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

Wolff v. Deputy Constables Ass'n of Bexar County

Appellee Deputy Constables Association of Bexar County sued appellants Nelson Wolff, et al. for violating the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act by failing to engage in collective bargaining. This is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's denial of Wolff's plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. Wolff contended the trial court erred because the Deputy Constables lack standing under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 174. The court analyzed the definition of 'police officer' under the Act, which requires employment in the 'police department' of a political subdivision. While deputy sheriffs are considered part of the 'police department' for a county, the court found Deputy Constables are employed by the Constable's Office, not the 'police department' or Sheriff's Office. Therefore, the court concluded that the Deputy Constables do not meet the definition of 'police officer' under the Act, lack standing to bring suit, and reversed the trial court’s denial of Wolff’s plea to the jurisdiction, rendering judgment in favor of Wolff.

Collective BargainingFire and Police Employee Relations ActTexas Local Government Code Chapter 174StandingPlea to JurisdictionMotion to DismissDeputy ConstablesPolice Officers DefinitionAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
15
Case No. 04-13-00080-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2013

Nelson Wolff, County Judge of Bexar County Texas, Bexar County Commissioners Paul Elizondo, Tommy Adkisson, Sergio Chico Rodriguez and Kevin Wolff And Bexar County, Texas v. Deputy Constables Association of Bexar

The Deputy Constables Association of Bexar County sued Nelson Wolff, et al., alleging a violation of the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act for failing to engage in collective bargaining. The case originated from the trial court's denial of Wolff's plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The central legal question on appeal was whether the Deputy Constables possessed the standing to collectively bargain under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 174, which restricts this right to "police officers" employed in a political subdivision's "police department." The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, analyzed relevant statutory definitions and precedent, distinguishing between the Sheriff's Office (considered a "police department" for the county) and the Constable's Office. Concluding that Deputy Constables are not employed by the "police department" or the Sheriff's Office, the court determined they do not meet the statutory definition of "police officer" and thus lack standing to pursue their claim. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and rendered judgment in favor of Wolff, dismissing the suit.

Collective BargainingStandingPolice OfficersLocal Government CodeBexar CountyConstable's OfficeSheriff's OfficeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPlea to Jurisdiction
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration Between Monroe County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n & Monroe County

The petitioner, representing Deputy Sheriffs, challenged an arbitration award concerning holiday pay. Five Deputy Sheriffs, scheduled to work on July 4, 2011, received only eight hours of holiday pay despite being granted the day off, not their regular shift pay plus holiday pay. The petitioner argued that the collective bargaining agreement and Military Law § 249 mandated additional payment. The arbitrator denied the grievance, concluding neither required the additional payment. The Supreme Court confirmed this award, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no excess of arbitral power, no irrational construction of the CBA, and no violation of public policy.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceArbitration AwardPublic PolicyMilitary LawHoliday PayDeputy SheriffsCPLR Article 75AffirmanceAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. CA 13-01106
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2014

MONROE COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF'S, MTR. OF

Petitioner, a bargaining representative for Deputy Sheriffs, sought to vacate an arbitration award that denied a grievance concerning holiday pay for five members on July 4, 2011. The Deputy Sheriffs were granted the day off with pay but were not compensated for their regular shifts in addition to the holiday pay, which petitioner alleged violated their collective bargaining agreement and Military Law § 249. The arbitrator denied the grievance, concluding that neither the CBA nor Military Law § 249 mandated the additional payment. The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the arbitrator did not exceed his authority, his construction of the CBA was not irrational, and the award did not violate public policy.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementHoliday Pay DisputeMilitary Law BenefitsGrievance DenialDeputy SheriffsPublic PolicyVacate ArbitrationAppellate ReviewLabor Relations
References
6
Case No. 06-13-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

the Fannin County Community Supervision and Corrections Department v. Glenda Spoon

The Fannin County Community Supervision and Corrections Department appeals the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a whistleblower action filed by its former employee, Glenda Spoon. Spoon alleged she was terminated for reporting various violations of law, including illegal campaigning and embezzlement, to the District Attorney. The Department claims Spoon's reports were not made in good faith and that she was terminated for failing to follow orders regarding a client's SAFPF admission and the chain of command. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the plea, finding Spoon raised sufficient fact issues regarding her good-faith belief of reported violations and a causal link between her report and termination. The court identified a Fannin County Personnel Policy Manual section as a 'law' implicated by Spoon's report.

