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

New York City Transit Authority v. State

Mary Myers, a Seventh Day Adventist, was terminated from her employment by the Transit Authority for her refusal to work on Saturdays due to religious observance. Despite the Transit Authority's attempts to accommodate her, the Transport Workers Union's collective bargaining agreement, which prioritized seniority for work assignments and days off, prevented such accommodation without waiving other employees' seniority rights. The Commissioner of Human Rights found Ms. Myers' religious convictions sincere. However, the court, citing precedent regarding union seniority systems, annulled the administrative determination that had supported Ms. Myers. Justice Rubin, in a concurring opinion, criticized the legal framework that exempts union seniority systems from civil rights statutes, arguing for a joint employer and union obligation to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs, especially for quasi-public entities.

Religious discriminationSeniority systemCollective bargaining agreementReasonable accommodationSabbath observanceFreedom of religionFirst AmendmentCivil Rights ActExecutive LawEmployment termination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schweizer Aircraft Corp. v. State Division of Human Rights

This appeal concerns the interpretation of Executive Law § 296 (10)(c), which prohibits employment discrimination based on sabbath observance unless it causes undue economic hardship to the employer. James Amrhein, a Seventh Day Adventist, was denied a machine operator position at Schweizer Aircraft Corporation because he could not work Friday evenings. The employer claimed accommodation was unworkable without attempting to contact other employees or the union. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision, reinstating the Human Rights Appeal Board's determination that the employer failed to meet its burden of proving undue economic hardship, as it did not make a good faith effort to accommodate Amrhein's religious practice before denying employment.

DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceReligious AccommodationExecutive LawUndue Economic HardshipCollective Bargaining AgreementBurden of ProofShift ExchangeGood Faith EffortEmployment Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2009

People v. Andrus

Defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of attempted course of sexual conduct against a child. He argued his Miranda rights were violated, but the court found a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver. The court also rejected his claim that a social worker acted as a law enforcement agent without issuing Miranda warnings, noting the interview's timing and continuous custody. Furthermore, police deception regarding a polygraph did not coerce his statement or deny due process. His challenge to his Alford plea was unpreserved, and the sentence was deemed appropriate.

Miranda rightsWaiver of rightsRight to counselPolice interrogationSocial worker interviewLaw enforcement agencyVoluntariness of confessionPolice deceptionPolygraph examinationDue process
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Campbell

The defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted assault in the second degree after a nonjury trial, following an indictment for attempted rape and other charges. The conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division. The defendant appealed, arguing that attempted assault under Penal Law § 120.05 (3) is a legal impossibility because the statute imposes criminal responsibility for an unintended injury, and one cannot attempt to bring about an unintended result. The Court of Appeals agreed, stating that an attempt requires an intent to commit a specific crime and bring about the proscribed result. Since Penal Law § 120.05 (3) does not require intent to cause injury, but rather intent to prevent an officer from performing a lawful duty while causing injury, there can be no attempt to commit a crime whose core result (injury) is not intended. Consequently, the crime of attempted assault in the second degree under this subdivision was deemed a legal impossibility, and the Appellate Division's order was reversed, and the assault counts dismissed.

Criminal LawAttempted AssaultPenal LawSecond Degree AssaultIntent to InjureLegal ImpossibilityStrict LiabilityAppellate ReviewCriminal CulpabilityLawful Duty
References
31
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. ADJ3133929 (OAK 0314655) ADJ1728489 (OAK 0314656)
Regular
Feb 02, 2009

PAUL CRUM vs. CITY OF OAKLAND, Permissibly Self-Insured, JT2 INTEGRATED SERVICES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case concerns an applicant's entitlement to a modified work arrangement due to an industrial injury. The applicant was awarded accommodation with a city vehicle that doesn't exacerbate his symptoms or, alternatively, a suitable work assignment. The defendant appealed, arguing this award exceeded the judge's authority by specifying a particular vehicle or assignment instead of medical treatment. The Board granted reconsideration and amended the award, affirming the applicant's right to either the modified vehicle or an attempted reassignment within his restrictions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardFuture Medical TreatmentAccommodationIndustrial InjuryWork AssignmentMedical TreatmentWCJReport and Recommendation
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00564
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2017

Matter of KJ v. New York City Hous. Auth.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed the final determination of the New York City Housing Authority to terminate KJ's Section 8 rent subsidy. KJ, the petitioner, had refused to allow apartment inspections for years, citing a disabling mental illness causing panic attacks. Despite the agency's prolonged attempts to engage in an interactive dialogue and offer various accommodations, including inspections supervised by others or with an agency social worker, KJ rejected all overtures. The court found substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that KJ violated her obligation to permit inspection and that her request for an indefinite waiver was unreasonable. The decision affirmed that petitioner failed to reasonably participate in the interactive process, and the penalty imposed did not shock the judicial conscience.

Section 8 SubsidyRent Subsidy TerminationApartment InspectionDisability AccommodationMental IllnessPanic AttacksInteractive ProcessReasonable AccommodationAdministrative LawCPLR Article 78
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07501
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2017

Graham v. New York State Office of Mental Health

Richard Graham, a nurse with Tourette's syndrome and spinal stenosis, sued the New York State Office of Mental Health and others for disability discrimination and retaliation after his probationary employment was terminated. Graham alleged refusal of reasonable accommodation for his disabilities during a job transfer and retaliation for requesting accommodations. The defendants argued that Graham failed to cooperate in the interactive accommodation process and was legitimately terminated for falsifying his employment application regarding prior state employment. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that there was no refusal of reasonable accommodation and that the termination was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds.

Disability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentEmployment LawProbationary EmploymentFalsification of Employment ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LeaveInteractive ProcessHuman Rights Law
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1997

Claim of Dockum v. Syroco, Inc.

The claimant, an electrician, was suspended pending discharge for allegedly failing to follow supervisor instructions. Shortly after this incident, he attempted suicide. He subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits based on injuries sustained from the suicide attempt. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found in favor of the claimant, but the Workers' Compensation Board later reversed, concluding that the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7) because the discharge was a good-faith personnel decision, and the injury was solely mental. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that physical complications resulting from a suicide attempt are not compensable if the attempt itself is not compensable under § 2 (7), and that the employer's personnel decision was lawful and undertaken in good faith.

Workers' CompensationSuicide AttemptMental InjuryPersonnel DecisionGood FaithDischargeCausal RelationshipWorkers' Compensation Law § 2 (7)Physical ComplicationsAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miller v. McHugh

Marytherese Miller, a legal technician at West Point, sued her employer, the Secretary of the Army, alleging employment discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, hostile work environment, and Privacy Act violations. Miller, who underwent two knee surgeries, requested worksite and parking accommodations, and advanced leave, which she claims were denied or inadequately provided. She also alleged a job reclassification, lowered performance evaluations, and inappropriate comments from co-workers were retaliatory or created a hostile environment. The Government moved for summary judgment, arguing Miller was not disabled under the ADA during the relevant periods, her accommodations were reasonable, and her other claims lacked prima facie evidence or causal connection. The court found Miller did not provide sufficient medical evidence of disability prior to her second surgery and that reasonable accommodations were offered afterward. It also determined that alleged retaliatory actions predated protected activities or lacked causation, and that hostile work environment claims were not severe or pervasive enough. Finally, Miller's Privacy Act claim lacked proof of record disclosure or adverse effect. Consequently, the Government's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationFailure to AccommodateRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentPrivacy ActSummary JudgmentRehabilitation ActAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VII
References
85
Showing 1-10 of 1,106 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