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

Allen v. Riese Organization, Inc.

Plaintiffs, former maintenance workers, were terminated and signed severance agreements releasing all employment-related claims, including those under human rights laws, in exchange for severance pay. Approximately three years later, they filed a lawsuit against their former employer, A.R.O. Construction Corp., alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the releases barred the claims. While plaintiffs contended the releases were procured by duress and fraud, the appellate court determined that plaintiffs had ratified the agreements by accepting the severance payments and failing to promptly repudiate the releases. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's denial of the motion to dismiss and ordered the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint.

Employment discriminationRetaliationHostile work environmentSeverance agreementGeneral releaseContract ratificationDuressFraudMotion to dismissAppellate review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind

Plaintiff, an African-American woman, sued her employer, Jewish Guild for the Blind, and several supervisors, alleging race discrimination, retaliation, aiding and abetting, and constructive discharge under state and city human rights laws. Her claims stemmed from alleged racial slurs, unequal work conditions, and perceived demotion following a departmental reorganization. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff's performance issues, particularly regarding patient chart documentation, were legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for her treatment and eventual termination due to job abandonment. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed the denial of summary judgment, finding plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case of discrimination or to show defendants' reasons were pretextual. The court concluded that isolated racial remarks alone were insufficient to establish a hostile work environment or employment discrimination, as other alleged conduct was either unsupported, contradicted, or justified by legitimate business concerns.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation ClaimConstructive DischargeHuman Rights LawJob AbandonmentWork Performance IssuesAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. 06-19-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2020

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC v. Carla Nagle Blevins Robertson

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC (RMF) appealed a default judgment entered against it after failing to timely answer a lawsuit filed by Carla Nagle Blevins Robertson. Robertson sought to quiet title, asserting that Katie Nagle, who entered a reverse mortgage with RMF's predecessor, only possessed a life estate that terminated upon her death, rendering the mortgage void. RMF moved for a new trial, claiming a meritorious defense as a bona fide mortgagee without actual or constructive notice of Robertson's claim. The Court of Appeals initially affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding RMF failed to factually support its claims of lacking notice. Subsequently, the parties settled, leading to the appeal's dismissal, though the court denied the request to withdraw its earlier opinion, citing its public importance.

Default JudgmentMeritorious DefenseBona Fide MortgageeQuiet Title ActionLife EstateReverse MortgageActual NoticeConstructive NoticeAppellate ProcedureMotion for New Trial
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Greater Chattanooga Public Television Corp.

This Tennessee Court of Appeals opinion addresses an appeal from summary judgments granted to the defendant, Greater Chattanooga Public Television Corporation (WTCI), in an age discrimination and retaliatory discharge lawsuit. Plaintiffs Kelly Williams, Robert Williams, Earlynn Schubert, Cynthia Lowry, and Barbara Dadswell alleged age-based discrimination and wrongful termination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Kelly Williams, Robert Williams, and Earlynn Schubert on their age discrimination claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the employer's stated reasons for termination. For Barbara Dadswell, the Court affirmed the summary judgment on her age discrimination claim but reversed and remanded her retaliatory discharge claim, concluding that a jury question existed regarding the reasonableness of her belief that copying a Nielsen Report was an illegal activity violating public policy. The case underscores the standards for summary judgment in employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims under Tennessee law.

Age DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentTennessee Human Rights ActEmployment LawMcDonnell Douglas TestConstructive DischargeAt-will EmploymentPublic Policy ExceptionBurden Shifting
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. McPhee

The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed a case involving sexual harassment discrimination and retaliation claims filed by employee Tammie C. Allen against her employer (Middle Tennessee State University, Tennessee Board of Regents, State of Tennessee) and supervisor (Dr. Sidney McPhee) under the Tennessee Human Rights Act. The Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the employer on the discrimination claim, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the employer's Faragher/Ellerth defense. However, the Court affirmed summary judgment for the supervisor on the discrimination claim, citing a lack of evidence that he encouraged discrimination or prevented corrective action. For the retaliation claims, the Court adopted new standards for materially adverse actions. It affirmed summary judgment for the employer on retaliation, concluding Allen failed to prove the employer's non-discriminatory reason for her transfer was pretextual. Finally, summary judgment was affirmed for the supervisor on retaliation, as his public statements and internal allegations were not deemed materially adverse. The case was partially affirmed, partially reversed, and remanded for further proceedings regarding the discrimination claim against the employer.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationDiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentTennessee Human Rights ActTHRAFaragher/Ellerth DefenseSummary JudgmentVicarious LiabilitySupervisor Liability
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gilberto Rincones v. Whm Custom Services, Inc.

