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

Basile v. Levittown United Teachers

The plaintiff, Basile, a former Office Manager for Levittown United Teachers (LUT) and its Supplemental Benefit Fund, filed a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit under the ADEA, § 1983, and NYSHRL, alleging she was demoted and terminated due to age. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of state action for the § 1983 claims and that they were not "employers" under the ADEA. The court dismissed the § 1983 claims without prejudice and the ADEA claims against individual defendants Rogers and Ruocco with prejudice. However, the motion to dismiss the ADEA claims against the LUT, Fund, and Board was denied, as the court found the employee threshold for ADEA to be a merits issue, not a jurisdictional one.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawCivil RightsRule 12(b)(1)Rule 12(b)(6)Motion to DismissState ActionEmployer DefinitionADEA
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dembin v. Lvi Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Shari Dembin sued LVI Services, Inc., LVI Parent Corp., and Scott E. State, alleging discriminatory retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court had previously granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Dembin's NYCHRL claims, a ruling confirmed in this Memorandum Order. The primary focus of this order is the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Dembin's remaining ADEA retaliation claim, stemming from her termination after her father complained of age discrimination. Defendants argued their cost-cutting measures were not pretextual and that the Supreme Court's *Thompson* precedent, concerning family member retaliation under Title VII, did not extend to ADEA claims. The Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ADEA claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext and concluding that *Thompson*'s reasoning applies to ADEA retaliation claims due to similar statutory language. The ADEA retaliation claim will proceed to trial.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentPretextADEATitle VIIEmployment LawFamily Member RetaliationSouthern District of New YorkFederal Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. New York State

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against the New York Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation (State Parks) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The dispute arose because New York amended its Civil Service Law in 1990 to apply age restrictions (21-29) to park patrol officers, a position previously exempt from such limits, effectively discriminating against applicants over 40. The EEOC argued this change violated the ADEA, as it expanded age restrictions beyond what was in place on March 3, 1983, and therefore did not fall under the ADEA's § 623(j) exception. The court, referencing similar cases, agreed with the EEOC's interpretation that the ADEA prevents the expansion of age restrictions to new categories of employees. Consequently, the court found State Parks liable, ruling that applying the new age requirements to park patrol officers violated the ADEA.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActEmployment DiscriminationPublic EmploymentLaw Enforcement OfficersPark Patrol OfficersNew York Civil Service LawStatutory InterpretationGrandfather Clause ExceptionFederal PreemptionState Law Amendments
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hansen v. Danish Tourist Board

Lis Hansen, a 60-year-old Danish citizen and U.S. permanent resident, sued the Danish Tourist Board for age and gender discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII, ADEA, NYHRL, and City HRL. She alleged sexual advances by a supervisor, followed by reduced wage increases, increased workload, and denied promotions. She claimed a younger, less qualified woman was promoted over her, and subsequently faced a campaign of harassment leading to her termination. The Tourist Board moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, including exemption from ADEA/Title VII, FSIA immunity, failure to exhaust EEOC claims, and statute of limitations. The court denied dismissal based on ADEA/Title VII applicability and FSIA immunity, finding the employment decisions were commercial activity. However, it granted dismissal for the sex discrimination and Title VII retaliation claims due to Hansen's failure to exhaust administrative remedies with the EEOC, as these claims were not 'reasonably related' to her EEOC charge. The court denied dismissal for ADEA and ADEA retaliation claims, and state-law age discrimination claims, applying a 'continuing-violation' exception to the statute of limitations. State-law sex discrimination claims were dismissed as time-barred. Finally, the plaintiff's request for a jury trial was struck as the Tourist Board is considered an agency of a foreign state.

Age DiscriminationGender DiscriminationEmployment LawTitle VIIADEANew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawMotion to DismissForeign Sovereign Immunities ActCommercial Activity Exception
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gazder v. Air India

Plaintiff Dorab Gazder, a U.S. resident, sued his employer Air India for wrongful discharge, alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Air India, an instrumentality of the foreign state of India, moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it is not an "employer" under the ADEA due to its governmental status and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The court examined the definitions of "employer" in the ADEA and the "commercial activity" provisions of the FSIA. Concluding that Air India's commercial activity makes it liable "in the same manner and to the same extent as a private person," the court held that Air India is indeed an "employer" within the meaning of the ADEA. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint was granted, and the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawForeign Sovereign Immunities ActADEACommercial ActivityMotion to DismissStatutory InterpretationWrongful TerminationJurisdictionSovereign Immunity
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walsh v. City of Auburn

