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. 03-21-00120-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2022

Brian Manley, Chief of Austin Police Department Brian Manley, Individually Commander Mark Spangler, Austin Police Department Lt. Jerry Bauzon, Austin Police Department Officer Benjamin Bloodworth, Austin Police Department Officer Collin Fallon, Austin Police Department Sgt. Eric Kilcollins, Training Coordinator, Austin Police Academy And Officer Shand, Lead Instructor, Stress Reaction Training, Austin Police Academy v. Christopher Wise

Christopher Wise, a former Austin Police Academy cadet, sued Brian Manley (APD Chief) and six other APD officers after sustaining severe injuries, including heat exhaustion and stroke, during a stress reaction training in October 2018. Wise alleged that officers intentionally discouraged cadets from hydrating despite high temperatures and failed to provide timely medical aid. The defendants sought dismissal under the Texas Tort Claims Act's election-of-remedies provisions. The district court dismissed claims against the City of Austin and APD but not against the individual officers. The appellate court reversed the district court's decision, ruling that Wise's claims against the individual officers were based on conduct within the scope of their employment and could have been brought under the TTCA, thus mandating their dismissal.

Texas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityElection of RemediesScope of EmploymentPolice MisconductCadet InjuryHeat IllnessSupervisor NegligenceAppellate CourtReversal
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA) accused defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company of violating the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by unilaterally implementing changes to work rules and conditions without prior union consultation. The changes concerned sick leave, vacation days, training time, work attire, and drug/alcohol testing. The court classified these disputes as either 'major' or 'minor' under the RLA. It found that the automatic requirement for doctor's certificates for sick days not contiguous to rest days, holidays, or vacation, and the new work attire policy constituted 'major disputes', and thus granted a permanent injunction to restore the status quo. However, the court deemed disputes over training time, single vacation days, and sick days contiguous to rest days/holidays/vacation as 'minor disputes', denying injunctive relief for these. The court also denied injunctive relief for random drug testing due to insufficient evidence, noting that the issue of drug testing as part of regular medical examinations was being addressed in a separate ruling.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeInjunctive ReliefWork RulesSick Leave PolicyVacation PolicyTraining TimeDress CodeDrug Testing
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1993

Joint Apprenticeship & Training Council of Local 363 v. New York State Department of Labor

The plaintiff, Joint Apprenticeship and Training Council of Local 363 (JATC), sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) from deactivating its status as a registered apprenticeship training program. JATC argued that deactivation procedures should mirror deregistration, requiring a hearing, and that the Fitzgerald Act provided a private right of action. The court denied the motion, finding no federal requirement for a hearing for deactivation and distinguishing it from deregistration, which has more severe consequences. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Fitzgerald Act does not create a private right of action for program sponsors. The court also found no irreparable harm to the plaintiff or its apprentices, as apprentices could transfer to other programs without losing credit, and the JATC program could re-register or continue unregistered.

Preliminary InjunctionApprenticeship ProgramDeactivationDeregistrationNew York State Department of LaborFitzgerald ActPrivate Right of ActionIrreparable HarmFederal RegulationsState Regulations
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arredondo v. Estrada

Plaintiffs, Ricardo Arredondo, Jr., Richard Rabino, and Mario Torrez, all former employees of Weatherford International, LLC, filed suit for damages arising out of abusive treatment and sexual harassment by their supervisor, Joey Estrada. The abuse included physical assaults, referred to as “nubbings,” and demeaning vulgarities. Plaintiffs brought federal claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for discrimination based upon sex, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation, as well as state law claims for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention against Weatherford. The Court granted Weatherford’s motion for summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation claims, intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, and negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention claims. The Court denied summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Title VII sex discrimination (including sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge) and assault claims, ordering them to proceed to trial. The decision addressed issues of administrative remedies exhaustion, the “continuing violation” theory for limitations, proof of sex discrimination in same-sex harassment cases (including gender stereotyping), the severity and pervasiveness of the conduct, Weatherford’s Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense, constructive discharge, and employer liability for assault (including course and scope and ratification theories), as well as the application of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy bar.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationAssault and BatteryRetaliation ClaimConstructive DischargeEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Act
References
34
Case No. 2019-04-0085
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2020

West, Amber v. The Balanced Canine Training Academy

Amber West, an employee of The Balanced Canine Training Academy (BCTA), sought workers' compensation benefits for a low-back injury sustained when two large dogs knocked her over a doghouse at work. She also requested psychiatric care and additional temporary disability benefits, alleging an inaccurate average weekly wage calculation. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims at Cookeville, presided over by Judge Robert Durham, held an expedited hearing. The Court found Ms. West likely to prove her low-back injury primarily arose out of and in the course of her employment, supported by medical evidence from neurosurgeon Joseph Jestus. However, her requests for psychiatric care were denied due to the lack of an order from an authorized physician. Furthermore, the Court denied her claim for additional temporary disability benefits, determining her average weekly wage based on the employer's account and documented evidence, which was lower than Ms. West claimed but still within the minimum compensation rate she had already received.

