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. E2024-01171-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF TENNEVA AREA, INC. v. MICHAEL HUTTON

This case concerns an appeal from the Chancery Court for Sullivan County, where Goodwill Industries of Tenneva Area, Inc., and its CEO, Morris Baker (Appellees), obtained an injunction and temporary restraining order against former employee Michael Hutton (Appellant) under the Tennessee Violence in the Workplace Act (TVWA). The appellees alleged Hutton engaged in unlawful violence, specifically stalking, through persistent Facebook posts after his termination and a ban from Goodwill premises. The Trial Court granted the injunction, found Hutton in contempt for violating the temporary restraining order, and awarded attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court's judgment, finding that the majority of Hutton's Facebook posts could not reasonably be construed as 'at the workplace' as required by the TVWA. The Court concluded that only one instance of harassment occurred at the workplace, which was insufficient to establish the 'pattern of conduct' necessary for stalking under the statute. Consequently, the findings of contempt and the awards of attorney's fees were also reversed.

Workplace Violence ActInjunctionStalkingSocial Media HarassmentContempt of CourtAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationFirst AmendmentEmotional Distress
References
14
Case No. 02-0120
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2004

Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., A/K/A Roche v. Joan Zeltwanger, A/K/A Joan Gonzales

This case explores the application of intentional infliction of emotional distress claims in the workplace, particularly concerning sexual harassment. Justice O'Neill's concurring opinion critiques the "gap-filler" approach, finding it impractical for determining the viability of such claims when other remedies exist. The opinion emphasizes the stringent "extreme and outrageous conduct" standard required for intentional infliction of emotional distress, contrasting the current case's allegations with the high threshold established in *GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce*. It concludes that the defendant's conduct, while inappropriate, does not meet the legal standard for extreme and outrageous behavior, thereby concurring with the judgment but not the reasoning.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSexual HarassmentWorkplace TortsExtreme and Outrageous Conduct StandardEmployment DisputesLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceTort LawConcurring OpinionTexas LawEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. 2015-06-0059
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2015

Mace, Mario v. Express Services, Inc.

The employee, Mario Mace, appealed the denial of temporary partial disability benefits. He had been terminated for using profane language in the workplace, which the employer, Express Services, Inc., deemed insubordination and unprofessional conduct. Mace contended his termination was a pretext to his work-related shoulder injury, as he was placed on light-duty work that he found challenging. The trial court determined the employer provided appropriate light-duty and that the termination was not pretextual. The Appeals Board affirmed this decision, finding that Mace's actions constituted misconduct under established workplace rules and were the true motivation for his dismissal, thus upholding the denial of benefits. The case was subsequently remanded for any further necessary proceedings.

TerminationProfanityWorkplace MisconductTemporary Partial Disability BenefitsWork InjuryRotator Cuff InjuryLight Duty WorkEmployee Handbook ViolationInsubordinationUnprofessional Conduct
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caballero v. First Albany Corp.

Plaintiff, a former employee, appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendant employer, dismissing her six causes of action. Her claims included gender discrimination, wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery (due to secondhand smoke), unsafe workplace (Labor Law § 200), and civil rights discrimination (Civil Rights Law § 40-c), all stemming from alleged retaliation for her complaints about smoking in the office. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding the mistreatment was animus-based, not sexual discrimination. The court also held that her employment was at-will, her emotional distress claims lacked outrageous conduct, and her assault and battery and unsafe workplace claims were barred by Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provisions.

Employment-at-willSummary JudgmentGender DiscriminationWrongful DischargeIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAssault and BatteryUnsafe WorkplaceWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySmoking PolicyRetaliation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blair v. Allied Maintenance Corp.

This appeal concerns a workplace altercation where employee Riley C. Blair sued his supervisor, James Oakley, and employer, Allied Plant Maintenance Co., for assault, outrageous conduct, and breach of implied contract. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing federal labor law preemption and workers' compensation limitations. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment for the employer and dismissed Mr. Blair's outrageous conduct claim against Mr. Oakley, as well as his breach of implied contract claim. However, the appellate court vacated the summary judgment regarding Mr. Blair's assault claim against Mr. Oakley, concluding it was not preempted by workers' compensation or federal labor laws, and remanded this specific claim for further proceedings.

