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
Aug 07, 1984

Murtaugh v. Bankers Trust Co.

In November 1978, claimant Murtaugh filed a discrimination claim against Bankers Trust Company of Albany, N. A. following her 1977 dismissal, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 241. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a discrimination finding, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Division. An administrative law judge directed Murtaugh's reinstatement and awarded back wages from January 1, 1978, to October 19, 1982, with an offset for unemployment benefits. The Bank appealed this decision, contending the back pay award was unauthorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, arguing Murtaugh failed to accept reemployment or mitigate damages. The court found substantial evidence that no bona fide reemployment offer was made and that the issue of mitigation of damages was not properly raised. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding Murtaugh's entitlement to back pay.

Workers' Compensation LawDiscriminationBack Pay AwardReinstatementMitigation of DamagesUnemployment BenefitsOffer of ReemploymentAppellate DivisionNew York LawEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Correctional Officer & Police Benevolent Ass'n v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Elsie Pierre, a correction officer, sustained a work-related injury in May 2004, leading to workers’ compensation leave. Respondent Department of Correctional Services initiated termination proceedings, but a medical evaluation by respondent's designated physician on September 15, 2005, found her unfit for duty. Pierre's physician, Sanford Wert, later cleared her for work on June 12, 2006, a finding supported by a Hearing Officer who recommended reinstatement with retroactive pay. Respondent, however, rejected the full retroactive award, granting pay only from October 12, 2007, arguing that Pierre had not properly exhausted administrative remedies for the earlier date and that an independent evaluation was lacking. Petitioners challenged this limited retroactive pay, but the Court confirmed the respondent's determination, dismissing the petition and upholding the October 12, 2007, start date for back pay.

Workers' Compensation LeaveRetroactive Back PayCivil Service LawAdministrative ReviewFitness for DutyMedical Evaluation DisputeCorrection Officer EmploymentCPLR Article 78 ProceedingJudicial DiscretionAppellate Court Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2008

Barresi v. County of Suffolk

The petitioner appealed an order and judgment dismissing their CPLR article 78 proceeding, which sought to compel a determination regarding back pay and sick leave benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c. The initial claim was denied in 1992, and review was postponed until a worker's compensation decision in 2001. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dismissed the petition based on the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches, as the petitioner failed to make a timely demand for GML § 207-c benefits after the worker's compensation decision. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the CPLR article 78 proceeding was untimely, as the statute of limitations expired even considering later correspondence as a demand and denial, and subsequent requests for reconsideration did not revive the claim.

CPLR Article 78MandamusBack PaySick Leave BenefitsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cStatute of LimitationsLachesWorker's Compensation ClaimAppeal DismissalGovernment Benefits
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Division of Human Rights v. Parkview Auto Sales, Inc.

The court granted in part the petition to annul a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights. While substantial evidence supported the compensatory damages award for mental anguish and humiliation, the back pay award of $25,620 was vacated. The back pay calculation was based on projections rather than actual salary and benefits of a co-worker and failed to account for unemployment compensation received by the complainant. The matter was remitted to the Division to properly determine the back pay amount, reduced by unemployment compensation, and to conduct a hearing if advised. The Division's petition to enforce the determination was granted except for the vacated back pay award.

Human Rights LawCompensatory DamagesBack PayMental AnguishHumiliationUnemployment BenefitsRemittiturJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawEmployment Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between City of Lackawanna & AFSCME, AFL-CIO Local Union No. 1205

This case addresses the determination of compensation due to four City of Lackawanna employees—Levulis, Dombrowski, Plaza, and Michalek—who were wrongfully discharged. An arbitrator initially ordered their reinstatement with full compensation, which the Supreme Court confirmed after the City's attempt to vacate the award was denied and subsequent appeals were dismissed due to lack of prosecution. Despite court orders, the City delayed reinstatement and compensation, leading to a judgment for back pay and a contempt order. The central issue before the court is how to calculate the back pay, specifically concerning deductions for earnings from other employment held concurrently with municipal employment prior to discharge, and claims for vacation, personal leave, and birthday pay. The court ruled that earnings from pre-existing second jobs are not deductible from back pay and that vacation, personal leave, and birthday pay are not due over and above full pay reimbursement, holding the City responsible for the extensive delays.

