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

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morales v. Ellen

This appeal concerns the application of the Texas Open Records Act (TORA) regarding the disclosure of investigative records pertaining to sexual harassment allegations against John Ellen, a former police lieutenant. The Attorney General challenged a trial court's decision that withheld the names and detailed statements of witnesses, citing privacy concerns, while ordering the release of Ellen's affidavit and the police board's findings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, balancing the public's right to information about government affairs against the privacy rights of individuals involved in intimate and embarrassing sexual harassment investigations. It concluded that disclosing witness identities would discourage future reporting and cooperation, thereby upholding the privacy exemption under TORA.

Texas Open Records ActTORASexual HarassmentPrivacy RightsInvestigative RecordsGovernment TransparencyWitness ProtectionPublic OfficialsEctor CountyAppellate Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams

Cathie Williams sued her employer, Waffle House, Inc., for sexual harassment under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) and negligent supervision/retention after enduring offensive comments and physical contact from a coworker, Eddie Davis. Despite Williams' complaints to management, the harassment continued, leading to her constructive discharge. A jury found in favor of Williams on both claims, awarding significant damages for the common-law claim. However, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment, ruling that the TCHRA's specific and tailored anti-harassment remedy is preemptive when negligence is entwined with harassment. The Court held that Williams' common-law claim was based on the same conduct as her TCHRA claim and that allowing it would undermine the Legislature's comprehensive statutory scheme. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to address the statutory sexual harassment issues.

Sexual HarassmentNegligent SupervisionNegligent RetentionPreemptionTCHRATexas Supreme CourtHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeJury VerdictCommon Law Tort
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peck v. HUDSON CITY SCHOOL DIST., HUDSON, NY

The Court addressed defendant Hudson City School District's (HCSD) motion in limine regarding various evidentiary matters in a sexual harassment case brought by an employee against HCSD and a maintenance worker, John Walsh. The plaintiff alleged hostile work environment and quid pro quo harassment under Title VII. The Court denied HCSD's motions to exclude evidence of harassment prior to December 1, 1995, evidence of another employee's harassment, evidence related to Walsh's meeting with a student, and evidence concerning Walsh's resignation. The Court granted HCSD's motions to preclude the plaintiff from testifying about certain employee statements (unless within scope of authority) and to prevent introduction of evidence regarding HCSD's subsequent change in sexual harassment policy. The Court reserved decision on precluding Dr. Gilly's medical testimony pending further explanation from the plaintiff.

Motion in LimineSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIIContinuing Violation ExceptionEvidentiary RulingsFederal Rules of EvidenceFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureTreating Physician TestimonyHearsay
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Perniciaro

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the second degree and harassment after a nonjury trial. The appellate court modified the judgment, reversing the conviction of harassment and vacating the sentence imposed on it. The harassment count of the indictment was dismissed because the complainant failed to identify which of five individuals, including the defendant, made the threats, and the crime of harassment was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment was affirmed as modified regarding the reckless endangerment conviction.

Appellate ReviewReckless EndangermentHarassmentCriminal ConvictionNonjury TrialJudgment ModificationEvidence InsufficiencyReasonable DoubtDismissal of ChargesNew York Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sharp v. City of Houston

Plaintiff Patrice Sharp, an officer with the Houston Police Department, filed claims of sexual discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and for "pervasive departmental misconduct" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Houston and several individuals. Sharp alleged frequent sexual harassment by her supervisors, Bice and Hankins, including offensive jokes, lewd comments, and inappropriate physical contact, which was corroborated by other officers. She also claimed retaliation after reporting the harassment, experiencing ostracism, sabotage of equipment, and lack of assistance. The court granted summary judgment on Sharp's Title VII retaliation claim and her Fourteenth Amendment § 1983 claim against the City, finding the alleged retaliatory actions did not constitute "ultimate employment decisions" under Title VII and that there was no policy or custom of sexual harassment for the §1983 claim. However, summary judgment was denied for Sharp's Title VII sexual harassment claim and her First Amendment § 1983 retaliation claim, citing existing fact issues regarding the pervasive nature of harassment and whether the alleged campaign of reprisal was severe enough to violate her First Amendment rights.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1983Hostile Work EnvironmentEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentPolice MisconductMunicipal LiabilitySummary Judgment
References
100
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Wayne County

Wendy Lee Wilson and Stevie Burns initiated a Title VII action against Sheriff Leon Nutt, alleging sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge. Ms. Wilson, a dispatcher, accused Sheriff Nutt of sexual harassment, which culminated in a non-consensual sexual encounter. Mr. Burns, a deputy, claimed he was terminated in retaliation for his opposition to the harassment of Ms. Wilson. The Court found that Sheriff Nutt did sexually harass Ms. Wilson and retaliate against Mr. Burns. However, the Court concluded that Title VII does not allow suits against individual defendants in their individual capacities, leading to the dismissal of the action with prejudice.

Sexual harassmentRetaliatory dischargeTitle VIIEmployment discriminationQuid pro quo harassmentHostile work environmentIndividual liabilityAgent liabilityEmployer liabilityQualified immunity
References
50
Case No. 12-06-00213-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2007

James T. Martinez v. Temple-Inland Forest Products Corporation and David Thomas

James T. Martinez appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Temple-Inland Forest Products Corporation. Martinez claimed same-sex harassment and retaliation following his termination from Temple-Inland. The appellate court reviewed the summary judgment, specifically examining Martinez's allegations under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. The court found no evidence to support the same-sex harassment claim, particularly regarding the alleged harasser's homosexual intent or advances toward others. Furthermore, the court determined there was no prima facie case for retaliation, as the employer had initiated termination proceedings before Martinez reported harassment. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Same-sex harassmentRetaliation claimSummary judgmentEmployment discriminationTexas Human Rights ActTitle VII of Civil Rights ActHostile work environmentPretext for terminationPrima facie caseWorkplace misconduct
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of San Antonio v. Cancel

Michael Cancel, an employee of the City of San Antonio, sued the City for sexual harassment by Assistant Aviation Department Director Ryan Martinez. The harassment involved inappropriate conversations and suggestions during a single 20-30 minute meeting. A jury initially found in Cancel's favor, awarding $90,000 for mental anguish. The City appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and challenging the cognizability of same-sex harassment in Texas. The appellate court affirmed that same-sex harassment is actionable under Texas law but reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding the evidence presented was legally insufficient to establish a hostile work environment because the conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms of Cancel's employment.

sexual harassmentsame-sex harassmenthostile work environmentTexasemployment discriminationappellate reviewlegal sufficiencyjury verdictmental anguishevidentiary routes
References
19
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02579 [193 AD3d 1305]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2021

Matter of New York Off. for People with Dev.al Disabilities (Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO)

The New York Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (petitioner) sought to vacate an arbitration award that reinstated employee Chad Dominie, who was found to have sexually harassed a coworker. The arbitrator had ordered Dominie's reinstatement despite sustaining multiple charges of sexual harassment, citing mitigating factors. Supreme Court granted the petition, vacating the award and remitting for a new penalty before a different arbitrator. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, holding that the arbitrator's unconditional reinstatement of Dominie violated the strong public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace. The court emphasized the egregious and escalating nature of Dominie's conduct, concluding that the award failed to protect other employees and conflicted with the employer's obligation to eliminate sexual harassment.

Sexual HarassmentWorkplace SafetyArbitration ReviewPublic Policy ViolationEmployee MisconductDisciplinary ProceedingsReinstatement OrderAppellate Court DecisionCollective BargainingEmployer Responsibility
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 763 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