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

Storey v. City of Sparta Police Department

The plaintiff, Janet Storey, sued the City of Sparta Police Department and several city officials for sexual discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII and other civil rights acts. Storey applied for a police officer position in 1984, was deemed most qualified, but was rejected with discriminatory remarks, despite the city's claim of no vacancy. The court found compelling evidence, including excessive overtime by current officers and subsequent hiring of less qualified males, indicating discriminatory intent and retaliation for her EEOC complaint. The judgment favored the plaintiff, ordering her immediate hiring as a permanent police officer, along with significant back pay, retirement benefits, medical expense reimbursement, longevity pay, and a permanent injunction against the defendants from further Title VII violations.

Employment DiscriminationSexual DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VII ViolationCivil Rights Act of 1866Failure to HireMunicipal LiabilityPolice Department HiringDiscriminatory IntentPretextual Reasons
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southmayd v. Apria Healthcare, Inc.

Plaintiff Richard Southmayd, a 58-year-old, sued Apria Healthcare, Inc. for age discrimination and retaliation under federal and state laws, alleging he was terminated in a Reduction in Force (RIF) and not rehired due to his age and protected activities. The court granted summary judgment to Apria on Southmayd's age discrimination claims related to his termination and failure to rehire due to lack of a prima facie case and administrative exhaustion, respectively. Similarly, summary judgment was granted for his retaliatory discharge claims, as no causal link was established between his complaints and termination. However, the court denied summary judgment on Southmayd's claim of retaliatory failure to rehire, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding the decision-maker's knowledge of his lawsuit and motivations. Consequently, the case will proceed to trial on the retaliatory failure to rehire claim.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationReduction in ForceSummary JudgmentADEATHRATPPAEmployment LawFailure to RehireCausal Connection
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kighwaunda M. YARDLEY v. HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING SYSTEMS, LLC

Kighwaunda M. Yardley, a former housekeeping aide, sustained a work-related injury and received workers' compensation benefits while working for University Medical Center. When the Hospital contracted with Hospital Housekeeping Systems (the Company), Ms. Yardley sought employment with the new contractor. The Company refused to hire her, citing her history of workers' compensation claims and the likelihood of future claims. Ms. Yardley subsequently sued, and the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee certified a question to the Tennessee Supreme Court regarding whether a job applicant has a cause of action for retaliatory failure to hire under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act. The Supreme Court concluded that no such cause of action exists in Tennessee, declining to create an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine for job applicants.

Workers' Compensation ActEmployment-at-will doctrineRetaliatory failure to hireJob applicant rightsCertified question of lawPublic policy exceptionEmployer-employee relationshipSecond Injury FundTennessee Supreme CourtLabor law
References
27
Case No. 05-20-01114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2022

Mark Holloway v. Dallas County Hospital District D/B/A Parkland Health and Hospital System

Mark Holloway sued Dallas County Hospital District d/b/a Parkland Health and Hospital System (Parkland) under the Texas Labor Code Chapter 21 and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCRHA). Holloway alleged race discrimination and retaliation after he was not hired for several positions and later removed from the Parkland account, which eventually led to his termination from Xerox. Parkland filed a combined plea to the jurisdiction and traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motion, which the trial court granted, dismissing Holloway's claims with prejudice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Holloway failed to exhaust administrative remedies for most of his failure to hire claims and could not establish a prima facie case for the remaining two Senior Network Engineer positions due to lack of application and qualifications. The court also found Holloway could not establish indirect employer liability against Parkland for his termination from Xerox, nor could he prove a prima facie case of retaliatory termination, lacking "but-for" causation and sufficient evidence of pretext or knowledge of protected activity by Parkland's decision-makers.

Race DiscriminationRetaliationDiscriminatory PracticesEmployment LawFailure to HireSummary JudgmentPlea to JurisdictionTCHRATexas Appeals CourtWorkers' Rights
References
51
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
Jun 17, 1977

Prate v. Freedman

This case involved white applicants who sued the City of Rochester, New York, alleging reverse discrimination in police officer hiring practices that favored minority applicants. The plaintiffs challenged a prior consent decree from Howard v. Freedman, which had established affirmative action measures. Chief Judge Curtin dismissed the consolidated actions, ruling it an impermissible collateral attack on the Howard decree due to the plaintiffs' failure to intervene timely. The court also held that the Constitution permits limited preferences for previously discriminated groups and dismissed pendent state law claims as superseded by federal law. Finally, the court awarded attorney fees to the defendant-intervenors, finding the plaintiffs' suit unreasonable and vexatious.

Reverse DiscriminationAffirmative ActionPolice RecruitmentEmployment LawCollateral Attack DoctrineConsent DecreeJudicial ReviewAttorney Fee AwardSubject Matter JurisdictionState Law Preemption
References
15
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
Jan 22, 2010

Morris v. David Lerner Associates

Dora Morris sued her former employer, David Lerner Associates (DLA), and its President, David Lerner, for employment discrimination. She alleged gender discrimination due to unequal pay and a hostile work environment, claiming she was paid less than male counterparts and subjected to inappropriate comments and actions by Lerner. Morris also alleged retaliatory termination after complaining about the pay disparity. Defendants moved to dismiss parts of the complaint, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to state a claim. The Court denied the defendants' motion, finding that Morris's hostile work environment and retaliatory termination claims were reasonably related to her EEOC charge and were adequately pled under legal standards.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationMotion to DismissEEOC ExhaustionPleading StandardTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawDisparate Treatment
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wang v. Phoenix Satellite Television US, Inc.

Plaintiff Lihuan Wang, an unpaid intern, sued Phoenix Satellite Television US, Inc. for employment discrimination under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. She alleged hostile work environment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and retaliation by bureau chief Zhengzhu Liu, and a failure to hire her due to discriminatory animus. Phoenix moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Court granted Phoenix's motion to dismiss Ms. Wang's hostile work environment claim, ruling that as an unpaid intern, she does not qualify as an 'employee' under the NYCHRL. However, the Court denied Phoenix's motion to dismiss Ms. Wang's remaining failure to hire claims, finding she plausibly alleged an informal application process for unposted vacancies.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentFailure to HireUnpaid InternNYSHRLNYCHRLMotion to DismissEmployee DefinitionQuid Pro Quo
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 5,862 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