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

State Division of Human Rights v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers' International Union of America

This case involves a review of a determination finding discrimination. The court affirmed the discrimination finding, stating it was based on substantial evidence. However, the Commissioner's calculation of damages was found to be erroneous. The original damage award for eight complainants was based on an hourly wage rate applicable to only one. The court modified the awards for complainants whose actual wages were less than the hourly wage rate used by the Commissioner, accepting their actual hourly wage rate and hours lost. Awards where actual wages exceeded the determined rate were not disturbed due to the absence of a cross-appeal.

DiscriminationDamagesWage RateErroneous ComputationJudicial ReviewModificationComplainantsHourly WageSubstantial EvidencePanel Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Day v. KRYSTAL COMPANY

Plaintiff Kristen Madison Day filed a lawsuit against Krystal Company, alleging gender discrimination, failure to promote, gender-based hostile work environment, and wage discrimination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted on all claims. The Court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for gender discrimination, hostile work environment, or failure to promote. For the wage discrimination claims, the Court determined the defendant provided sufficient evidence that wage disparities were based on factors other than sex, such as experience and job responsibilities. Consequently, all of the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

Gender DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTennessee Human Rights ActEqual Pay ActHostile Work EnvironmentFailure to PromoteWage DiscriminationEmployment LawFederal Civil ProcedureEmployee Benefits Manager
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Siegel v. Board of Educ. of City of New York

Plaintiffs, elementary school principals, filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the New York City School Board. They claimed that the wage differential between elementary and high school principals constituted gender discrimination. The defendant, the Board of Education, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the class was predominantly male and thus failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and that the wage differential was based on factors other than sex. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. It found no evidence of intentional wage discrimination and supported the defense that higher compensation for high school principals was due to greater responsibilities.

Title VIISex DiscriminationWage DifferentialElementary School PrincipalsHigh School PrincipalsSummary JudgmentEqual Pay ActBennett AmendmentPublic EducationGender Discrimination
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2002

Gonzalez v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc.

Plaintiff Lohengryn Gonzalez sued Rite Aid of New York, Inc. alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for being denied a promotion due to his heart condition, and also wage and hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law for unpaid overtime. Rite Aid moved for summary judgment, arguing Gonzalez failed to establish a prima facie discrimination case, the FLSA claim was time-barred, and supplemental jurisdiction for the state law claim should be declined. The court denied Rite Aid's motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact existed for both the discrimination and wage claims. It concluded a reasonable jury could find Rite Aid discriminated against Gonzalez based on his disability (or perceived disability) and withheld overtime wages willfully.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActFair Labor Standards ActUnpaid OvertimeEmployment DiscriminationHeart ConditionPerceived DisabilitySummary Judgment MotionNew York State Labor LawWage and Hour Claim
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aiola v. Malverne Union Free School District

Nicholas Aiola, a former Head Custodian, filed an Amended Complaint against his employer, Málveme Union Free School District, and several individuals, alleging disability discrimination, national origin discrimination, retaliation, and wage and hour violations. The defendants moved to dismiss several claims. The court granted dismissal for the national origin discrimination claims and the New York Labor Law § 220 wage claim due to insufficient pleading and procedural defects. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims against Superintendent Hunderfund for aiding and abetting disability discrimination and retaliation under the NYSHRL. Additionally, the court denied the plaintiff's request to amend the complaint, citing procedural impropriety.

Disability DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentWage and Hour DisputeAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActNew York State Human Rights LawNew York Labor LawMotion to Dismiss
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Otis Eastern Service, Inc. v. Hudacs

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the respondent regarding the petitioner's alleged failure to pay prevailing wages and wage supplements to 28 workers at the Belleayre Mountain Ski Center project. The petitioner argued that workers were properly classified as general laborers and welder helpers, while the respondent contended they should be classified as intermediate laborers under the Laborers’ Union Local 17 Agreement. The Hearing Officer initially sided with the petitioner, but the respondent rejected this, finding willful underpayments. The court affirmed the respondent's determination, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that the finding of willfulness was justified.

