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

Jackson v. Cassellas

In a sex discrimination case that resulted in a successful settlement for the plaintiff, Ms. Jackson, her attorney, William A. Price, Esq., sought an award for attorney fees and expenses. The defendant, EEOC, objected to the fee application due to concerns about the hourly rate, lack of contemporaneous records, and vague work descriptions. Presiding Judge Curtin, after considering the complexities of the case, Mr. Price's integrity, and the issues with document production, determined that a 15% reduction for vagueness and record-keeping deficiencies was warranted. However, the court also awarded a 10% bonus for the excellent results achieved and the difficulties encountered, resulting in a net 5% reduction. The final award for attorney fees was $291,405.85, with an additional $14,785.77 reimbursed for costs.

Attorney FeesSex DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1991Lodestar MethodHourly Rate CalculationContemporaneous RecordsVagueness of RecordsFee ReductionFee EnhancementSettlement Agreement
References
21
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
Jan 29, 1997

Murphy v. ERA United Realty

The case concerns a plaintiff suing ERA United Realty, Petee Realty, Peter Orisses, and Nick Kavourgias for sex and national origin discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, finding factual disputes regarding the plaintiff's employment status as an independent contractor or employee. The appellate court modified this decision, granting summary judgment for defendant Nick Kavourgias on the first cause of action (Executive Law § 296 (1) (a)) due to his limited role. However, it affirmed the denial of dismissal for other claims, including those under the Administrative Code and for aiding and abetting under Executive Law § 296 (6), recognizing coemployee liability under these provisions when acting in concert with an employer.

Sex DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentEmployment DiscriminationIndependent Contractor vs EmployeeSummary JudgmentExecutive LawAdministrative CodeAiding and AbettingCoemployee Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Porter v. Texaco, Inc.

Plaintiff Mona C. Porter filed an action against her employer, Texaco, Inc., alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress. The core issue was whether Porter's sex discrimination claims were jurisdictionally sound, given that her EEOC charge only cited age discrimination and retaliation for participating in a class action, without alleging sex discrimination. The court determined that Porter's sex discrimination claims were not included in or reasonably related to her EEOC charge under any of the three established criteria (retaliation for filing EEOC charge, further incidents of discrimination in the same manner, or within the scope of a reasonable EEOC investigation). Furthermore, the retaliation claims in her Title VII complaint were also deemed not reasonably related to her EEOC charge due to differing conduct and forms of alleged retaliation. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction over the Title VII sex discrimination claim, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of all federal claims. The supplemental state law claims were subsequently dismissed without prejudice.

Sex DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIEEOC ExhaustionSummary JudgmentFederal JurisdictionHuman Rights LawEmployment LawDiscrimination Claim
References
19
Case No. 13-21-00365-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2022

Edcouch-Elsa Independent School District v. Lisa Cabrera

This is an employment discrimination case brought by appellee Lisa Cabrera against her former employer, Edcouch-Elsa Independent School District (EEISD), alleging sex and age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). EEISD appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction as Cabrera failed to provide evidence of a statutorily protected violation. Cabrera's employment was terminated due to excessive absences. She claimed discrimination based on her sex and age, augmented by "attractiveness," stemming from her supervisor's jealousy. The court found Cabrera failed to present sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence for her age and/or sex discrimination claims, noting she was replaced by a woman one year older and of the same sex, and did not show disparate treatment. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order, rendering judgment dismissing Cabrera's claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Employment DiscriminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActPlea to JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityAge DiscriminationSex DiscriminationCircumstantial EvidenceDirect EvidenceMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkAppellate Review
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mendelsohn v. University Hospital

Barry Mendelsohn sued University Hospital and Dennis Sheppard for retaliation and discrimination. He alleged Sheppard failed to promote him in retaliation for union complaints, violating 42 U.S.C. § 1988. He also claimed the Hospital discriminated based on sex and retaliated by removing teaching duties after he filed a sex discrimination charge, violating Title VII and NYHRL. Defendants moved to dismiss. The court granted dismissal of the § 1983 retaliation claim against Sheppard and the Title VII sex discrimination claim (with leave to amend regarding qualification), and the NYHRL claims. However, the court denied dismissal of the Title VII retaliation claim against the Hospital, finding that diminished teaching responsibilities constituted an adverse employment action.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISex DiscriminationFailure to PromoteAdverse Employment ActionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)42 U.S.C. Section 1983First AmendmentMotion to Dismiss
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2007

Heinemann v. Howe & Rusling

Plaintiff Marion Heinemann sued her former employer, Howe & Rusling, Inc., and several individual defendants, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as retaliation and Equal Pay Act violations. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court denied summary judgment for the plaintiff's Title VII claims (sex discrimination and retaliation) and the Equal Pay Act claim, finding sufficient evidence of pretext and discriminatory intent to warrant a jury trial. However, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims, concluding that the plaintiff failed to present enough evidence for these specific allegations. The case will proceed to trial on the sex discrimination, retaliation, and Equal Pay Act claims.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliationEqual Pay ActSummary Judgment MotionFederal CourtWestern District of New YorkWorkplace HarassmentPerformance ManagementAdverse Employment Action
References
56
Case No. 02-22-00305-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2023

University of North Texas Health Science Center v. Marcy Paul

Marcy Paul sued the University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) for age and sex discrimination, and retaliation, after her employment contract was not renewed and she was not hired for a tenure-track position or promoted to Department Chair. UNTHSC filed a plea to the jurisdiction on sovereign-immunity grounds. Paul conceded the lack of jurisdiction for the failure-to-promote to Department Chair claim. The Court of Appeals found that Paul presented sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue on her age- and sex-discrimination claims related to the failure to hire her for a tenure-track professor position, and her age-discrimination claim for the contract nonrenewal. However, the court found insufficient evidence for her sex-discrimination claim related to the contract nonrenewal. Consequently, the trial court's denial of UNTHSC's plea to the jurisdiction was affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part.

Age DiscriminationSex DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionPrima Facie CasePretextMcDonnell DouglasTenure-track position
References
71
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKinney v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Barbara M. McKinney, a pro se plaintiff, sued Eastman Kodak Co. for employment discrimination. She later moved to amend her complaint to include claims for age discrimination under ADEA and New York State Human Rights Law, sex discrimination under Title VII, FMLA violations, and retaliation under ADEA. The court partially granted and partially denied the motion. The court denied leave to amend for sex discrimination, FMLA violations, and the disparate impact theory of age discrimination, finding them not reasonably related to her original EEOC complaint. The motion was granted only to allow McKinney to restate her disparate treatment age discrimination claim and her retaliation claim under the ADEA, specifically for events occurring on or after April 28, 1995, while denying claims based on earlier events that did not constitute a continuing violation.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationDisparate TreatmentMotion to Amend ComplaintEEOC ExhaustionContinuing Violation DoctrineEmployment LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 15Title VIIADEA
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 2,482 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