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

Gaidasz v. Genesee Valley Bd. of Cooperative Education Systems

Plaintiff Bernard Gaidasz sued his employer, Genesee Valley Board of Cooperative Education Systems (BOCES), alleging discrimination in employment based on disability under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiff claimed BOCES subjected him to disability-based discrimination and retaliation through counseling memoranda, denial of a day-shift transfer, and temporary reassignment. BOCES moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to establish an adverse employment action or provide evidence of discriminatory animus. The court found that the alleged actions did not constitute adverse employment actions and that the plaintiff could not rebut BOCES's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The court also dismissed the retaliation claim, citing a lack of evidence of protected activity or a causal connection to an adverse employment action. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Disability DiscriminationADAEmployment LawSummary JudgmentRetaliationAdverse Employment ActionCounseling MemorandumTransfer DenialTemporary ReassignmentAnxiety Disorder
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Figueroa v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Nohemi Figueroa, a former employee of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC), sued for employment discrimination based on national origin and gender under federal, state, and city human rights laws. HHC moved for summary judgment, asserting that Figueroa did not suffer adverse employment action, that the alleged actions did not infer discrimination, and that HHC had legitimate business reasons. The court ruled that the denial of vacation choice was not a materially adverse employment action. While assuming the initial denial of sick leave could be considered an adverse action, the court found insufficient evidence to infer sex or national origin discrimination. Ultimately, the court concluded that HHC presented legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationGender DiscriminationTitle VIINew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseAdverse Employment ActionVacation Leave
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jaeger v. North Babylon Union Free School District

John Jaeger sued his employer, the North Babylon Union Free School District, alleging gender-based employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the NYSHRL. Jaeger claimed various adverse actions by the District stemmed from his ex-wife, Kristy Middleton, being promoted to his supervisor and her subsequent harassment complaints against him. The District moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing Jaeger failed to plausibly allege an adverse employment action or discriminatory intent. The Court granted the District's motion, finding that Jaeger's complaints described minor indignities and not materially adverse employment actions, and lacked plausible evidence of gender-based discriminatory or retaliatory intent from the District. Jaeger's state law claims were also withdrawn and dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIINYSHRLMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Adverse Employment ActionDisparate TreatmentCausal ConnectionWorkplace Harassment
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zimmer-Thomson Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

The employer filed an action against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and a union, seeking to set aside the union's certification as the exclusive bargaining representative and to restrain the union from taking further action before the National War Labor Board (NWLB). The employer alleged procedural flaws in the election process, including uncounted challenged ballots and denial of opportunity to be heard. Both defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to review NLRB certifications, which are only informatory. Furthermore, it found that NWLB directives are merely advisory and thus cause no irreparable injury. Consequently, the court denied the employer's motion for a temporary injunction and dismissed the complaint, finding no cause of action.

Labor LawNLRB CertificationJudicial ReviewInjunctionCollective BargainingUnfair Labor PracticesWar Labor BoardChallenged BallotsDistrict Court JurisdictionAdministrative Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Melissa Castillo brought claims of sex discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge against Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., William Rappaport, and Herbie Gonzalez under Title VII. Castillo sought to intervene in the EEOC's action and assert additional state and city claims, while the defendant moved to compel arbitration of Castillo's claims based on an employment arbitration agreement. The court granted Castillo's motion to intervene and permitted her state and local claims to proceed under supplemental jurisdiction. The court also granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration for all of Castillo's claims, determining that the arbitration agreement was an employer-promulgated plan and the associated costs would not be prohibitively expensive. The EEOC's action was not stayed, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement, but Castillo's individual proceedings were stayed pending arbitration.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationConstructive DischargeTitle VIIArbitration AgreementInterventionEmployment DiscriminationFederal Arbitration ActSupplemental JurisdictionEEOC Enforcement Action
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2009

Monroe v. Xerox Corp.

Cheryl Monroe sued Xerox Corporation for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law, alleging discrimination for engaging in protected activity. Monroe contended that adverse employment actions, including a C Labor Report and a letter of reprimand, were in retaliation for her grievances and complaints. The court determined that Monroe only engaged in protected activity as of May 17, 2006, when she filed EEOC charges. The court found that the employer's subsequent actions were not sufficiently adverse to deter a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. Furthermore, the court concluded that no causal connection existed between Monroe's protected activity and the alleged adverse employment actions. Consequently, Xerox's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was closed.

Employment LawRetaliationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentProtected ActivityAdverse Employment ActionCausal ConnectionDiscriminationGender Discrimination
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2004

Scafidi v. Baldwin Union Free School District

Plaintiff Maryann Scafidi filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC against the Baldwin Union Free School District, alleging disability discrimination and subsequent retaliation. She sought to amend her complaint to include various acts of alleged retaliation, such as office relocations, increased work responsibilities, denial of clerical staff access, a negative performance evaluation, and excessive scrutiny. The District opposed the motion, arguing that the proposed amendments were futile as the alleged acts did not constitute adverse employment actions. The Court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend in part, allowing claims related to office relocations and denial of clerical staff access to proceed as potential adverse employment actions. However, claims regarding excessive scrutiny, negative performance evaluations, and other minor complaints were denied, as they were deemed insufficient to meet the standard of an adverse employment action.

DiscriminationDisabilityRetaliationAmericans with Disabilities ActADAEmployment LawMotion to Amend ComplaintAdverse Employment ActionOffice RelocationPerformance Evaluation
References
14
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
Jan 28, 2000

Fields v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

Nathan Fields sued the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (OMRDD) and individuals Maureen McNamara and Trena Fontaine, alleging retaliatory race discrimination in employment. This action followed a previous lawsuit where a jury found no cause of action but did note adverse employment actions and an equal protection violation. Fields claimed retaliation through disciplinary actions and ultimately being laid off. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Fields failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, specifically a causal link between his protected activity (the prior lawsuit) and any adverse employment actions. The court found that Fields did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on the causal connection and thus failed to establish a prima facie case. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

RetaliationRace DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VII42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 198342 U.S.C. Section 1985New York Human Rights LawPrima Facie CaseCausal Connection
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Parker Hannifan Corp.

Katherine Hall sued Parker HANNIFAN Corporation, her former employer, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law. Hall claimed unequal work distribution, being "scolded" and "isolated," leading to her early retirement. Parker moved for summary judgment, arguing Hall could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation or adverse employment action, as her working conditions did not worsen after her complaints, and her retirement was voluntary. The court granted Parker's motion, finding Hall failed to demonstrate an adverse employment action or a causal connection between her complaints and any alleged adverse acts, as conditions either remained unchanged or only minimally increased her workload, not enough to constitute material adversity.

RetaliationSex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionCausal ConnectionConstructive DischargeEEOC Charge
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 16,250 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