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

Republic Insurance Co. v. Oakley

This case concerns an appeal by Texas insurance companies contesting retaliatory insurance taxes assessed by the Tennessee Commissioner of Insurance for the years 1974-1977. The plaintiff companies, writing fire, casualty, and workers' compensation insurance in Tennessee, argued that Texas's effective tax rate on gross premium receipts, after considering investment credits, was lower than Tennessee's, thus negating the basis for a retaliatory tax. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Chancellor's decision, ruling that for retaliatory tax purposes, only the basic tax rates of the states should be compared, not rates after accounting for investment credits. The Court concluded that Texas's basic rate of 3.85% was indeed higher than Tennessee's 2%, justifying the 1.85% retaliatory tax, and also upheld the assessment of penalties.

Retaliatory TaxInsurance LawGross Premium TaxInvestment CreditsStatutory InterpretationTaxationForeign CorporationsAppellate ReviewTennessee Supreme CourtTax Penalties
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Cargill, Inc.

This action for retaliatory discharge involves a plaintiff who sustained a neck injury while working for the defendant. After filing a workers' compensation claim, which was settled, the plaintiff was released to work with a ten-pound lifting restriction. Upon attempting to return, he was informed no work was available. The plaintiff then filed a complaint for retaliatory discharge, alleging the defendant maintained a discriminatory 'light duty' policy. A jury verdict favored the plaintiff, awarding both compensatory and punitive damages. However, the appellate court found insufficient material evidence to support the claim of retaliatory discharge, particularly regarding the defendant's alleged light duty policy for permanently disabled workers or discriminatory application based on workers' compensation claims. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and dismissed the action.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimJury Verdict ReviewAppellate ReversalMaterial EvidencePermanent Partial DisabilityLifting RestrictionsLight Duty PolicyDiscriminatory Employment PracticesBurden of Proof
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 1997

Mason v. Seaton

This Tennessee Supreme Court case reviews a retaliatory discharge claim brought by employee Maxine O. Mason against her employers, Kenneth M. and Laurel Seaton. Mason was fired after reporting fire safety violations and locked exit doors at the defendants' hotel to city officials. The trial court initially dismissed the complaint, requiring proof that the employer explicitly directed the employee to remain silent. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the "whistleblower" statute (Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-1-304) does not require an employer to have expressly forbidden the employee from reporting illegal activities for a retaliatory discharge claim to stand. The Court found sufficient evidence of illegal activity and a causal link between Mason's report and her termination.

Retaliatory DischargeWhistleblower ProtectionEmployment LawSummary JudgmentPublic PolicyFire SafetyEmployee RightsTennessee Supreme CourtStatutory InterpretationWrongful Termination
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Donohue v. Scandinavian Airlines of North America, Inc.

The claimant sustained a disabling wrist fracture in April 1982 and was cleared by her physician and the employer's carrier's physician to return to work by August 1, 1982. However, she informed her employer she would not return, citing continued difficulties, and subsequently missed a scheduled examination by the company physician, claiming a broken foot. Her employment was terminated on August 18, 1982. The claimant alleged retaliatory discharge in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found her testimony not credible and concluded that the employer had a valid, non-retaliatory reason for termination due to her uncooperative behavior. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, determining it was supported by substantial evidence and that the employer was justified in the discharge.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceEmployer JustificationEmployee UncooperativenessMedical Examination FindingsDisability ClaimWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2000

Clarke v. One Source Facility Services, Inc.

