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

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Carlotta Howard

Carlotta Howard, a Human Services Tech III for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, was terminated after a car accident led to severe injuries and medical leave. She exhausted her sick and FMLA leave and was unable to return to full-time work due to medication-induced dizziness and back spasms. Howard sued for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the Texas Labor Code. The trial court denied the Department's plea to the jurisdiction. On appeal, the court affirmed in part, finding a fact issue on disability discrimination, but reversed in part, dismissing the failure to accommodate claim because driving, a 75% essential function, could not be performed with the requested part-time accommodation.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment LawTexas Labor CodePlea to JurisdictionUnlawful Employment PracticesReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsFMLAAdverse Employment Decision
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crider v. UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE KNOXVILLE

Kimberly Crider, a Seventh Day Adventist, sued the University of Tennessee under Title VII, alleging failure to accommodate her religious beliefs. Crider, a Coordinator in the Programs Abroad Office, was unable to work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday due to her observance of the Sabbath, which conflicted with her job requirement to monitor an emergency cell phone and participate in weekend events. The University attempted to find accommodations but concluded that doing so would impose an undue hardship on the business or other employees. The court found that Crider established a prima facie case of religious discrimination, but the University successfully demonstrated that no reasonable accommodation could be made without undue hardship. Therefore, the court granted the University's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.

Religious DiscriminationTitle VIIFailure to AccommodateSeventh Day AdventistSabbath ObservanceSummary JudgmentUndue HardshipEmergency ProtocolCoordinator PositionUniversity Employment
References
21
Case No. 94-2862
Regular Panel Decision

Bower v. Federal Express Corp.

This case addresses cross-motions for partial summary judgment concerning alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by Federal Express Corporation (FedEx). Plaintiffs, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and several disabled employees, contend that FedEx failed to provide reasonable accommodations regarding its personal jumpseat travel program. The central legal question is whether the ADA mandates FedEx to offer an alternative benefit to employees unable to utilize the jumpseat privilege due to disabilities and federal safety regulations. The Court denied FedEx's motion while granting the plaintiffs' motions, concluding that a commercial airline travel program could constitute a reasonable alternative accommodation. Further proceedings are necessary to determine if such an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on FedEx.

Americans with Disabilities ActReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationFringe BenefitsFederal Aviation AdministrationEmployment LawCivil RightsEmployer ResponsibilityUndue Hardship
References
18
Case No. 00-CV-1598
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2003

Jenkins v. NORTHWOOD REHAB. & EXTENDED CARE FACIL.

Plaintiff Pamela Joan Jenkins sued her prospective employer for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging failure to accommodate her back problems which limited her lifting capacity as a physical therapist. The employment offer was rescinded after a health questionnaire revealed her inability to perform maximum assist lifts, a job requirement. Highgate considered and rejected various accommodations, deeming them impractical, unsafe, or requiring the elimination of essential job functions. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green burden-shifting test and found that Jenkins could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA, unable to perform the essential functions of the job even with accommodation. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice and the state law claims without prejudice.

ADA discriminationDisability employmentReasonable accommodationEssential job functionsSummary judgmentPhysical therapistBack injuryMcDonnell Douglas testQualified individualEEOC claim
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cornyn v. Speiser, Krause, Madole, Mendelsohn & Jackson

Appellants, former Southwest Airlines ticketing agents, sued their former attorneys for legal malpractice and Southwest Airlines for an unsafe workplace, alleging discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Texas Health and Rehabilitation Act (TCHRA) due to work-related injuries. They claimed their attorneys failed to timely file an ADA lawsuit and that Southwest failed to provide reasonable accommodations. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the appellants were estopped from claiming they could work with accommodations because they had applied for and received workers' compensation and disability benefits, consistently asserting they were unable to work.

