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. 15-25-00028-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2025

Texas State University and Texas State University System v. Stuart Patrick Wilkinson

This case involves an expedited appeal concerning a Texas Whistleblower Act proceeding and free-speech retaliation claims. Appellee Stuart Patrick Wilkinson, a public employee, reported potential illegal software licensing and evidence spoliation by Appellants, Texas State University and Texas State University System, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Internal Audit Office. Following these whistleblower reports, Appellee alleges he suffered various adverse personnel actions, including denied promotions, reduced pay, and a hostile work environment, leading him to file suit after exhausting administrative remedies. The trial court denied the Appellants' plea to the jurisdiction, and Appellee requests the appellate court to affirm this denial, arguing his claims are not barred by sovereign immunity and his petition is sufficient.

Expedited AppealTexas Whistleblower ActFree Speech RetaliationSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionPublic EmployeeAdverse Personnel ActionAdministrative RemediesTexas Government Code Chapter 554First Amendment
References
20
Case No. 14-14-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2015

Vicki Ward v. Lamar University, Texas State University System and James Simmons

Vicki Ward sued Lamar University and the Texas State University System for whistleblower retaliation and constitutional violations after reporting suspicious financial transactions. Ward alleged adverse personnel actions, including reduced responsibilities and supervision, following the leak of her report. The trial court dismissed her claims based on a plea to the jurisdiction and sua sponte. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of whistleblower claims against the Texas State University System but reversed the dismissal against Lamar University, citing factual disputes regarding adverse action and grievance initiation. Furthermore, the court largely reversed the sua sponte dismissal of Ward's constitutional claims against both entities, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationPlea to JurisdictionAdverse Personnel ActionTexas ConstitutionFree SpeechDue ProcessEqual ProtectionGovernmental ImmunityPublic Employee
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palmer v. State University of New York Upstate Medical University

The claimant, an orthopedic hand surgeon, developed cervical radiculopathy and degenerative disc disease due to the physical strain of performing hand surgery and filed for workers' compensation benefits. His claim was controverted by the State University of New York Upstate Medical University and its carrier, as well as the Research Foundation of New York and its carrier. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that the claimant was a dual employee of both the University and the Foundation and that his condition constituted a causally related occupational disease. The University and its carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's findings, concluding there was substantial evidence to support both the dual employment status and the existence of a recognizable link between the claimant's condition and the distinctive features of his occupation.

Occupational DiseaseCervical RadiculopathyDegenerative Disc DiseaseDual EmploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsHand Surgery StrainMedical OpinionAppellate ReviewCausationEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. 03-15-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2015

Gregory Joe Wickline v. Board of Regents for the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges, Acting for and on Behalf of Oklahoma State University And James Michael Holder, in His Individual Capacity and in His Capacity as Vice President for Athletic Programs and Director Of

Coach Gregory Joe Wickline terminated his employment with Oklahoma State University (OSU) to become the Offensive Coordinator at the University of Texas (UT). OSU and its Athletic Director, James Michael Holder, alleged Wickline's new role did not meet the 'safe harbor' provision of his OSU contract, which would have excused him from paying liquidated damages for early termination. OSU sued Wickline in Oklahoma for breach of contract. Wickline then filed a lawsuit in Texas seeking a declaratory judgment to construe the contract's 'Offensive Coordinator (with play calling duties)' phrase and alleging tortious interference with his UT contract. The trial court in Travis County, Texas, dismissed Wickline's claims without prejudice based on a mandatory forum-selection clause in the OSU contract.

Contractual DisputeForum Selection ClauseTortious InterferenceDeclaratory JudgmentEmployment ContractCoaching DisputeLiquidated DamagesOklahoma State UniversityUniversity of TexasJudicial Interpretation
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2015

Ward v. Lamar University

Vicki Ward sued Lamar University and the Texas State University System under the Texas Whistleblower Act and for constitutional violations, alleging retaliation after reporting suspicious financial transactions. The trial court dismissed her claims. On appeal, the court found fact issues regarding whether Ward initiated a grievance and suffered materially adverse actions from Lamar University, reversing the dismissal of whistleblower and free speech retaliation claims against Lamar. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of all claims against the Texas State University System due to lack of evidence of adverse action and unfulfilled threats not constituting actionable decisions. The case is remanded for further proceedings concerning Lamar University.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationFree SpeechDeclaratory Judgment ActTexas ConstitutionAdverse Personnel ActionSovereign ImmunityGrievance ProcedurePlea to the JurisdictionPublic Employee
References
52
Case No. M2014-02450-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2016