Gilberto Rincones appealed a take-nothing judgment after being declared ineligible to work due to a disputed positive drug test. He sued his employer WHM Custom Services, Inc., Exxon Mobil Corporation, and DISA, Inc., alleging discrimination, retaliation, defamation, and negligence. The appellate court reversed summary judgments against WHM on claims of discrimination, retaliation, and compelled self-defamation. It also reversed summary judgments against Exxon and DISA for tortious interference with contract and negligence, remanding these claims for further proceedings. Summary judgments for Exxon on discrimination, retaliation, and defamation, and for DISA on breach of contract and defamation were affirmed, while finding jurisdictional basis for pattern or practice discrimination claims against WHM and Exxon.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationDefamationCompelled Self-DefamationNegligenceTortious InterferenceDrug Testing PolicySubstance AbuseSummary Judgment AppealDisparate Treatment
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bey v. Aramark Healthcare Support Services, Inc.

The claimant was terminated by the employer due to excessive absenteeism and failure to provide adequate medical documentation. Approximately six months later, the claimant filed a workers' compensation claim, asserting his absence stemmed from a work-related injury. Subsequently, he filed a discrimination complaint, alleging his termination was in retaliation for pursuing workers' compensation benefits. Initially, a workers' compensation law judge dismissed the discrimination complaint, a decision which the Workers’ Compensation Board first reversed, then rescinded its reversal, ultimately affirming the judge's finding of no discrimination. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the employer did not discriminate against the claimant in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 120.

Employment DiscriminationWorkers' CompensationRetaliation ClaimMedical DocumentationAbsenteeismTermination of EmploymentContinuing JurisdictionSubstantial EvidenceBoard ReviewAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 04-12-00462-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2013

Jose Luis Pena v. County of Starr

Jose Luis Pena appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of his former employer, Starr County, on his claims for retaliatory discharge, discrimination, and violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Pena was terminated after taking an extended medical leave due to complicated surgery, following an earlier back injury for which he filed a workers' compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for age discrimination and the retaliatory discharge claim, the latter due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction against a governmental entity under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment regarding Pena's FMLA claim and his discrimination claim based on disability. The FMLA claim was deemed timely under the relation-back doctrine, and the disability discrimination claim was reversed because the County failed to address all aspects of Pena's alleged disability in its motion.

Retaliatory DischargeFamily Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Disability DiscriminationAge DiscriminationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ClaimRelation-back DoctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionMedical LeaveEmployment Law
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donaldson v. Texas Department of Aging & Disability Services

David Donaldson appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) on claims of race and disability discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the TCHRA and Title VII. Donaldson, an African-American employee diagnosed with multiple conditions including prostate cancer and PTSD, alleged DADS failed to accommodate his disabilities and discriminated against him through various adverse actions, culminating in his termination. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for DADS on the race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims, finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent or materially adverse actions in those areas. However, the court reversed and remanded the reasonable accommodation claim, concluding that Donaldson presented a fact issue regarding DADS's failure to provide continued assistance for his disabilities despite initial accommodations. This decision partially reverses the trial court's judgment, necessitating further proceedings on the reasonable accommodation aspect of the disability discrimination claim.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentDisability DiscriminationRace DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTitle VIIEmployment Law
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Parks & Wildlife Department v. Dearing

This case is an interlocutory appeal concerning the re-certification of a class action alleging age discrimination under the Texas Labor Code. The applicants, Milburn Dearing, Kenneth Head, and Mike Warren, sued the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department based on a disparate-impact theory of age discrimination related to the reclassification of game-warden positions. A previous ruling (Dearing I) had reversed the class certification, concluding that disparate-impact age discrimination claims were not viable under the labor code. However, an intervening U.S. Supreme Court decision (Smith v. City of Jackson) clarified that such claims are cognizable under the ADEA, albeit with narrower scope and specific burden of proof standards (from Wards Cove). On remand, the district court reinstated the original class certification without modification. This court reverses the district court's re-certification order, holding that while disparate-impact age discrimination claims are viable under the labor code (incorporating Smith's interpretation of ADEA), the district court's trial plan failed to adequately address the specific elements of proof and the "reasonable factors other than age" (RFOA) justification as required by Smith and Wards Cove. The case is remanded for further proceedings, allowing parties to amend pleadings and the district court to conduct a rigorous analysis for class certification consistent with the updated legal standards. The court also affirmed the application of the "single-filing rule" for administrative exhaustion.

Age DiscriminationDisparate ImpactClass ActionClass CertificationTexas Labor CodeADEAWards Cove StandardsReasonable Factors Other Than AgeJudicial PrecedentStatutory Interpretation
References
67
Showing 1-10 of 11,215 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