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
Mar 06, 2015

American Civil Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera

The American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) sued Zavala County Tax Assessor-Collector Cindy Martinez-Rivera for violating the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) by allegedly failing to maintain accurate voter rolls, indicated by a 105% registration rate. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss challenging ACRU's standing and the sufficiency of the claim, while Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Magistrate Judge Collis White recommended denying both motions, finding ACRU had organizational standing and stated a plausible claim. District Judge Alia Moses adopted the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, consequently denying both the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint.

Voter RegistrationNational Voter Registration ActOrganizational StandingMotion to DismissMotion to Amend ComplaintVoter Rolls MaintenanceZavala CountyTexas Election LawSubject Matter JurisdictionConstitutional Standing
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Randall v. Toll

Petitioner, a senior financial secretary at SUNY Stony Brook, was suspended without pay under Civil Service Law section 75 following charges of misappropriation. He challenged the suspension, arguing it violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by denying a pre-suspension hearing. The court evaluated the constitutionality of Civil Service Law section 75(3), which permits temporary suspension without pay pending charge determination. It concluded that the state's interest did not justify postponing a hearing, especially since the petitioner had been reassigned from his sensitive role. Consequently, the court vacated the suspension and ordered the petitioner's immediate reinstatement, emphasizing the necessity of a prior hearing for public employee suspensions.

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentCivil Service LawPublic Employee RightsSuspension Without PayPre-Suspension HearingGovernmental InterestProperty RightsReinstatementMisconduct Charges
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 1987

Kincade v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

This is a class action lawsuit filed against Firestone Tire and Rubber Company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging racial discrimination in various employment practices at its LaVergne, Tennessee plant. The plaintiffs, comprising black applicants, current, and former employees, and the Nashville NAACP, claimed discrimination in recruitment, hiring, promotions, disciplinary actions, and terminations. The Court found insufficient evidence to establish a systemwide pattern or practice of intentional discrimination or disparate impact for the class claims, thus entering judgment for the defendant on these matters. However, for individual claims, the Court ruled in favor of Bobby Lee Kincade for a racially hostile work environment, Mary Pope Fite for discriminatory failure to promote, and Bobby W. Ivy for discriminatory failure to hire, while denying all other individual claims.

Racial discriminationEmployment discriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act42 U.S.C. § 1981Disparate treatmentDisparate impactClass actionHiring discriminationPromotion discrimination
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Song v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.

Dr. Samuel Song was terminated by Ives Laboratories, Inc., leading him to file a discrimination charge with the EEOC, which was referred to the SDHR. The SDHR dismissed his complaint for administrative convenience. Song subsequently sued, alleging national origin discrimination under federal civil rights acts and the New York State Human Rights Law. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the Section 1981 claim and the state law claim. The court granted dismissal of the Section 1981 claim, applying the precedent of Patterson v. McLean Credit Union retroactively. However, the court denied the dismissal of the Human Rights Law claim, affirming that an administrative convenience dismissal by the SDHR preserves the right to sue and that exercising pendent jurisdiction was appropriate.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1866Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964New York State Human Rights LawRetroactive Application of LawPendent JurisdictionElection of RemediesAdministrative Convenience DismissalSummary Judgment
References
40
Case No. Nos. 2-80-127 and 2-80-129 (Consolidated)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1985

Howard Gault Co. v. Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc.

This case involves two consolidated actions. No. 2-80-127 concerns civil rights counterclaims brought by Jesus Moya against seventeen growers and state officials following the issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) that curtailed union organizing activities of the Texas Farm Workers Union (TFWU) in Deaf Smith County, Texas. Moya alleged deprivation of First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. No. 2-80-129 is a class action, originally filed by TFWU and TRLA, challenging the constitutionality of several Texas picketing statutes. The court found that the growers and state officials acted under color of state law, depriving Moya of his First Amendment rights due to the unconstitutional ex parte TRO procedure and the overly broad minority picketing provisions. Moya was awarded $500 in compensatory damages. The court also declared multiple sections of the Texas picketing statutes (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. arts. 5154d, 5154f, and 5154g) unconstitutional. TRLA was denied standing for the constitutional challenges, but Delia Gamez Prince was granted standing. Claims for recovery against the TRO bond were denied.

