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
Aug 20, 1999

STS Management Development, Inc. v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance

The plaintiffs, two limousine companies and their owner, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which dismissed their causes of action against the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance and several employees. The plaintiffs had alleged retaliatory tax assessments and sought damages under 42 USC §§ 1983, 1985, and 18 USC § 1962 (RICO). The Supreme Court's dismissal of the claims was affirmed on appeal, holding that the Department of Taxation was not a 'person' under federal statutes and not an 'enterprise' under RICO, and that the individual defendants had minimal involvement or lacked requisite fraudulent intent for RICO claims.

civil rightsRICOracketeeringtaxationretaliationdismissalappellate courtsovereign immunitystatutory interpretationenterprise liability
References
6
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

Singh v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance

Deeksha K. Singh sued her former employer, New York State Department of Taxation & Finance (NYSDOTF), and her current employer, Erie Community College (ECC), along with William D. Reuter and Erie County. She alleged discrimination based on sex and national origin under Title VII against NYSDOTF, and disability discrimination under ADA and FMLA claims against ECC and Reuter. The court granted summary judgment to NYSDOTF, finding no adverse employment action or hostile work environment. It also granted summary judgment to ECC and Reuter, dismissing the ADA claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the FMLA claims as Singh received her entitled leave and failed to prove retaliatory intent. The case was dismissed in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIADAFMLASummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeRetaliationExhaustion of Administrative RemediesPrima Facie Case
References
98
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

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
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
Showing 1-10 of 698 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