Kenneth D. Hardy v. Tennessee State University

Kenneth D. Hardy, a former state university police officer, sued Tennessee State University and other entities, alleging sex discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge under various acts. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment on the sex discrimination and Tennessee Public Protection Act claims. However, it reversed summary judgment on specific retaliation claims related to a transfer and tardiness warnings, and also on the hostile work environment claim concerning numerous write-ups. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these specific claims, while constructive discharge was affirmed.

Employment LawRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentSex DiscriminationTennessee Public Protection ActTennessee Human Rights ActTitle VIIAppellate Review
References
27
Case No. 03-14-00112-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2016

Dr. James Jones v. Angelo State University

Dr. James Jones, an associate professor at Angelo State University, sued his former employer for religious discrimination, alleging he was discharged due to his religious beliefs and practices, specifically making religious statements in class. The University cited violation of policy, declining performance, and insubordination as reasons for his non-reappointment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the University. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Jones's discriminatory discharge claim based on disparate treatment. However, it reversed and remanded the portion of the judgment regarding the University's alleged failure to accommodate Jones's religious practice, finding the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on this ground.

Religious DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeFailure to AccommodateDisparate TreatmentAcademic EmploymentUniversity PolicyReligious Freedom
References
18
Case No. 03-97-00607-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 1998

Southwest Texas State University v. Ezekiel Enriquez

Ezekiel Enriquez sued Southwest Texas State University (SWT), alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. SWT moved for summary judgment based on sovereign immunity, which the trial court denied. On interlocutory appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, addressed whether the legislature clearly and unambiguously waived sovereign immunity for state agencies under the Anti-Retaliation Law. Citing City of LaPorte v. Barfield and Texas Dep't of Health v. Ruiz, the court found that Chapter 501 of the Labor Code, pertaining to state agencies, lacked an election-of-remedies provision similar to that found in Chapter 504 for political subdivisions. Consequently, the court concluded there was no clear waiver of sovereign immunity for state agencies in anti-retaliation actions. The court vacated the trial court's order and dismissed the cause for lack of jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityWorkers' Compensation RetaliationState AgenciesJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationAppellate CourtTexas LawJurisdictionWrongful TerminationGovernmental Immunity
References
10
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03888 [195 AD3d 1270]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2021

Matter of Spence v. State Univ. of N.Y.

This case involves an appeal concerning a salary increase for nurses at Stony Brook University Hospital, initiated by the State University of New York. Petitioners, including Wayne Spence and the New York State Public Employees Federation, argued that the salary adjustments violated Education Law and Civil Service Law due to an inadequate study, and Executive Law and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act due to disparate impact on older nurses. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding the study sufficient and the age discrimination claims procedurally deficient. The Appellate Division affirmed this dismissal, concluding that the study was representative, the nonuniform pay differential was permissible under Education Law, and the age discrimination claims failed because petitioners did not file with the EEOC and the pay adjustments were based on a legitimate non-age factor.

Wage ratesPay differentialsNurse salariesAge discriminationCPLR article 78State University of New YorkPublic Employees FederationStony Brook University HospitalEducation Law § 355-aCivil Service Law § 130
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. State of New York

The United States sued the State of New York and several state entities, including SBOE, SUNY, and CUNY, alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The core issue was whether state-funded Disabled Student Services (DSS) offices at public colleges and universities, including SUNY and CUNY campuses and community colleges, must be designated as mandatory voter registration agencies (VRAs) under 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5(a)(2)(B). The State defendants argued these offices were not 'primarily engaged' in serving persons with disabilities, and that the NVRA did not apply to them. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the interpretation of the NVRA, citing legislative intent and prior circuit court decisions. The Court concluded that DSS offices at all SUNY and CUNY campuses and their respective community colleges are indeed state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities, and therefore must be designated as mandatory VRAs. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)Voter Registration Agencies (VRAs)Disabled Student Services (DSS)State-funded programsPublic universitiesCommunity collegesFederalismSummary judgmentDeclaratory reliefInjunctive relief
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 12,409 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