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

Teel v. Shifflett

The concurring opinion by Justice Leslie B. Yates addresses the appellant, Teel's, challenge to the constitutionality of Texas Family Code sections 81.001 and 85.001. Teel argued for a right to a jury trial before a protective order is issued, citing Article V, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution. Justice Yates concurs with the majority, affirming the constitutionality of the statutes. She highlights the conflict between the 14-day hearing requirement for protective orders and the 30-day notice for jury trial requests. The opinion emphasizes the legislature's intent to ensure timely issuance of protective orders for the protection of individuals, concluding that this priority does not violate constitutional guarantees. Teel's first issue is overruled.

Texas Family CodeProtective OrdersJury TrialConstitutional LawFamily ViolenceStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureJudicial ReviewTexas Constitution Article V Section 10Texas Constitution Article I Section 15
References
8
Case No. 14-18-01103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2020

Rogelio Salas v. Fluor Daniel Services Corporation

Rogelio Salas appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Fluor Daniel Services Corporation on his workers' compensation retaliatory discharge claim. Salas alleged he was terminated in retaliation for reporting a work-related knee injury, violating Texas Labor Code sections 451.001(1) and (3). The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding section 451.001(1) and punitive damages. However, it reversed and remanded the claim under section 451.001(3), finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding the causal link between Salas's protected conduct (reporting his injury) and his termination, despite Fluor's asserted reason of a reduction in force.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeTexas Labor CodeSummary JudgmentCausal LinkProtected ActivityReduction of ForcePretextPunitive DamagesEmployment Law
References
48
Case No. 08-21-00145-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2021

Schneider Electric USA, Inc. D/B/A Schneider Electric v. Maria Ramirez

Maria Ramirez, an Aerotek employee assigned to Schneider Electric, filed a workers' compensation discrimination claim against Schneider Electric under Texas Labor Code Section 451.001. Schneider Electric moved for summary judgment, arguing it could not be liable under Section 451 because it did not provide Ramirez's workers' compensation coverage, which was handled by Aerotek. The trial court denied Schneider Electric's motion but granted permission for an interlocutory appeal. Schneider Electric, as the appellant, argues that the trial court erred in denying summary judgment, contending that Section 451 liability only applies to the entity providing workers' compensation coverage to the claimant, which in this case was Aerotek, not Schneider Electric. The appellant requests that the appellate court reverse the trial court's denial of summary judgment and dismiss Ramirez's claim with prejudice.

Workers' Compensation DiscriminationSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor CodeStaffing Agency LiabilityCo-EmploymentRetaliatory DischargePermissive AppealEmployer LiabilityTexas Workers' Compensation ActAppellate Brief
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District v. Acosta

Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District (appellant) appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and an order of $4,500 in sanctions in a retaliatory discharge case. Sandra Acosta (appellee) sued the school district, alleging termination in violation of Texas Labor Code Ann. § 451.001 for filing a workers' compensation claim. The school district argued governmental immunity had not been waived. The court, reviewing de novo, concluded that Section 451.001, when read with Section 311.034 of the Texas Government Code, clearly waives governmental immunity for such claims against school districts. Consequently, the trial court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction was affirmed, and the award of $4,500 in sanctions was upheld.

Retaliatory DischargeGovernmental ImmunitySovereign Immunity WaiverPlea to the JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation ClaimSchool District LiabilityAttorney Fees SanctionsTexas Labor CodeTexas Government CodeInterlocutory Appeal
References
7
Case No. 01-02-00024-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2003

Miller, Brent M. v. Stolthaven Houston, Inc.

Brent M. Miller sued Stolthaven Houston, Inc., alleging age discrimination, unlawful retaliation under Title VII and the Texas Labor Code, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unlawful retaliation under Texas Labor Code section 451.001. After removal to federal court, most claims were dismissed, and the section 451.001 retaliatory termination claim was remanded to the state trial court. The trial court granted summary judgment for Stolthaven, prompting Miller's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that while Miller presented circumstantial evidence for a prima facie case of retaliatory termination, Stolthaven offered a legitimate non-discriminatory reason (violating company policy by "milking" the clock). The court also noted Miller's own testimony suggested the alleged discrimination stemmed from a personal dispute with his manager, unrelated to his worker's compensation claim.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory TerminationSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationTexas Labor CodeCausal LinkBurden-ShiftingPretextDisparate TreatmentPolicy Violation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Coffee Products Co. v. Cazarez

