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

Grant v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville

The plaintiffs, a class of current and former black employees of Metro Water Services (MWS), filed a class action alleging systemic racial discrimination in post-employment opportunities under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The Court found MWS engaged in discriminatory practices including tailoring job qualifications, lateral transfers, selective interview processes, and misuse of out-of-class assignments, all contributing to significant statistical disparities in promotion and compensation for black employees. Based on expert testimony and statistical analysis, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that MWS's practices caused racial disparities. The Court ordered remedies including back pay for named plaintiffs and class members, and the appointment of a Special Master to validate job requirements and establish formulas for back pay and compensation equalization.

Title VIICivil Rights Act of 196442 U.S.C. § 1981Class ActionDisparate ImpactRacial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationPromotionsCompensation DisparityStatistical Proof
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falcon v. General Telephone Co. of Southwest

This Memorandum Opinion addresses remands from the Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit in the landmark employment discrimination case Falcon v. General Telephone Co. The court, presided over by District Judge Buchmeyer, conducted a 'rigorous analysis' and evaluated statistical evidence. It concluded that the individual plaintiff, Mariano S. Falcon, who claimed promotion discrimination, could not represent a class of Mexican-American applicants who were not hired, as their claims were not 'fairly encompassed' and Falcon lacked standing. Despite this, due to prior Fifth Circuit rulings, the court would permit intervention by one of 13 original class members to pursue the class hiring claims. However, the court ultimately found the class claims of hiring discrimination to be 'baseless' after a 'more specific evaluation' of the statistical evidence, determining that General Telephone did not discriminate in hiring. For Falcon's individual claim of promotion discrimination, a new trial on liability was deemed necessary due to conflicting testimony and the application of Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine standards. However, any potential damages for Falcon were capped at $1,040.33, an amount significantly less than the $7,373.27 in appeal costs Falcon owed to General Telephone. Therefore, the court conditionally dismissed the case unless Falcon paid the appeal costs or posted a bond, after which only the liability of his individual promotion claim and related attorneys' fees would proceed to trial.

Employment DiscriminationClass ActionRacial DiscriminationPromotion DiscriminationHiring DiscriminationRule 23(a)Statistical EvidenceDisparate ImpactDisparate TreatmentRes Judicata
References
41
Case No. 03-12-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2014

City of Austin v. Raymond E. Chandler, Daniel J. Amador, David Becker, John Beese, Nathan Blane Brown, Michael Carter, Anastacio Cruz, Eddie De La Garza, Jose L. Delgado, Carlos S. Dominguez, Kenneth J. Ferro, David Gannon, Abel Garza, Vincent Giles, Jr.

The City of Austin appealed a trial court judgment in favor of public safety officers who sued for age-based employment discrimination. The officers, all over 40, alleged that the City's consolidation of their department into the Austin Police Department disparately impacted them by reducing their seniority and rank, leading to significantly smaller pay increases compared to younger officers. The jury found the City liable, and the trial court awarded damages. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, rejecting the City's arguments concerning administrative remedy exhaustion, sufficiency of evidence, and jury instructions on causation and statistical disparity.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationDisparate ImpactPublic Safety OfficersCity ConsolidationSeniorityPay DisparityAffirmative DefenseJury InstructionsStatistical Evidence
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halfond v. Legal Aid Soc. of City of New York

Plaintiffs Lawrence Halfond, Michael Richstone, and Peter Zullo, all supervisors at Legal Aid, were fired or demoted in January 1995 and subsequently filed an age discrimination lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Legal Aid sought summary judgment, asserting that the employment actions were necessitated by budget cuts. The court denied Legal Aid's motion, finding that the plaintiffs successfully established a prima facie case of age discrimination. This was supported by statistical evidence showing a significant disparity in the treatment of older versus younger supervisors, management comments suggesting a preference for younger employees, and a notable lack of clear, specific, and documented non-discriminatory reasons for the adverse actions from Legal Aid's committees.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)Summary Judgment MotionPrima Facie CaseDisparate TreatmentReduction in ForceStatistical EvidencePretextEmployer's BurdenExplanations for TerminationDocumentary Evidence
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 1997

Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiffs, 25 current or former Metro-North employees, filed two class action lawsuits alleging employment discrimination based on race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and various New York State laws against Metro-North Commuter Railroad. They sought class certification for "all African-American employees of defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad from 1983 through 1996." The Court consolidated the two actions but subsequently denied the motion for class certification. The denial was based on the plaintiffs' failure to satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The Court found that the plaintiffs' statistical data and sociological opinion were insufficient to establish company-wide discriminatory practices, and individual claims varied significantly, thus lacking typicality for such a broad class.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationClass ActionClass Certification DenialFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 23Commonality RequirementTypicality RequirementStatistical EvidenceSociological OpinionTitle VII
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dobbs-Weinstein v. Vanderbilt University

