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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morf v. Turner Bellows, Inc.

The plaintiff, Vicky Morf, sued her former employer, Turner Bellows, Inc., alleging sexual harassment by coworkers and supervisory inaction, violating Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law. Morf claimed pervasive verbal abuse, unwanted physical contact, and sexually explicit notes, which persisted despite her complaints to supervisors, ultimately leading her to quit. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing insufficient evidence of a hostile work environment and that appropriate remedial actions were taken. The court denied the defendant's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the severity and pervasiveness of the alleged harassment and the adequacy of the employer's response, including allegations that supervisors initially laughed at her complaints and that harassment continued post-intervention.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VII ClaimsEmployment DiscriminationSummary Judgment MotionCoworker MisconductEmployer LiabilityRemedial ActionSupervisory NegligenceConstructive Discharge
References
13
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

In re the Claim of Krokos

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to voluntarily leaving his employment without good cause. The claimant contended that his resignation was prompted by harassment and an expectation of being fired. However, the alleged harassment consisted of supervisory criticism and personality clashes, which do not constitute good cause for leaving employment. Quitting in anticipation of discharge is also not considered good cause. The Board's determination, supported by substantial evidence, was upheld.

Unemployment BenefitsVoluntary ResignationGood CauseSupervisory CriticismJob PerformanceCredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewPersonality Clashes
References
3
Case No. 01S01-9605-FD-00090
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 1997

Kelly Carter v. United Parcel Service

Kelly Carr filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against her employer, United Parcel Service, and three employees, Ron Foster, Martin Sisk, and Andrew Martin, alleging violations of Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). The U.S. District Court referred a certified question to the Tennessee Supreme Court regarding individual liability under the THRA. The Supreme Court held that the THRA's definition of "employer" and its "agent of an employer" language do not impose individual liability. While the THRA allows for accomplice liability, the Court found the facts insufficient to impose individual liability on any of the named employees, whether supervisory or non-supervisory, for aiding and abetting an employer's violation.

Sexual HarassmentIndividual LiabilityTennessee Human Rights ActTHRATitle VIIEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo Harassment
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DiLaurenzio v. Atlantic Paratrans, Inc.

Anna DiLaurenzio sued her former employer, Atlantic Paratrans, for sex discrimination under Title VII, alleging a hostile work environment created by her supervisor, Eric Dove. She claimed Dove subjected her to verbal and physical sexual harassment, including inappropriate comments and touching, which negatively impacted her work conditions. Atlantic moved for summary judgment, arguing the conduct wasn't severe or pervasive enough and couldn't be imputed to them. The court denied Atlantic's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the severity and pervasiveness of the harassment and whether Dove used his supervisory authority to further the hostile environment, thus making the employer potentially liable. This decision means the case will proceed to trial.

Hostile Work EnvironmentSexual HarassmentTitle VIIEmployment DiscriminationSummary Judgment MotionSupervisory HarassmentEmployer LiabilityAgency PrinciplesRetaliation ClaimWorkplace Conduct
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dunbar v. County of Saratoga

This case concerns allegations of sexual harassment brought against the County of Saratoga and Sheriff Bowen under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff, a former correctional officer, claimed she was constructively discharged after her complaints of coworker harassment were not remedied by superiors. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting no genuine issues of material fact existed regarding liability or constructive discharge. The court denied defendants' motion, concluding that factual disputes remained concerning supervisory and municipal liability, and the constructive discharge claim. Plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the complaint, which included adding the Saratoga County Sheriff's Department as a defendant, was granted.

Sexual HarassmentTitle VIICivil Rights ActSection 1983New York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentMotion to AmendConstructive DischargeSupervisory LiabilityMunicipal Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ralph Jones Sheet Metal, Inc.

The court addressed Defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding Plaintiff's Title VII claims of racial discrimination and hostile work environment, alongside claims for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). Defendant argued the alleged harasser, Kenny Rainey, was not a supervisor, the racial slurs were not severe or pervasive, and the complaint mechanism was not utilized. However, the Court found significant disputed material facts, including Rainey's de facto supervisory authority and the pervasive nature of the racial harassment. Evidence presented by the Plaintiff indicated numerous instances of racial slurs, racial graffiti, and management's inadequate response. Consequently, the Court denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment, determining that genuine issues of fact existed for trial.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIISummary Judgment DenialSupervisory AuthorityRacial EpithetsEmployee HarassmentEmployer LiabilityAnti-Harassment PolicyUnion Collective Bargaining
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larkin v. Martin

Lisa Larkin, a secretary at the New York State Governor’s Office of Employee Relations (GOER), sued her supervisor Richard Martin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for sexual harassment. A jury found Martin sexually harassed Larkin but concluded that he had not done so under color of state law, leading to a judgment for the defendant. Larkin subsequently filed post-trial motions seeking a new trial. The Court reviewed the issue of whether Martin acted under color of state law, acknowledging the personal relationship that evolved into an abusive one where Martin leveraged his supervisory authority. The Court determined that the jury's verdict on the 'color of state law' issue was seriously erroneous and granted Larkin's motion for a new trial, setting aside the original verdict.

sexual harassment42 U.S.C. § 1983supervisor misconductcolor of state lawpost-trial motionnew trial grantedjury verdictemployment lawworkplace harassmentabuse of authority
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 1,079 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