Prevailing WageWage SupplementsWorker ClassificationLabor LawCPLR Article 78Willful UnderpaymentUnion ContractsJudicial ReviewAdministrative DeterminationSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. 08-05-00166-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2006

West Telemarketing Corporation Outbound v. Victoria McClure

Victoria McClure, an African American employee of West Telemarketing Corporation Outbound, sued West for employment discrimination under the Texas Labor Code. A jury found that discrimination was a motivating factor in West's decision not to promote McClure and her subsequent termination, awarding her damages for back pay, future lost wages, and past compensatory damages. West challenged these awards and attorney's fees, and also exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the awards for employment discrimination, attorney's fees, past and future lost wages, and compensatory damages, but reversed and rendered that McClure take-nothing for the exemplary damages due to insufficient evidence of malice or reckless indifference.

Employment discriminationRacial discriminationWrongful terminationDenial of promotionTexas Labor CodeCompensatory damagesLost wagesAttorney's feesExemplary damagesMalice standard
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1998

Gorges Foodservice, Inc. v. Huerta

Guadalupe Huerta successfully sued his former employer, Gorges Foodservice, for intentional infliction of emotional distress and wrongful discrimination under the Workers’ Compensation Act and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. The trial court awarded Huerta significant damages, including lost wages, mental anguish, and punitive damages. On appeal, the court reversed the finding of liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress and the award of prejudgment interest on future lost wages. Additionally, a remittitur was suggested for a portion of the damages related to future lost wages. However, the appellate court affirmed the findings of discrimination based on the filing of a worker's compensation claim and disability, and upheld the punitive damages, concluding that Gorges's actions were committed with malice.

Workers' Compensation ActWrongful DiscriminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressRetaliatory DischargeDisability DiscriminationLost WagesMental AnguishPunitive DamagesAttorney's FeesPrejudgment Interest
References
56
Case No. A-75-CA-171
Regular Panel Decision

Boles v. Califano

Margaret Gonzales and her son, Norman J. Boles, sought Mother's Insurance Benefits, challenging the constitutionality of 42 U.S.C. § 402(g)(1). This section precludes benefits to a mother of a child of a deceased wage earner if she was never married to the wage earner. Plaintiffs argued this provision unfairly discriminates against illegitimate children and their mothers. The court, aligning with Supreme Court precedents against discrimination based on illegitimacy in social welfare benefits, found that Mother's Insurance Benefits are intended for the child's benefit. The court concluded that denying these benefits solely due to the mother's marital status unconstitutionally discriminates against illegitimate children, violating the Fifth Amendment. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, declaring the challenged section unconstitutional and enjoining the defendant from denying benefits on this ground, also ordering retroactive payments.

Social Security ActMother's Insurance BenefitsChild's Insurance BenefitsIllegitimate ChildrenDiscriminationEqual Protection ClauseFifth AmendmentConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentFederal Court
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wojciechowski v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P.

Plaintiff Sarina Wojciechowski filed a lawsuit against her employer, National Oilwell Varco (NOV), alleging sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act. Her claims included wage discrimination, heavier work assignments, and denial of company benefits. Defendant NOV moved for summary judgment on all claims and also filed a motion to strike portions of Plaintiff's summary judgment evidence. The Court partially granted and partially denied both motions, allowing the wage discrimination claims under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII to proceed to trial, as well as the disparate treatment claim regarding the denial of a pay raise. However, other disparate treatment claims, such as those related to heavier work assignments, denial of training, company vehicle, and credit card, were dismissed for not constituting 'adverse employment actions.'

Sex DiscriminationWage DiscriminationEqual Pay ActTitle VIIDisparate TreatmentSummary JudgmentMotion to StrikeEmployment LawGender InequalityWorkplace Discrimination
References
69
Showing 1-10 of 4,005 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