Legal MalpracticeUnsafe WorkplaceSummary JudgmentAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA)Disability BenefitsWorkers' CompensationEstoppel DoctrineElection of RemediesQualified Individual with Disability
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bentley v. Peace and Quiet Realty 2 LLC

Daphne Bentley, a 66-year-old disabled woman, sued her landlord for refusing to allow her to move to a vacant lower-level, rent-stabilized apartment at her current rent, alleging a violation of the Fair Housing Act. Bentley, who suffers from cancer and difficulty climbing stairs, sought this accommodation to improve her ability to leave her top-floor apartment. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the requested accommodation was not contemplated by the FHAA, contending Bentley sought to accommodate her poverty, not her disability, and that offering the apartment at its maximum legal rent fulfilled their obligations. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that Bentley's request to transfer units within the building is a cognizable accommodation under the FHAA and that a disability-neutral policy does not automatically preclude an inquiry into the reasonableness of the proposed accommodation. The court scheduled a hearing to determine the reasonableness and potential burden of the requested accommodation.

Disability AccommodationFair Housing ActRent Stabilization LawReasonable AccommodationHousing DiscriminationTenant RightsUndue BurdenMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionEqual Opportunity
References
19
Case No. ADJ3805628 (SDO 0343204) ADJ374212 (AHM 0120859) ADJ1234915 (SDO 0343200)
Regular
Oct 04, 2018

MARIA GONZALEZ vs. IMPERIAL COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the dismissal of applicant Maria Gonzalez's cases. The dismissal was based on her failure to object to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss. Applicant claimed she was unable to attend proceedings due to mental and physical limitations stemming from agoraphobia and panic attacks, supported by medical reports. The Board remanded the case for the judge to explore disability accommodations, such as telephone or Skype appearances, to ensure due process.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalNotice of Intention to DismissGood CauseMentally and Physically UnableTeacher's AssistantDisability AccommodationAgoraphobiaPanic Attacks
References
0
Case No. ADJ3562707
Regular
Feb 01, 2010

TRACIE QUINN vs. WALMART ASSOCIATES, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, AVIZENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the prior award of temporary disability. The Board found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof for temporary disability from October 6, 2007, to March 13, 2008. This was due to insufficient evidence, particularly the absence of key medical reports and a lack of proof that the employer was unable to accommodate restrictions. The Board also found the applicant's termination was due to unexcused absences, not an inability to perform modified work.

Petition for ReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityIndustrial InjuryLeft WristLube-Tire TechWal-Mart AssociatesAvizentFindings Award and OrderWCJAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pender v. District Council 37 of American Federation

Plaintiff Patricia A. Pender brought an employment discrimination suit against her former employer, District Council 37 (DC 37), alleging termination due to disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York law. Pender, who had undergone a liver transplant, was terminated after a medical leave and a temporary modified assignment, with DC 37 claiming she could not perform the essential functions of her Council Representative job. An arbitrator, after an extensive grievance proceeding, had previously found in favor of DC 37, concluding Pender was unable to perform her duties even with accommodations. The court, affording significant weight to the arbitrator's decision and considering Pender's own admissions of disability, found insufficient evidence for a jury to conclude she could perform her job. Therefore, the court granted DC 37's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActSummary JudgmentArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsSocial Security DisabilityArbitrator's Decision Weight
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Regal Entertainment Group v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Doudou B. Janneh was terminated from his employment at a movie theater after falling ill and being deemed ineligible for Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. He subsequently filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights (SDHR), alleging disability discrimination. Although an Administrative Law Judge recommended dismissal, SDHR ultimately sustained the complaint but found no damages. The movie theater owner, referred to as the petitioner, initiated a proceeding to annul SDHR's determination. The court found that Janneh failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination because he was unable to perform his job duties even with reasonable accommodation, which is not a protected disability under the Human Rights Law. Consequently, the court annulled SDHR's determination, granted the petitioner's request, dismissed Janneh's original complaint, and dismissed SDHR's cross-petition for enforcement.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment TerminationFamily and Medical Leave ActHuman Rights LawJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawPrima Facie CaseInability to Perform Job DutiesUnlawful Discriminatory PracticeArticle 15 Executive Law
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 499 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