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

Medlin v. Rome Strip Steel Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Alexander Medlin sued Rome Strip Steel Co., Inc. (RSS) and several individuals for disability discrimination under the ADA and New York State Human Rights Law, and for improper disclosure of confidential medical information. Medlin, a Hot Roll Slitter Operator, suffered a non-work-related back injury and requested light duty or accommodations upon his return, which RSS denied after a functional capacity evaluation (FCE). The EEOC found probable discrimination by RSS regarding accommodation denial and confidentiality breaches. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contesting Medlin's disability status, RSS's duty to provide light duty, and the impropriety of medical information disclosure. The court denied RSS's motion for summary judgment on the ADA claims, citing unresolved factual disputes concerning Medlin's perceived disability, RSS's failure in the interactive accommodation process, and the alleged improper disclosure. However, the ADA claims against individual defendants Kirk Hinman, Roger Pratt, and Walter Race were dismissed, as were claims against Impact and Cindy Bush, along with Title VII and ADEA claims.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActReasonable AccommodationFunctional Capacity EvaluationConfidential Medical InformationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPerceived DisabilityInteractive ProcessNew York State Human Rights Law
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Atria Senior Living Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Ernest Rodriguez sued his former employer Atria Senior Living Group under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Rodriguez moved for partial summary judgment on one ADA reasonable accommodation claim, one ADA retaliation claim, and six FMLA interference claims. The Court denied Rodriguez's motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety. The Court granted summary judgment to Atria on the ADA reasonable accommodation claim, the ADA retaliation claim, and four of the FMLA claims, finding no genuine disputes of material fact. However, for two FMLA claims concerning health insurance premiums and concurrent workers' compensation leave, the Court denied summary judgment to both parties due to unresolved factual disputes.

ADA accommodationADA retaliationFMLA interferenceSummary judgmentMedical leaveDisability discrimination100% healed policyHealth insurance premiumsWorkers' compensationEmployee benefits
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wisneski v. Nassau Health Care Corp.

A registered nurse, suffering from a knee condition, sued her employers for alleged failure to accommodate her disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York state law. The plaintiff requested a position requiring less standing and an indefinite leave of absence as accommodations. The Court found no evidence of a suitable vacant position and determined that an indefinite leave of absence did not constitute a reasonable accommodation. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the ADA claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawFederal CourtMedical LeaveIndefinite LeaveEEOC ExhaustionContinuing Violation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bucaro v. Morales

Professor Thomas Búcaro, a hearing-impaired tenured professor at the College of Staten Island (CSI), petitioned the court after his long-standing reasonable accommodation, including reduced classroom hours and CART services, was removed from his fall 2007 teaching schedule without his consent. Búcaro alleged retaliation and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Human Rights Laws. The court found that CSI's removal of the established accommodation violated the ADA. Consequently, the court ordered CSI to promptly collaborate with Professor Búcaro to establish a new reasonable accommodation for his teaching schedule, ensuring he avoids an excessive course load in the Spring 2008 semester.

Disability AccommodationAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActNew York Human Rights LawRetaliationEmployment DiscriminationAcademic EmploymentReasonable AccommodationCollege of Staten IslandCity University of New York
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liss v. Nassau County

Barry Liss filed claims against Nassau County and its departments, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and NYSHRL. Liss sustained work-related injuries and was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, requiring accommodations for working at heights and in hot temperatures. He contended that the defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodations, leading to further injuries. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the ADA claims, finding them not time-barred and issues of fact regarding reasonable accommodation and qualification. However, state law claims for NYSHRL and intentional infliction of emotional distress, along with punitive damages, were dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to file a timely Notice of Claim and the non-recoverability of punitive damages against municipal defendants.

ADANYSHRLDisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationFailure to AccommodateEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissNassau CountyMultiple Sclerosis
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Needle v. Alling & Cory, Inc.

Gerald Needle, a former employee of Ailing and Cory, Inc., sued for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The emotional distress claim was previously dismissed. Needle, who suffered from diabetes leading to toe amputations and permanent physical restrictions, argued that the defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodation for his warehouse associate position. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting Needle was not a qualified individual with a disability and no suitable accommodation or vacant position existed. The court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the ADA claim, finding Needle could not perform essential job functions and no reasonable accommodation was viable. The court also denied the defendant's counterclaim for COBRA benefits and dismissed it.

Disability discriminationADAEmployment lawSummary judgmentReasonable accommodationEssential job functionsCOBRA benefitsDismissal with prejudiceDiabetic complicationsAmputations
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shepheard v. City of New York

Plaintiff Rose Anna Shepheard, a former correction officer and captain with the DOC, brought an action against the New York City Department of Correction and the City of New York, alleging discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) due to her alleged major depression and anxiety. Shepheard claimed she was improperly denied a reasonable accommodation (midnight shifts), unlawfully terminated, subjected to unequal employment conditions, and retaliated against. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court found that Shepheard failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, as she could not prove she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA or qualified to perform the essential functions of her position, even with reasonable accommodation. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, denying the plaintiff's motion and dismissing the complaint in its entirety.

ADADiscriminationRetaliationReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentDisabilityMajor DepressionAnxietyCorrection OfficerMedical Monitored Return Status
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keating v. Gaffney

Kenneth W. Keating sued Robert J. Gaffney, the Suffolk County Executive, and other county entities and officials, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL). Keating, who suffers from severe heat intolerance, claimed he was constructively discharged and not reasonably accommodated after being reassignment to a job involving prolonged exposure to extreme heat. The court dismissed Keating's ADA discrimination claims, finding he did not sufficiently allege a disability as defined by the act. However, the court allowed Keating's ADA retaliation claim to proceed, ruling that he had a good faith belief in his right to accommodation and that his resignation could be considered a retaliatory constructive discharge. All NYHRL claims were dismissed due to Keating's failure to file a timely notice of claim with Suffolk County.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans With Disabilities ActADA RetaliationConstructive DischargeHeat IntoleranceEmployment LawRule 12(b)(6) Motion to DismissNew York Human Rights LawNotice of ClaimSuffolk County
References
47
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

Buckley v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Dan Buckley, a former management employee, sued Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Executive Law § 296, alleging discrimination based on his disability as a rehabilitated alcohol/substance abuser and termination due to his inability to provide a urine sample for drug testing. The court had previously dismissed his complaint but allowed him to replead, finding he adequately alleged disability but not discrimination based on it. In his amended complaint, Buckley conceded his bladder condition, which prevented him from urinating on command, was not an ADA disability but argued Con Edison's drug testing procedures were unreasonable. The court granted Con Edison's motion to dismiss, concluding that failure to accommodate a non-disability does not constitute an ADA violation, and Buckley failed to allege that his actual disability (alcohol/substance abuse) was not reasonably accommodated.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationDrug TestingReasonable AccommodationAlcohol AbuseSubstance AbuseTermination of EmploymentMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12New York State Executive Law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 370 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