This case concerns Sylvester Clarke's claims of employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII against One Source Facility Services, Inc. Clarke, an African-American male, alleged discrimination stemming from a refusal of non-union work, which he claimed led to his removal from a position and a series of adverse employment actions. He pursued these grievances through union complaints and two administrative complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights in 1996 and 1998. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the discrimination claim, finding a lack of evidence for racial animus. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding a potential pattern of retaliatory conduct by the employer following Clarke's protected activities.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeTitle VIISummary JudgmentMcDonnell-Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretextRacial DiscriminationUnion GrievanceAdministrative Complaint
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooper v. New York State Nurses Ass'n

Plaintiff Harriet Cooper sued her former employer NYSNA and supervisors Lorraine Seidel and Susanne Calvello, alleging termination in retaliation for taking FMLA leave and asserting retaliatory discharge and hostile work environment claims under NYHRL. Both parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The court granted defendants' motion in part, dismissing plaintiff's NYHRL and common-law wrongful discharge claims, as well as her FMLA claims for emotional distress and punitive damages. However, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the core FMLA retaliation claim, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to consider, including temporal proximity and potential retaliatory animus. Plaintiff's own motion for summary judgment was entirely denied, indicating the case will proceed to trial on the remaining FMLA retaliation claim for monetary losses.

FMLA RetaliationFamily and Medical Leave ActRetaliatory DischargeHostile Work EnvironmentNew York State Human Rights Law (NYHRL)Summary JudgmentAt-will EmploymentEmployee TerminationMedical LeavePerformance Issues
References
52
Case No. 14-19-00851-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2021

Michael D. Fenley v. Texas Plumbing Supply Company, Inc.

Michael D. Fenley sued Texas Plumbing Supply Company, Inc. for age discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliatory termination after his employment was terminated in November 2016, seven months after being hired. Fenley alleged that his supervisor made frequent age-related comments and complained about his back problems and a broken finger, which required surgery and workers' compensation claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for Texas Plumbing on all claims, but Fenley appealed, challenging these grounds. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the disability discrimination and retaliation claims, finding Fenley failed to provide sufficient evidence of a "disability" or a retaliatory motive. However, the court reversed and remanded the age discrimination claim, concluding that Fenley's personal statement provided direct evidence of discriminatory animus, such as his supervisor telling him he was "too old for this job."

Age DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliatory TerminationSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTexas Labor CodeDirect EvidenceCausal ConnectionPretextAppellate Review
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc.

Johnny A. Johnson, Jr. appealed the trial court's directed verdict in favor of St. Francis Hospital, Inc. in a retaliatory discharge case. Johnson claimed he was terminated for filing workers' compensation claims after sustaining two back injuries. The hospital asserted he was discharged for being unavailable for work due to lifting restrictions and his refusal to accept a leave of absence according to hospital policy. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no causal link between Johnson's workers' compensation claims and his termination. The court concluded that Johnson was discharged because he chose not to apply for a leave of absence, rendering him unavailable for his job duties.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensation claimEmployment terminationMedical restrictionsLeave of absence policyEmployee at willCausalityPrima facie caseDirected verdictAppeal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hollis v. Marriott Hotel

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from June 2, 1993, which found that her discharge was not retaliatory after she filed a compensation claim. The claimant suffered a compensable injury and did not report to work while recovering. The employer was unable to contact the claimant due to her failure to update her address. After sending correspondence regarding her return to work with no response, her employment was terminated. At the time of termination, she was unable to perform her usual duties. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that there was no discrimination under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, affirming the decision.

retaliationdiscriminationworkers' compensationemployment terminationaddress notificationcompensable injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2002

Randy Glenn Huckaby v. State

This appellate decision concerns an employee, Amos, who sued Wal-Mart for retaliatory discharge after filing a worker's compensation claim. The court examined both the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence presented by Amos to establish a causal link between her claim and termination. Key points of contention included Wal-Mart's knowledge of the claim, alleged negative attitudes, adherence to company policy, discriminatory treatment of a similarly situated employee (Clay Haag), and the truthfulness of Wal-Mart's stated reason for discharge (rude behavior). The court found legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of a causal connection and upheld the jury's awards for past and future damages, rejecting Wal-Mart's arguments regarding mitigation and the after-acquired evidence doctrine. The judgment was affirmed.

Retaliatory DischargeWorker's CompensationEmployment LawCausal ConnectionSufficiency of EvidenceCircumstantial EvidenceDamages CalculationMitigation of DamagesAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 735 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