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

Plasti-Line, Inc. v. Tennessee Human Rights Commission

A private employer, referred to as 'Appellant', brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of enforcement provisions within the Tennessee Human Rights Commission statutes (T.C.A. §§ 4-21-301 to 307). The Appellant argued that these statutes violated the separation of powers, the right to trial by jury, and judicial election provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. The Chancellor initially upheld the validity of the statutes and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding no merit in the Appellant's claims. The Court highlighted that the Human Rights Commission functions as an administrative agency, administering public policy, and its orders are subject to judicial review and enforcement by the chancery court, thus not violating constitutional principles.

Human Rights LawDiscrimination LawEmployment DiscriminationAdministrative LawConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersRight to Jury TrialStatutory ValidityTennessee ConstitutionAppellate Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carr v. United Parcel Service

The case addresses a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee concerning individual liability under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). Plaintiff Kelly Carr alleged sexual harassment against her employer, United Parcel Service (UPS), and three UPS employees. The individual defendants moved for judgment, arguing they could not be held individually liable. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the THRA's 'agent of an employer' language does not impose individual liability, aligning with federal interpretations of Title VII. While the THRA provides for accomplice liability for individuals who aid, abet, incite, compel, or command an employer's discriminatory practice, the Court found no evidence under the certified facts to hold the non-supervisory and supervisory defendants individually liable for either co-worker harassment or supervisor-created hostile work environment, as their actions did not constitute aiding and abetting the employer's failure to take remedial action.

Sexual HarassmentTennessee Human Rights Act (THRA)Individual LiabilityEmployer LiabilityTitle VIICertified Question of LawRespondeat SuperiorAiding and AbettingHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo Harassment
References
23
Case No. E2012-02112-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2014

Larry Sneed v. The City of Red Bank, Tennessee

This case addresses whether the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) governs Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) claims against governmental entities and if there is a right to a jury trial for such claims in chancery court. The Court rejected the analysis from Young v. Davis, which had suggested the GTLA applied broadly to statutory claims against governmental entities, overruling it partially. Applying the Cruse v. City of Columbia analysis, the Court held that the THRA is an independent statute that removes governmental immunity and establishes legislative intent to provide a right to a jury trial for THRA claims against governmental entities in chancery court. Consequently, the Court of Appeals' judgment was reversed, and the trial court's transfer order was vacated, remanding the case to chancery court.

Sovereign ImmunityJury Trial RightAge DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeStatutory InterpretationGovernmental ImmunityTHRAGTLAChancery CourtInterlocutory Appeal
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Case No. 01A01-9707-CH-00339
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1997

Ferrell v. Blue Bird of Tennessee

The plaintiff, Susan Ferrell, appealed the Rutherford County Chancery Court's dismissal of her employment discrimination action against Blue Bird of Tennessee, Inc. on summary judgment. Ferrell alleged that Blue Bird violated the Tennessee Human Rights Act by terminating her and replacing her with a man at a higher salary. Blue Bird claimed it terminated Ferrell due to unsatisfactory communication skills. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Ferrell failed to show Blue Bird's reason was a pretext for discrimination. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Ferrell failed to produce sufficient evidence of discrimination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act.

Employment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTennessee Human Rights ActPretextSex DiscriminationBurden of ProofPrima Facie CaseAppellate ReviewMaterial FactGenuine Issue
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Regal Entertainment Group v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Doudou B. Janneh was terminated from his employment at a movie theater after falling ill and being deemed ineligible for Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. He subsequently filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights (SDHR), alleging disability discrimination. Although an Administrative Law Judge recommended dismissal, SDHR ultimately sustained the complaint but found no damages. The movie theater owner, referred to as the petitioner, initiated a proceeding to annul SDHR's determination. The court found that Janneh failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination because he was unable to perform his job duties even with reasonable accommodation, which is not a protected disability under the Human Rights Law. Consequently, the court annulled SDHR's determination, granted the petitioner's request, dismissed Janneh's original complaint, and dismissed SDHR's cross-petition for enforcement.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment TerminationFamily and Medical Leave ActHuman Rights LawJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawPrima Facie CaseInability to Perform Job DutiesUnlawful Discriminatory PracticeArticle 15 Executive Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 1983

Schuck v. State Division of Human Rights

Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, petitioned for annulment of an order by the Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a determination by the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The Commissioner found that Local 3 discriminated against minority trainees by shunting them into a slower 'M' program, denying them the 'MIJ' shortcut to 'A' journeyman status, and providing an inferior training curriculum compared to regular apprentices, thus violating the Human Rights Law. The Commissioner issued cease and desist orders and specific directives regarding training and advancement, including a conditional provision for automatic 'A' journeyman status without examination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, upon judicial review, modified the order by deleting the directive that granted full 'A' journeyman status without further examination. Instead, the court mandated that affected individuals be afforded the opportunity to take the next scheduled 'A' examination, with appropriate preparatory instruction provided if needed. The rest of the Commissioner's order and determination were confirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMinority Training ProgramApprenticeshipJourneyman StatusLabor UnionAffirmative ActionNew YorkVocational TrainingEqual Opportunity
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1981

MATTER OF MOHAWK FINISHING PRODS., INC. v. State Div. of Human Rights

This dissenting opinion concerns Michele Cushing, an employee of Mohawk Finishing Products Corporation, who was terminated after raising concerns about perceived sex discrimination, although actual discrimination was not proven. The State Division of Human Rights initially granted her relief for retaliation, which was affirmed by the Human Rights Appeal Board. However, the Appellate Division annulled and remitted the decision, distinguishing between protective clauses in the Human Rights Law. Justice Fuchsberg argues that the anti-retaliation provision should protect employees who reasonably believe a practice is discriminatory, even if later found lawful. He proposes reversing the Appellate Division's order and remitting the case to the State Division of Human Rights for a specific finding on the reasonableness of Ms. Cushing’s belief.

Anti-retaliationHuman Rights LawSex DiscriminationReasonable BeliefEmployment LawDissenting OpinionAdministrative ReviewWorkplace RetaliationEmployee RightsJudicial Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tennessee Department of Human Services v. Riley

Tommy Lee and Peggy Sue Riley appealed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Obion County, which terminated their parental rights to their two minor children. The Tennessee Department of Human Services (TDHS) initiated the action due to persistent neglectful living conditions and the parents' limited mental capacities. The Circuit Court's decision was based on findings that termination was in the children's best interest, the conditions leading to removal persisted, and there was little likelihood of the parents remedying them. The appellate court reviewed TDHS's adherence to foster care procedures, provision of rehabilitative services, and visitation arrangements, ultimately affirming the trial court's decision to terminate parental rights, citing the children's physical safety and psychological maturation.

parental rights terminationchild neglectfoster caremental retardationfamily reunification effortschild welfaredependent and neglected childrenjuvenile court appealclear and convincing evidencebest interest of the child
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 13,495 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