Rights ActIn Forma Pauperis MotionAppointment of Counsel DenialMagistrate Judge RecommendationDe Novo ReviewObjections OverruledDiscretionary Appointment of CounselSufficiency of Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 1994

Tatum v. Community Bank

Brenda Tatum, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for in forma pauperis status and appointment of counsel in a proposed Title VII racial discrimination suit against her former employer, Community Bank. Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines recommended granting in forma pauperis but denying counsel, citing a lack of a meritorious claim despite Tatum establishing a prima facie case. Tatum filed objections, arguing that the employer's stated reasons for her termination were a pretext for racial discrimination. District Judge Joe J. Fisher conducted a de novo review, adopting the magistrate judge's report and overruling Tatum's objections. The court granted Tatum's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but denied her request for appointed counsel, concluding that her subjective beliefs and speculative allegations were insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success or prove discriminatory intent.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment LawTitle VIIIn Forma PauperisAppointment of CounselPro Se LitigantPrima Facie CasePretextDisparate TreatmentMagistrate Judge Report
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2013

Chiari v. New York Racing Ass'n

Plaintiff Luis Alberto Chiari filed an action against the New York Racing Association (NYRA) and Local Union 3, I.B.E.W., alleging violations of COBRA, ADA, and LMRA stemming from his employment termination. Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson issued a Report and Recommendation, advising that the defendants' motions for summary judgment be granted and all of the plaintiff's claims be dismissed. District Judge Feuerstein reviewed the plaintiff's objections to this report. Finding the objections to be either reiterations of prior arguments or insufficiently specific, and discerning no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's findings, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, thereby granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing all of Chiari's claims with prejudice.

Employment LawDiscriminationSummary JudgmentCOBRA ViolationsADA ClaimsLMRA ClaimsBreach of Collective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationPro Se PlaintiffTermination
References
81
Showing 1-10 of 12,972 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