Plaintiff Idit Dobbs-Weinstein alleged gender and national origin discrimination against Vanderbilt University after being denied tenure, also bringing state law claims for breach of contract and breach of covenant of good faith. While she was eventually granted tenure retroactively by the University after an appeal, she sought damages for emotional harm, professional reputation damage, and lost interest on backpay, and also claimed sex discrimination in faculty salaries. The Court found that Dobbs-Weinstein failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact regarding discrimination in her tenure denial or in class-wide salary disparities, citing academic reasons for the initial denial and a lack of statistical significance in her wage discrimination claims. Consequently, the Court granted Vanderbilt University's motion for summary judgment, dismissing her federal discrimination claims. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Tenure denialEmployment discriminationGender discriminationNational origin discriminationTitle VIITennessee Human Rights ActSummary judgmentAcademic freedomFaculty evaluationStatistical analysis
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McClain v. Lufkin Industries, Inc.

Sylvester McClain and Buford Thomas brought claims against Lufkin Industries under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging disparate impact due to the company's subjective employment practices. The court considered the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which involved demonstrating a prima facie case of disparate impact and satisfying the criteria under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Statistical analysis presented by the plaintiffs indicated a significant disparate impact on African-American employees across various employment aspects, including hiring, promotion, compensation, and layoffs. The court determined that the proposed class met all requirements of Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation) and qualified for certification under Rule 23(b)(2), primarily seeking injunctive relief. Consequently, the court granted the motion for class certification, severing individual monetary relief claims to ensure the predominance of injunctive relief.

Employment DiscriminationClass ActionDisparate ImpactSubjective Employment PracticesRacial DiscriminationTitle VII ClaimSection 1981 ClaimRule 23 CertificationNumerosityCommonality
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waldron v. Wild

Daniel J. Waldron sued Michael P. Wild for personal injuries from a May 25, 1980 car accident. Waldron, a passenger, sustained facial lacerations. Wild moved for summary judgment, arguing Waldron's injuries were not 'serious' under Insurance Law § 671, subdivision 4, lacking 'significant disfigurement.' Special Term granted the motion, dismissing the complaint. Waldron appealed, asserting his half-centimeter forehead scar and nasal prominence constituted significant disfigurement. The appellate court examined medical reports and the definition of 'significant disfigurement,' noting it's a factual issue often requiring visual assessment. The court adopted a jury instruction defining it as a condition a reasonable person would find unattractive, objectionable, or pitiable. Concluding that Waldron demonstrated a triable issue of fact, the appellate court reversed Special Term's decision, denying the summary judgment motion.

NegligencePersonal InjuryCar AccidentFacial InjuriesSignificant DisfigurementNo-Fault LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceScarring
References
13
Case No. ADJ1260866 (LAO 0864160) ADJ985895 (LAO 0864161)
Regular
Dec 28, 2011

GERALD MAYES vs. BIG LOTS; SEDGWICK CMS

The Applicant, Gerald Mayes, sought removal of a trial setting order, arguing the defendant's readiness declaration was insufficient and his medical condition had significantly worsened post-AME. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for removal. This dismissal was primarily based on the applicant's failure to verify the petition, a mandatory requirement. Even if verified, the WCAB would have denied the petition as the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or significant prejudice.

Petition for RemovalUnverified PetitionDeclaration of ReadinessPermanent and StationaryAME ReportCervical ConditionSurgeryIrreparable HarmSignificant PrejudiceMinute Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ3192115 SBR 0342658
Regular
Apr 30, 2012

YONIR ALARCON vs. STELLAR ENTERPRISES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, finding that the WCJ's order to take the case off calendar for further discovery regarding denied body parts was an interlocutory order, not subject to reconsideration. The Board found significant prejudice and irreparable harm to the defendant if the applicant was allowed further discovery after significant delays and prior medical evaluations. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order, dismissed the petition for reconsideration, and returned the matter to the trial level for a mandatory settlement conference and further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalOrder Taking Off Calendardenied body partsPanel Qualified Medical EvaluationsPetition for ReconsiderationInterlocutory Orderssignificant prejudiceirreparable harmDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement Conference
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,889 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