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

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

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
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 1987

Claim of Kuk v. General Electric Co.

The claimant, a data processing control clerk, was discharged by General Electric Company and subsequently filed a Workers' Compensation claim under § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge for an earlier compensation claim. A divided panel of the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed that no discrimination occurred, and a request for full Board review was denied. The court dismissed the claimant's appeal as untimely, stating it was not filed within 30 days of the December 12, 1986 decision and that a request for full Board review does not toll the statutory appeal period. The court also rejected the retroactive application of a 1983 amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 regarding mandatory full Board review for discrimination claims. Furthermore, the court indicated that even on substantive issues, the Board's decision, finding termination due to absenteeism and poor work relations rather than discrimination, was supported by substantial evidence.

Retaliatory DischargeTimeliness of AppealWorkers' Compensation LawFull Board ReviewStatutory InterpretationProspective ApplicationSubstantial EvidenceDiscrimination ClaimAppellate ProcedureEmployer-Employee Relations
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 1990

Claim of Campbell v. McMillan Book Co.

This case involves an appeal from an amended decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board had previously ruled that the discharge of the claimant’s decedent was not in retaliation for filing a compensation claim. The appellate court found that the claimant failed to meet the burden of proving that the decedent’s discharge was retaliatory. The Workers’ Compensation Board’s conclusion that the decedent was discharged for a valid business purpose, specifically for failing to timely file a required form despite warnings and extensions, was supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the determination that the employment termination was not retaliatory for filing disability benefits was upheld.

Retaliatory DischargeDisability ClaimEmployment TerminationTimely Filing RequirementBusiness JustificationEvidentiary SupportAppellate ReviewClaim DenialWorkplace Policies
References
2
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

Texas Workforce Commission v. Olivas

Ms. Maria Elena Olivas, a former employee of the Texas Workforce Commission, filed a workers' compensation claim after developing injuries in March 2008. She was subsequently dismissed from employment in May 2009, leading her to file a suit against the Commission for retaliatory discharge. The Commission filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity and arguing that Section 311.034 of the Texas Government Code mandated an unequivocal waiver of immunity, which it claimed was absent in the anti-retaliation provisions of Chapter 451. The trial court denied the Commission's plea. On appeal, the Commission contended that Section 311.034 abrogated existing Texas Supreme Court precedent (*Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez*) that recognized a waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims against state agencies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that the State Applications Act (SAA) still provides a clear and unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity for retaliation claims against state agencies, and that neither Section 311.034 nor the *Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman* decision altered this established legal analysis.

Sovereign ImmunityRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewGovernment CodeLabor CodeLegislative WaiverState AgenciesStatutory Construction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coffey v. Fayette Tubular Products

Geneva Coffey sued Fayette Tubular Products for retaliatory discharge after being fired subsequent to filing a worker's compensation claim. The trial court initially awarded Coffey compensatory and punitive damages, along with front pay, but the Court of Appeals remitted the punitive damages and vacated the front pay. This Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, reinstating the trial court's full award. The court emphasized that punitive damages, intended for punishment and deterrence, should not influence the determination of front pay, which compensates for future earnings. The judgment affirmed the trial court's adherence to legal factors in reviewing punitive damage awards.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensationPunitive damagesFront payEmployer liabilityEmployment lawAppellate reviewTrial court discretionDamage awardsJudicial review
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 1,727 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