Workplace AltercationAssaultOutrageous ConductBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentFederal Labor Law PreemptionWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityCoemployee Tort LiabilityAppellate ReviewGrievance Procedure
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sauls v. Union Oil Co. of California

Plaintiff Buel L. Sauls, Jr. brought claims against Defendant Union Oil Company of California for intentional infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy related to his employment at Unocal's Beaumont refinery. Unocal sought partial summary judgment, arguing federal labor law preemption, non-liability for co-worker actions, and that the alleged conduct was not extreme or outrageous. The court denied Unocal's motion, concluding that Sauls' state law tort claims were not preempted by the LMRA. It also found genuine issues of material fact regarding Unocal's potential liability for the actions of Sauls' co-workers and management, and determined that the alleged workplace harassment and misconduct could indeed constitute extreme and outrageous conduct under Texas law, precluding summary judgment.

summary judgmentemotional distresslabor law preemptioncollective bargaining agreementemployer liabilityco-worker harassmentTexas common lawoutrageous conductTitle VIILMRA
References
21
Case No. M2001-00174-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2001

Terminix International Co. v. Department of Labor

This case concerns an appeal regarding the jurisdictional authority of the Tennessee Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (TOSHA), to conduct safety inspections and enforce regulations for pesticide applicators. Appellants Terminix International Company, L.P. and TruGreen, Inc., L.P., challenged TOSHA's jurisdiction, asserting preemption by federal laws like FIFRA and FOSH. The Chancery Court for Davidson County affirmed TOSHA's authority, noting that state agriculture regulations focus on pesticide labeling and applicator licensing, not employee workplace safety. The Tennessee Court of Appeals upheld this decision, concluding that Congress did not intend to fully preempt state regulation of pesticide use in the workplace, thus affirming TOSHA's jurisdiction and obligation to ensure worker health and safety from pesticide-related risks.

Pesticide RegulationOccupational Safety and HealthFederal PreemptionState JurisdictionPersonal Protective Equipment (PPE)TOSHA (Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Act)FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act)Workplace Safety InspectionsAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Terminix International Co. v. Tennessee Department of Labor

This case involves an appeal by Terminix International Company, L.P. and TruGreen, Inc., L.P. challenging the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (TOSHA) to conduct safety inspections and enforce regulations concerning pesticide applicators. The appellants argued that federal laws, specifically the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act (FOSH), preempted TOSHA's authority. Both the Chancery Court of Davidson County and this appellate court affirmed the decision that TOSHA has jurisdiction. The Court concluded that Congress did not intend to fully occupy the field of pesticide regulation, particularly regarding their use in the workplace, and that states are permitted to regulate pesticide use. Therefore, TOSHA retains its obligation and authority to protect the health and safety of workers from risks associated with pesticide use in the workplace.

Pesticide SafetyWorkplace SafetyFederal PreemptionState Regulatory AuthorityOccupational HealthPersonal Protective EquipmentAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewFIFRAFOSH Act
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce

Rhonda Bruce, Linda Davis, and Joyce Poelstra, GTE employees, successfully sued GTE for intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by their supervisor, Morris Shields, and were awarded $275,000. GTE appealed, raising several points including the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Act, conflicting jury answers, evidence admissibility, and sufficiency of intent and damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the Workers' Compensation Act does not bar intentional tort claims against an employer and that expert testimony, though inadmissible for 'outrageous conduct,' did not cause reversible error. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Shields' continuous conduct, characterized by rages, intimidation, and offensive language, constituted extreme and outrageous behavior attributable to GTE. This decision reaffirms that employers can be held liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from supervisor misconduct in the workplace.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployer LiabilitySupervisor MisconductWorkers' Compensation Act ExemptionExtreme and Outrageous ConductSufficiency of EvidenceExpert TestimonyDamagesStatute of LimitationsAppellate Review
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simpson v. State

Appellant Hazel Simpson sued appellees for common-law damages after being sexually assaulted during her employment, despite having received workers’ compensation benefits. Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing her claim was barred by section 408.001 of the Texas Labor Code, which designates workers’ compensation as the exclusive remedy. Simpson contended her suit fell under an exception for intentional torts, asserting appellees' omissions were substantially certain to cause injury. The court, citing Reed Tool Co. v. Copelin, clarified that an intentional failure to provide a safe workplace only constitutes an intentional injury if the employer believed their conduct was substantially certain to cause the injury. The court found Simpson's allegations did not constitute intentional conduct under the 'substantial certainty' test, deeming them negligence. Consequently, Simpson’s claims, and her son’s derivative loss of consortium claim, were barred. The trial court's grant of summary judgment for appellees was affirmed.

Sexual AssaultWorkers' CompensationExclusive Remedy DoctrineIntentional Tort ExceptionEmployer NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor CodeLoss of Parental ConsortiumSubstantial Certainty TestWorkplace Safety
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 2,795 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