Workers' RightsFirst AmendmentPicketingTemporary Restraining OrderConstitutional LawCivil Rights Act of 1871Labor DisputesOverbreadth DoctrineState StatutesJudicial Immunity
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1993

Ray v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Larry Ray, a maintenance worker, and Blake Willett, an LIRR Police Officer, were involved in a physical altercation where Willett allegedly beat and handcuffed Ray. Ray was later released by Willett's supervisor. Plaintiffs sued Willett and the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) for battery, false arrest and imprisonment, negligent retention, and civil rights violations under 42 USC § 1983. The Supreme Court, Kings County, dismissed claims against the LIRR for negligent retention and civil rights violations and dismissed the complaint against Willett due to defective service of process. The jury found Willett liable for battery and false arrest/imprisonment but not for civil rights violation. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the dismissals, concluding that Willett's conduct was not within the scope of employment and he was not acting under color of state law, and that service upon Willett was indeed defective.

BatteryFalse ImprisonmentCivil Rights ViolationNegligent RetentionRespondeat SuperiorPolice MisconductPersonal JurisdictionService of ProcessAppellate LawKings County
References
17
Case No. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. 06-00-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2001

Jerry Moore D/B/A the Woodville Inn Company v. Lula M. Gilder and Bernice Gilder

Lula Gilder and Bernice Gilder sued Jerry Moore for wrongful termination, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981) based on involuntary servitude and retaliation. They claimed they were fired for not working "off the clock." A jury sided with the Gilders, but the trial court's denial of Moore's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was appealed. The appellate court found that the Gilders had abandoned claims of racial discrimination, which are essential for a Section 1981 action. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of Moore, concluding that without a showing of purposeful discrimination, the Section 1981 claims could not be sustained.

Wrongful terminationInvoluntary servitudeFLSACivil Rights ActSection 1981RetaliationEmployment lawJury instruction errorAppellate reversalDiscrimination
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bluitt v. Houston Independent School District

Plaintiff Elaine Bluitt, a 55-year-old African-American teacher, sued Houston Independent School District (HISD) and Principal Steven Amstutz, alleging race and age discrimination, and violations of due process and equal protection rights, after her termination in 2000. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on Bluitt's Title VII and ADEA claims due to untimely filing. Additionally, her Civil Rights Acts (Sections 1981, 1983) and Constitutional claims were dismissed, as the court found no evidence of a discriminatory policy or objectively unreasonable conduct by HISD or Amstutz. The court highlighted HISD's official policy prohibiting discrimination and noted that Bluitt failed to demonstrate a causal link between any alleged custom and discrimination, or that Amstutz violated clearly established constitutional rights. The remaining state law discrimination claim under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code was dismissed without prejudice, as the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRace DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentCivil RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEA
References
255
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moss v. Department of Civil Service

The petitioner, a Senior Youth Parole Worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the State Department of Civil Service's requirement of a Master's degree for the Youth Parole Supervisor promotion examination. His application was denied due to the lack of this degree, despite his advanced graduate study and prior assurances of eligibility based on earlier prerequisites. The court affirmed the Civil Service Department's broad discretion in establishing minimum qualifications for competitive examinations. It ruled that earlier prerequisites or unauthorized assurances do not confer a vested right to bypass current requirements, which are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Department of Civil Service. Consequently, the application was denied, and the petition dismissed.

Civil Service LawPromotion ExaminationEducational RequirementsMaster's DegreeYouth Parole SupervisorDiscretionVested RightsArticle 78 ProceedingState EmployeesCivil Service Commission
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 12,437 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