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

Beattie v. Farnsworth Middle School

Plaintiff Patricia Beattie, a part-time paraprofessional, filed a sex discrimination action against the Guilderland Central School District and several individual defendants, alleging sexual harassment by Roger Levinthal and retaliation after she reported the harassment. The court addressed motions to dismiss, finding that the sexual harassment claims were largely time-barred under Title VII due to the continuing violation exception not applying, and employer liability for co-worker harassment was not established for the physical acts. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim, finding sufficient facts to support a prima facie case. Individual defendants' motions to dismiss for individual liability under HRL and Section 1983 were granted, except for Roger Levinthal. The Section 1985 conspiracy claim was also dismissed for lack of specific discriminatory animus.

Sexual harassmentRetaliationTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSection 1983Continuing violation doctrineHostile work environmentEmployer liabilityIndividual liabilityPrima facie case
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arredondo v. Estrada

Plaintiffs, Ricardo Arredondo, Jr., Richard Rabino, and Mario Torrez, all former employees of Weatherford International, LLC, filed suit for damages arising out of abusive treatment and sexual harassment by their supervisor, Joey Estrada. The abuse included physical assaults, referred to as “nubbings,” and demeaning vulgarities. Plaintiffs brought federal claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for discrimination based upon sex, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation, as well as state law claims for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention against Weatherford. The Court granted Weatherford’s motion for summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation claims, intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, and negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention claims. The Court denied summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Title VII sex discrimination (including sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge) and assault claims, ordering them to proceed to trial. The decision addressed issues of administrative remedies exhaustion, the “continuing violation” theory for limitations, proof of sex discrimination in same-sex harassment cases (including gender stereotyping), the severity and pervasiveness of the conduct, Weatherford’s Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense, constructive discharge, and employer liability for assault (including course and scope and ratification theories), as well as the application of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy bar.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationAssault and BatteryRetaliation ClaimConstructive DischargeEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Act
References
34
Case No. 12-06-00213-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2007

James T. Martinez v. Temple-Inland Forest Products Corporation and David Thomas

James T. Martinez appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Temple-Inland Forest Products Corporation. Martinez claimed same-sex harassment and retaliation following his termination from Temple-Inland. The appellate court reviewed the summary judgment, specifically examining Martinez's allegations under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. The court found no evidence to support the same-sex harassment claim, particularly regarding the alleged harasser's homosexual intent or advances toward others. Furthermore, the court determined there was no prima facie case for retaliation, as the employer had initiated termination proceedings before Martinez reported harassment. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Same-sex harassmentRetaliation claimSummary judgmentEmployment discriminationTexas Human Rights ActTitle VII of Civil Rights ActHostile work environmentPretext for terminationPrima facie caseWorkplace misconduct
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of San Antonio v. Cancel

Michael Cancel, an employee of the City of San Antonio, sued the City for sexual harassment by Assistant Aviation Department Director Ryan Martinez. The harassment involved inappropriate conversations and suggestions during a single 20-30 minute meeting. A jury initially found in Cancel's favor, awarding $90,000 for mental anguish. The City appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and challenging the cognizability of same-sex harassment in Texas. The appellate court affirmed that same-sex harassment is actionable under Texas law but reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding the evidence presented was legally insufficient to establish a hostile work environment because the conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms of Cancel's employment.

sexual harassmentsame-sex harassmenthostile work environmentTexasemployment discriminationappellate reviewlegal sufficiencyjury verdictmental anguishevidentiary routes
References
19
Case No. 07-07-0285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2008