Plaintiff William W. Walsh, a former recycling administrator for the City of Auburn, commenced this civil rights action alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and First Amendment violations against the City and various public officials. Defendants filed motions to dismiss. The court granted dismissal for the New York State Division of Human Rights, the Auburn Civil Service Commission, and several individual municipal officials. All ADEA claims against individual defendants were dismissed, with the ADEA claim against the City of Auburn surviving. Additionally, First Amendment damages claims against individual defendants were barred by qualified immunity, but First Amendment claims against the City of Auburn and specific officials in their official capacities (LaLonde, Becker, Malone) were allowed to proceed. The court rejected the defendants' arguments that Walsh's ADEA claims were entirely barred by res judicata or failure to state a claim.

Age DiscriminationFirst AmendmentCivil RightsEmployment LawQualified ImmunityRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelMunicipal LiabilityPublic Employee SpeechMotion to Dismiss
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Granica v. Town of Hamburg

Plaintiff Michael A. Granica sued his employer, the Town of Hamburg, alleging age and disability discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA and ADA. Granica, a Heavy Equipment Operator, claimed he was denied sick-bank benefits, assigned heavy labor tasks beyond his physical limitations, and retaliated against for internal complaints and formal charges. The Town moved for summary judgment, arguing Granica did not suffer an adverse employment action under the ADEA and failed to prove pretext. The court granted summary judgment to the Town on the ADEA discrimination claim, finding Granica failed to establish an adverse employment action or sufficient evidence of age as the but-for cause. However, the court denied summary judgment on Granica's ADA failure-to-accommodate claim and both ADEA and ADA retaliation claims, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude the Town refused reasonable accommodations and that its reasons for adverse actions were pretextual.

Age DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentAmericans with Disabilities ActADEAFailure to AccommodateProtected ActivityCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Townsend v. Exchange Insurance

Vincent Townsend sued Exchange Insurance Company, Selective Insurance Company of America, and Selective Insurance Group, Inc., alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and New York Human Rights Law (HRL), constructive discharge, compelled self-defamation, and an ERISA violation. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss claims for back pay, front pay, punitive damages, and compensatory damages under the ADEA, as well as an age discrimination claim related to James Chavanne's hiring. The court granted dismissal of punitive damages under ADEA and HRL, compensatory damages for emotional pain under ADEA, and certain periods of back pay. The court denied dismissal of back pay from April 7, 1997, onward, and front pay (with leave to renew). The court also dismissed the age discrimination claim related to Chavanne's hiring due to lack of jurisdiction and being time-barred.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary Judgment MotionBack PayFront PayPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesConstructive DischargeERISAEEOC Exhaustion
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2002

Vollinger v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Elinor Vollinger sued her former employer, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., alleging age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint, asserting that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the relevant statutes of limitation. The court found that the plaintiff's ADEA claims were time-barred because she failed to file suit within ninety days of receiving her initial right-to-sue notice from the EEOC in September 1996. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that a subsequent EEOC rescission and re-issuance of a right-to-sue notice in 2001 tolled the limitations period for ADEA claims against private employers. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss was granted, with the ADEA claims dismissed with prejudice and the NYCHRL claims dismissed without prejudice due to the court declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawRetaliationEEOCStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingFederal Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityNYCHRL
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baron v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Plaintiffs (Baron, Diaz, Toole, Han), former employees of the bi-state Port Authority (PA), filed separate complaints against PA and several individual defendants, alleging employment discrimination based on age and sex, deprivation of contract/property/due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and violations of Title VII, ADEA, New York Human Rights Law, New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and common law breach of contract. The court consolidated the cases and heard arguments on defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. The memorandum opinion specifically addresses the Title VII, ADEA, and related state law claims. The defendants argued that the Title VII and ADEA claims were time-barred because plaintiffs failed to file with the EEOC within the 180-day statutory limit, as the bi-state nature of PA meant New York's anti-discrimination agency (DHR) lacked jurisdiction, thus invalidating the 300-day extended filing period. The court agreed, finding that bi-state agencies like PA are not unilaterally subject to the laws of one state unless explicitly amended by both states, and that DHR had previously declined jurisdiction over PA. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' Title VII, ADEA, New York HRL, and New Jersey LAD claims.

Age DiscriminationSex DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIADEABi-state AgencyState Human Rights LawFederal JurisdictionTimeliness
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 286 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