Whistleblower ActPublic Employee RetaliationSovereign Immunity WaiverPlea to the JurisdictionFannin CountyCommunity Supervision and Corrections DepartmentIllegal CampaigningEmbezzlement AllegationsTexas Government CodePersonnel Policy Violation
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Santiago v. West Texas Community Supervision & Corrections Department

Adela De Santiago, a case manager for the West Texas Community Supervision & Corrections Department (WTCSCD), filed an employment discrimination suit against WTCSCD, county court at law judges, and district court judges. She alleged gender-based discrimination and retaliation after reporting sexual harassment, under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). The trial court granted pleas to the jurisdiction and motions for summary judgment, dismissing her suit. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that WTCSCD was a state instrumentality but not De Santiago's employer for TCHRA purposes, as the district judges had ultimate control over personnel decisions. Furthermore, the court determined that suing the judges in their official capacities was effectively suing the judicial districts or El Paso County, neither of which qualified as her employer under TCHRA.

Employment LawDiscrimination (Gender)RetaliationSexual HarassmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTCHRAStatutory EmployerGovernmental ImmunityJudicial ImmunityOfficial Capacity Suit
References
30
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01459 [192 AD3d 1292]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2021

Matter of Morales (New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision)

Samuel Morales, a correction sergeant, was injured while restraining an inmate who had attempted to punch him, subsequently being placed on workers' compensation leave. His employment was terminated after one year by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, arguing his injury did not result from an 'assault' as per Civil Service Law § 71, thus denying him a two-year leave. Morales challenged this in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, initially dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed, ruling that the inmate's attempted punch constituted an 'intentional physical act of violence directed toward an employee,' meeting the assault definition for § 71 eligibility. The court found the respondent's determination arbitrary, capricious, and affected by an error of law, clarifying that the statute requires disability 'resulting from' an assault, not 'directly caused' by it.

Workers' CompensationCivil Service Law § 71AssaultLeave of AbsenceCorrection SergeantInmate AltercationEmployment TerminationCPLR article 78Statutory InterpretationArbitrary and Capricious
References
7
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01818 [192 AD3d 1426]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2021

Matter of Jennings v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision

Petitioner, a correction officer, sustained injuries while restraining an inmate, leading to her being placed on workers' compensation leave. After one year, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (respondent) terminated her employment, denying her request for a two-year leave of absence under Civil Service Law § 71. Petitioner then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing her statutory entitlement to the extended leave due to an inmate assault and challenging respondent's definition of assault as too restrictive. The Supreme Court dismissed her application. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, upholding respondent's narrower interpretation of

Workers' CompensationLeave of AbsenceCorrection OfficerInmate AssaultCivil Service LawCPLR Article 78Statutory InterpretationAdministrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousDisability
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03962 [218 AD3d 1096]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2023

Matter of Brooks v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision

Petitioner, a captain for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, was terminated after an investigation revealed he engaged in sexually explicit text message exchanges while on duty. He challenged the termination, arguing lack of substantial evidence for misconduct and disproportionality of the penalty. The court found substantial evidence supported the misconduct findings, rejecting his procedural arguments regarding the warrant and subpoena. However, considering his 21 years of service, strong evaluations, and expressed remorse, the court found the penalty of termination disproportionate and remitted the matter for consideration of a less severe penalty. A dissenting opinion argued the termination was justified due to the severe nature of the conduct in a leadership role.

Employment TerminationMisconductCivil Service LawCPLR Article 78Disciplinary HearingSexual MisconductWorkplace PolicyAdministrative PenaltyAppellate ReviewProportionality of Penalty
References
34
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00652
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of Froehlich v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision

Petitioner Jason Froehlich, a correction sergeant, was injured while attempting to subdue a combative parolee. Following a year of workers' compensation leave, his employment was terminated by respondent, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71. Froehlich argued he was entitled to a two-year leave of absence, asserting his injuries resulted from an assault during employment. Respondent denied this, defining "assault" as an intentional physical act of violence directed toward an employee, and found no evidence the parolee intentionally directed violence at Froehlich. The Supreme Court dismissed Froehlich's CPLR article 78 petition. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that respondent's definition of assault was rational and its application to the facts, finding no intentional physical act directed at Froehlich, was also rational. A dissenting opinion argued that the inmate's actions, under respondent's own definition, constituted an assault.

Civil Service Law § 71workers' compensation leavedisability leaveassault in employmentintentional physical act of violenceCPLR article 78 proceedingadministrative determinationrational basis reviewarbitrary and capriciouscorrection sergeant
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,057 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