Wrongful DischargeBack Pay CalculationCivil Service LawDeductions from WagesDual EmploymentArbitration Award EnforcementContempt of CourtPublic Employee RightsReinstatementErie County Supreme Court
References
7
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

Hine v. Mineta

This case addresses claims of gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII. Following a three-week trial, a jury found for the plaintiff on the hostile work environment claim but awarded no damages for emotional distress or net back wages, instead granting $58,625.86 for net loss of benefits. This memorandum supplements the Court's earlier oral decisions, formally adopting the jury's advisory verdict which denied back pay. The Court also denied front pay, concluding that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages by not actively seeking suitable employment for over seven years and that any such award would be overly speculative. Consequently, the Court affirmed the denial of back pay and denied the plaintiff's request for front pay.

Gender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VII Civil Rights ActAdvisory Jury VerdictBack PayFront PayMitigation of DamagesEmotional DistressAir Traffic Controller
References
19
Case No. 2020 NYSlipOp 01424
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2020

Matter of Spratley (New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision)

Petitioner Wayne Spratley, a correction officer, was suspended without pay and terminated after an off-duty drunken altercation, despite later being acquitted of criminal charges. An arbitrator upheld his termination but granted him full back pay, deeming his suspension retroactively invalid. Spratley sought to confirm this arbitration award, while the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) cross-moved to partially vacate it. The Supreme Court confirmed the award in its entirety. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by awarding back pay, as the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) did not provide for such a retroactive invalidation of an interim suspension. Consequently, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, vacating the back pay award, and affirmed the order as modified.

Arbitration AwardPublic Sector EmploymentCollective Bargaining AgreementInterim SuspensionBack Pay DisputeArbitrator's AuthorityDisciplinary ActionCriminal AcquittalCPLR Article 75Appellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, Local 471 v. P. & J.G. Enterprises, Inc.

The Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, Local 471, AFL-CIO, petitioned the court to confirm two arbitration awards against P. & J.G. Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a The Albany Thruway House. The dispute arose from the employer's discharge of two employees, Ann Russo and Mary O’Brien, who were members of the Union's collective bargaining unit. The first arbitration award, dated June 15, 1988, found the discharges were not for just cause and ordered reinstatement with back wages. Following the employer's failure to pay back wages despite reinstatement, a second arbitration award, dated September 14, 1989, quantified the back wages for the two employees. The employer contested the confirmation, citing lack of evidentiary support for the arbitrator's decision, alleged partiality of the arbitrator, and financial inability to pay the awards. The court, applying a limited scope of review for arbitration awards, rejected all of the employer's arguments. Ultimately, the court confirmed both arbitration awards and ordered the employer to pay the back wages, along with costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the Union, finding the employer's refusal to comply unjustified.

Arbitration awardLabor Management Relations ActCollective bargaining agreementBack wagesEmployee dischargeJust causeAttorney's feesJudicial reviewArbitrator partialityFinancial inability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cott Corp. v. Levinger

In this appeal, Cott Corporation sought to vacate an arbitration award that granted back pay to a former employee, Lindberg Hall, who was discharged for falsifying time cards. The initial judgment by the Supreme Court, Westchester County, modified the arbitration award by deleting the back pay portion, siding with Cott's argument that the arbitrator exceeded his authority. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, finding that the arbitrator's decision that Hall was 'not guilty' of dishonesty, as defined by the collective bargaining agreement, justified the award of back pay. The appellate court concluded that the arbitration award was proper and reinstated it, denying Cott's application to vacate the award.

Arbitration AwardVacate JudgmentBack PayCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DischargeTime Card FalsificationDishonesty ClauseReinstatement DeniedAppellate ReversalArbitrator Authority
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,555 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