Workers' CompensationLow-Back InjurySciaticaPsychiatric CareAverage Weekly Wage DisputeExpedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsDog AttackMedical TreatmentCausation
References
0
Case No. 01A01-9602-CH-00073
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 1998

Devore v. Deloitte & Touche

This appeal concerns an employment discrimination action filed by Maurice DeVore against Deloitte & Touche. DeVore, a computer programmer, alleged he was terminated due to race discrimination and in retaliation for filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The trial court granted summary judgment to Deloitte & Touche, determining DeVore failed to present sufficient evidence of discrimination or pretext. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that DeVore's statistical evidence and personal beliefs were insufficient to prove pretext for the employer's stated reason of inadequate job performance.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CasePretextual ReasonStatistical EvidenceJob PerformanceTraining DisparityEEOC Charge
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stanford v. New York City Commission on Human Rights

The plaintiff, a provisional human rights specialist, sued her employer, the New York City Commission on Human Rights, and several individual defendants for employment discrimination. She alleged discrimination based on national origin and retaliation after her termination, which followed a history of insubordination and conflict with her supervisor. The court found no evidence to support either the national origin discrimination claim, noting similar racial backgrounds among parties, or the retaliation claim, as the Commission had encouraged employees to challenge the civil service examination in question. The decision concluded that the plaintiff's termination stemmed from an irreconcilable personal antagonism with her supervisor rather than any discriminatory reasons. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, affirming that federal courts should not intervene in personnel decisions based on non-discriminatory grounds.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimInsubordinationProvisional Employee TerminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActEEOC ComplaintSupervisor-Employee ConflictFederal District Court CaseWorkplace Conduct
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2004

Schreiber v. WORLDCO, LLC

This employment discrimination case involves plaintiffs Meir Aaron Schreiber and Neal M. Friedfertig, who allege age discrimination and wrongful discharge by their former employer, Worldco, LLC, in violation of the ADEA and New York human rights laws. Worldco moved for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and that their terminations were due to poor performance and company downsizing. The court denied Worldco's motion, concluding that a reasonable jury could find that the plaintiffs' ages contributed to their dismissal, citing evidence of discriminatory remarks and denial of training. The decision emphasizes that issues of fact remain regarding the alleged age-based comments and the potential link between denied training and performance.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationWrongful DischargeSummary Judgment MotionMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkStray RemarksDiscriminatory IntentTraining DenialFederal Civil ProcedureHuman Rights Law
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2016

Carpenter v. City of Mount Vernon

Plaintiff Jennifer Carpenter, a female African-American Sergeant in the Mount Vernon Police Department, sued the City of Mount Vernon and several individuals, alleging gender discrimination, retaliation, and disability discrimination under various federal and state laws. She claimed mistreatment and disparate treatment based on her gender and opposition to discriminatory practices, including denial of training, being ordered out of headquarters, and denial of benefits. Defendants moved to dismiss her Second Amended Complaint. The Court granted the motion in part, dismissing the gender discrimination claims due to insufficient pleading of an adverse employment action. However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the retaliation and disability discrimination claims, finding the retaliation claims were not adequately challenged by defendants and the disability discrimination claim was properly based on denial of light-duty accommodation.

Gender DiscriminationRetaliationDisability DiscriminationTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawAmericans with Disabilities ActMotion to DismissAdverse Employment ActionHostile Work EnvironmentMunicipal Law
References
34
Case No. 11-CV-3625
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2014

Joseph v. Owens & Minor Distribution, Inc.

Plaintiff Haney Joseph, an African-American man of Haitian descent, sued his employer, Owens & Minor Distribution, Inc., for race and national origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Joseph alleged disparate pay, denial of training, and racially insensitive remarks from a colleague, Mark Davis. His employment was terminated following an incident with a client, Aleksey Manashir, who expressed dissatisfaction with Joseph. Joseph contended his termination was retaliatory for his complaints of racial discrimination. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Joseph failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination, and even if he had, the defendant presented a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason (customer dissatisfaction) which Joseph could not prove was a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. The court also dismissed NYCHRL claims.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIINYSHRLNYCHRLSummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationEmployment LawCustomer Relations
References
120
Showing 1-10 of 2,774 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