City of San Antonio v. Michael Cancel

Michael Cancel, a former employee of the City of San Antonio, sued the City for sexual harassment by a superior, Ryan Martinez, leading to a hostile work environment. A jury awarded Cancel $90,000 in damages. The City appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence for sexual harassment and arguing that Texas law does not recognize same-sex harassment claims. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed that same-sex harassment claims are cognizable under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. However, it reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the single 20-30 minute encounter, even with prior knowledge of unrelated nude photos on Martinez's computer, was not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile or abusive work environment as a matter of law.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentSame-Sex HarassmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTCHRADiscriminationEmployment LawAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyMental Anguish Damages
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. SBC Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Earnestine Walker sued Defendant SBC Services, Inc. alleging same-sex harassment, racial discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII. The court granted partial summary judgment to SBC, dismissing Walker's same-sex harassment and retaliation claims, finding the harassment not sufficiently severe or pervasive and the retaliation claim conceded. However, the court denied SBC's motion for summary judgment on the racial discrimination (hostile work environment) claim, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the racially charged statements and conduct. The court also denied summary judgment on SBC's Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defenses, concluding that SBC failed to demonstrate it took prompt remedial action. Therefore, the racial discrimination claim and the affirmative defenses proceed to trial.

DiscriminationHarassmentTitle VIISummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentRace DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRetaliationEmployment LawFederal Court
References
31
Case No. 45
Regular Panel Decision

Humphreys v. Medical Towers, Ltd.

Plaintiff Humphreys filed suit against Medical Towers, Ltd., Diva Corporation, and David A. Lawson, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, hostile environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment, sex discrimination, retaliation, constructive discharge, and violations of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, also contesting Lawson's personal liability and specific damage elements. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and individual liability for Lawson as a supervisor. However, the court denied summary judgment on claims of hostile work environment sexual harassment, sex discrimination, retaliation, constructive discharge, and issues related to Lawson's liability as a limited partner or alter ego. Remaining factual disputes regarding these claims, as well as the mitigation of damages and entitlement to lease commissions, necessitate further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo Sexual HarassmentSex DiscriminationRetaliationConstructive DischargeEmployer LiabilityPersonal LiabilityMitigation of Damages
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2004

People v. Arotin

The case concerns an appeal by an unnamed defendant against an order from the Saratoga County Court, which classified him as a risk level III sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act. The defendant, previously convicted in Ohio for attempted gross sexual imposition and classified as a "sexually oriented offender," contested the New York classification upon his relocation, arguing the Full Faith and Credit Clause should compel New York to recognize his lower Ohio classification and that the evidence was insufficient for a Level III designation. The appellate court affirmed that states have the power to apply their own registration requirements, rejecting the Full Faith and Credit argument. However, it found that specific factors used to justify the level III classification, namely "deviate sexual intercourse" and "history of substance abuse," lacked clear and convincing evidence. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the order and remitted the matter to the County Court for reclassification.

Sex Offender Registration ActRisk Level ClassificationFull Faith and Credit ClauseRecidivismSexually Oriented OffenderAppellate ReviewClear and Convincing EvidenceOhio LawNew York LawSex Offender Assessment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Torriero v. Olin Corp.

Plaintiff Loretta Torriero, a former Olin Corporation employee, sued Olin and two supervisors for sex discrimination and sexual harassment under Title VII. Defendants moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiff's attorney's affidavit. The court granted the motion to strike the attorney's affidavit but accepted plaintiff's subsequent affidavit. The court then granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the sexual harassment claims due to failure to allege them in the EEOC charge, and dismissing the sex discrimination claims because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. The court declined to award attorney's fees to the defendants, finding the claims, while meritless, were not brought in bad faith.

Title VIISex DiscriminationSexual HarassmentSummary JudgmentEEOC ChargePrima Facie CaseEmployment LawFederal CourtAffidavitTimely Filing
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris v. American Protective Services of New York, Inc.

Raleigh L. Hams sued American Protective Services of New York, Inc. alleging race, sex, and disability discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment, and defamation under Title VII and the ADA. The court, presided over by Chief Judge Larimer, granted in part and denied in part APS's motion to dismiss. Harris's claims for race, disability, and sexual harassment were dismissed with prejudice due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies or state a claim. His retaliation and defamation claims were dismissed with leave to replead. APS's motion to dismiss the disparate treatment sex discrimination claim was denied. All of Harris's motions to amend, vacate an arbitrator's decision, and for a preliminary injunction were denied.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIADARace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliationSexual HarassmentDefamationMotion to Dismiss
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 1,049 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