Juanita Cazarez sued her employer, Continental Coffee Products Company, and its manager, Alan D. Duff, for retaliatory discharge after she filed a workers' compensation claim, violating Tex. Lab. Code § 451.001. The trial court awarded actual and punitive damages. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the finding of a statutory violation and the award of actual damages, but reversed the punitive damages award, finding no evidence of actual malice (ill-will, spite, or specific intent to injure) as required for punitive damages under section 451.001. The court clarified the causation standard for retaliatory discharge cases and discussed jurisdictional issues for county civil courts at law.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' CompensationPunitive damagesActual damagesMaliceEmployment lawCausation standardJurisdictionStatutory interpretationTexas Anti-Retaliation Law
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Tech University Health Science Center at El Paso v. Ricky L. Gatlin

Ricky L. Gatlin sustained an on-the-job injury in 2005 while employed by Texas Tech University Health Science Center at El Paso (TTHSC) and was subsequently terminated in 2006. Gatlin filed a retaliatory discharge claim under Section 451.001 of the Texas Labor Code. TTHSC filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that sovereign immunity had not been waived for such claims. The trial court denied TTHSC's plea, prompting TTHSC to file an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court, referencing prior similar cases, rejected TTHSC's arguments regarding the waiver of sovereign immunity under Chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code and Section 311.034 of the Texas Government Code. The court affirmed the trial court’s order.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealTexas Labor CodeGovernment CodeWaiverAppellate ReviewEmployment Termination
References
6
Case No. 13-07-005-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2007

Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District v. Sandra Acosta

This appeal concerns a retaliatory discharge case filed by Sandra Acosta (appellee) against Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District (appellant). Acosta alleged she was terminated in violation of section 451.001 of the Texas Labor Code for filing a workers' compensation claim. The school district filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing sovereign immunity had not been waived. The trial court denied the plea and awarded $4,500 in sanctions to Acosta. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that governmental immunity was indeed waived under Labor Code § 451.001 and Government Code § 311.034, thus subjecting school districts to such discrimination claims, and also found no abuse of discretion in the imposition of sanctions.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental Immunity WaiverRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimPlea to the JurisdictionTrial Court SanctionsAbuse of DiscretionTexas Labor CodeTexas Government CodeInterlocutory Appeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2001

Stephens v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit

Curtis Stephens, an at-will employee, sued Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) for wrongful discharge under section 451.001 of the labor code, alleging retaliation for filing workers' compensation claims. Stephens was terminated after accumulating 162 absences following a work-related injury, a decision upheld by DART's internal Trial Board. The trial court applied a substantial evidence standard, issued a take-nothing judgment against Stephens, and granted DART partial summary judgment on Stephens' claims for attorney's fees and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the partial summary judgment regarding attorney's fees and exemplary damages, holding that attorney's fees are not recoverable as 'reasonable damages' under section 451.002 and that exemplary damages cannot be assessed against DART, a political subdivision. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the remainder of the trial court's judgment on the wrongful discharge claim, concluding that the doctrines of election of remedies and res judicata did not bar Stephens' statutory claim and that the claim had not been properly heard. A supplemental opinion on DART's motion for rehearing reaffirmed the initial decision, clarifying the inapplicability of the *City of Odessa v. Barton* precedent.

Wrongful DischargeRetaliation ClaimWorkers' Compensation ClaimsElection of RemediesRes JudicataAttorney's FeesExemplary DamagesGovernmental ImmunityPolitical SubdivisionAt-Will Employment
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

West v. Fina Oil & Chemical Co.

Plaintiff initiated a lawsuit in a Texas state court, alleging wrongful discharge and discrimination under Texas Labor Code section 451.001 after filing workers' compensation claims. The Defendant subsequently removed the case to federal court, asserting that the Plaintiff's claims were preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), necessitating the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Plaintiff responded with a motion to remand, contending that the claims were not inextricably linked to the CBA and that workers' compensation matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of state courts. The court, referencing precedents like Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. and Jones v. Roadway Express, Inc., determined that retaliatory discharge claims under state workers' compensation laws are typically independent of CBAs and not subject to LMRA section 301 preemption, as they focus on the employer's motive rather than CBA interpretation. Ultimately, the court concluded that the Plaintiff's complaint did not rely on the CBA, and the central issue of retaliatory motive did not require CBA interpretation, thereby lacking removal jurisdiction and granting the motion to remand the case back to state court.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeLabor Management Relations ActPreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal JurisdictionRemandTexas Labor CodeLMRA Section 301Fifth Circuit Precedent
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 4,869 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