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. 13-05-055-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2006

Scott Cerre v. Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP

Scott Cerre, an employee of Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP, was injured on the job and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. He was later terminated under Odfjell's absence-control policy after taking a six-month leave of absence. Cerre sued Odfjell, alleging retaliatory discharge and discrimination in violation of chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Odfjell. On appeal, Cerre contended that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on both his discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Odfjell successfully negated elements of the discrimination claim and that Cerre's termination was due to a uniformly enforced absence-control policy, not retaliation.

Retaliatory DischargeDiscrimination ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Labor Code Chapter 451Absence Control PolicyEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewCausal ConnectionHarassment
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Continental Air Lines, Corp.

This case addresses claims for accrued but unused sick leave filed by various unions and non-union individuals against Continental Air Lines, Inc. and Texas International Airlines, Inc., which are debtors in a Chapter 11 reorganization. The debtors sought summary judgment to disallow these claims for terminated employees, arguing that neither collective bargaining agreements nor the Corporate Policy Manual provided for cash payment of unused sick leave upon termination. The court affirmed its jurisdiction over such claims, rejecting arguments for deferral to a system board of adjustment. It found that the relevant agreements and past practices did not create a right to payment for unused sick leave upon termination. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for the debtors, disallowing all sick leave claims by or on behalf of terminated Continental employees.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 11 ReorganizationAccrued Sick Leave ClaimsEmployee BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementsSummary JudgmentJurisdiction DisputeArbitrationTerminated EmployeesCorporate Policy Manual
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacobsen v. New York State Department of Labor

Petitioner, a senior stenographer for the Department of Labor, was terminated after cumulative absences due to a work-related injury exceeded one year, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71. The Department calculated absences including non-workdays. Petitioner challenged the calculation and argued improper termination due to lack of notice regarding the concurrent running of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. The court found respondent's method of calculating Civil Service Law § 71 leave rational. However, it determined that the Department of Labor failed to provide proper notice that petitioner's FMLA leave would run concurrently with her workers' compensation leave. Consequently, the court annulled the termination, granted the petition for reinstatement with back pay and benefits, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LeaveCivil Service LawFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Cumulative AbsencesTermination of EmploymentMedical DisabilityNotice RequirementsReinstatementBack Pay and BenefitsAdministrative Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fort Worth Transportation Authority v. Thomas

Ricky C. Thomas, a bus driver for Fort Worth Transportation Authority (FWTA) and McDonald Transit, Inc., was terminated in August 2002 after injuring his back and taking FMLA leave followed by sick leave. Appellants cited a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provision allowing termination for absences exceeding one year, excluding military leave. Thomas filed a grievance and then a lawsuit, arguing that FMLA leave should not count as an absence based on the Operator Handbook, which defined "absence" and explicitly excluded FMLA leave. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Thomas, concluding that his discharge was not subject to arbitration under the CBA's management rights clause. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the Operator Handbook's definition of "absence," which excludes FMLA leave, must be considered when interpreting the CBA. Consequently, Thomas was "absent" for less than one year when terminated, leading to a breach of contract by the appellants.

Breach of ContractCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Employee TerminationGrievance ProcedureArbitration ClauseOperator HandbookAbsenteeism PolicyContract InterpretationSummary Judgment
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2004

LoPrete v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case concerns a petitioner's employment termination pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71. The petitioner, a motor vehicle operator, was injured on duty and granted a one-year leave of absence, which was briefly extended. However, the petitioner exceeded the authorized absence by six additional days, thereby forfeiting the right to reinstatement, consistent with Matter of Allen v Howe. A CPLR article 78 petition seeking to annul this termination was denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. This denial was subsequently and unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, which also found the Workers’ Compensation Board's determination irrelevant to the reinstatement issue.

Employment TerminationCivil Service LawLeave of AbsenceReinstatement RightsCPLR Article 78Workers' Compensation IrrelevanceUnauthorized AbsenceAppellate AffirmanceNew York Supreme Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Horton

M. C. Horton sued Dallas Railway & Terminal Company to recover damages for personal injuries to his wife, Mrs. Adeline Horton, sustained when her coat was caught while alighting from a street car, causing her to be thrown and dragged. The jury found the defendant negligent and awarded Horton $3,000. The Dallas Railway & Terminal Company appealed the judgment, raising three main issues: alleged double recovery allowed by the jury charge on damages, juror misconduct during deliberations, and alleged coercion of the jury by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury charge, upholding the trial court's discretion regarding juror misconduct, and concluding that the court's instructions to the jury regarding conflicting answers were not coercive.

Personal InjuryStreet Car AccidentNegligenceDamagesJury MisconductCoercionAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionCivil ProcedureLoss of Earning Capacity
References
15
Case No. 05-12-01102-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2014

Ronald Kinabrew v. Inergy Propane, LLC

Ronald Kinabrew sued Inergy Propane, LLC for retaliatory discharge after his termination, alleging it was retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Inergy contended the termination resulted from the neutral application of its leave-of-absence policy, as Kinabrew's absence exceeded the twelve-week maximum. The trial court granted summary judgment for Inergy, dismissing Kinabrew's claim. Kinabrew appealed, arguing there was a causal connection between his workers' compensation claim and his termination, and that Inergy's leave policy was not uniformly applied. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Kinabrew failed to provide controverting evidence that Inergy's neutral leave policy was not uniformly enforced or that his termination was retaliatory.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensation claimSummary judgmentLeave of absence policyUniform enforcementCausal linkLabor codeEmployment lawMedical leaveTexas Court of Appeals
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2004

Pierce v. HSBC Mortgage Corp.

The plaintiff, a mortgage loan officer, alleged that the defendants violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by terminating his employment while on FMLA leave and denying him approximately $400,000 in commissions. The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the granting of the defendants' cross-motion, finding that commissions are not considered "employment benefits" under FMLA. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, as the defendants had decided to terminate his employment before he requested FMLA leave. Even if a prima facie case was made, legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination, such as customer complaints and unprofessional conduct, were provided by the defendants.

FMLARetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment BenefitsCommissionsBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitCausal ConnectionLegitimate Nondiscriminatory ReasonsPretextual Reasons
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carrillo v. National Council of the Churches of the Christ in U.S.A.

Plaintiff Emilio F. Carrillo, Jr. was terminated from his role as Director of Human Resources at the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. (NCC) following an $8 million investment loss from the NCC Health Insurance Program for Retirees. He alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) due to the timing of his termination coinciding with medical leave and also claimed defamation under New York state law by defendant Campbell regarding his role in the losses. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the FMLA claim, ruling that Carrillo, an at-will employee, was slated for termination prior to his leave, and the FMLA does not grant greater rights than otherwise entitled. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state defamation claim, dismissing it.

FMLAwrongful terminationdefamationat-will employmentinvestment lossesmedical leavesummary judgmentsupplemental jurisdictionfederal claimstate law claim
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03411 [161 AD3d 1357]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2018

Matter of Singleton v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

Petitioner Charles Singleton challenged the termination of his employment by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) following the expiration of his workers' compensation leave. He contended that his work-related injury was assault-related, entitling him to a two-year leave rather than the one-year leave OCFS granted for a non-assault injury. After his employment was terminated, Singleton initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement or a post-termination hearing to dispute the injury classification. The Supreme Court dismissed his petition as untimely, ruling that the four-month statute of limitations began when he received OCFS's August 25, 2015 letter classifying his injury. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that the classification became final and binding upon receipt of the letter, as no administrative procedure existed for challenging such a determination.

Employment LawPublic SectorAdministrative LawStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationInjury ClassificationCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewDue ProcessLeave of Absence
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 4,824 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