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

Epter v. New York City Transit Authority

Jack Epter sued the New York City Transit Authority (TA) for age discrimination under the ADEA after he was not promoted to Station Supervisor, Level I. The TA's policy required all applicants over forty, or those under forty with risk factors, to undergo an EKG. Epter, aged forty-six, refused the EKG. The court found this policy to be facially discriminatory, violating the ADEA, as it differentiated based on age without a valid bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). The TA failed to prove that nearly all employees over forty lacked qualifications or that individualized testing was impractical. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Epter and denied the TA's motion.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActADEASummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationEKG RequirementMedical Examination PolicyBona Fide Occupational QualificationFacial DiscriminationPromotion DenialNew York City Transit Authority
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

A female petitioner was denied employment as a cook at the Albion Correctional Facility, a minimum-security male prison, solely because of her sex, based on the perceived danger for women in such an environment. Initially, the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights found this discriminatory and ordered the petitioner to be hired with back pay and damages. However, the Human Rights Appeal Board reversed this decision, upholding the denial of employment due to safety concerns. The court, citing the New York Human Rights Law and the U.S. Civil Rights Act, ruled that danger to women alone is not a valid 'bona fide occupational qualification' (BFOQ), emphasizing that individuals should be free to choose whether to accept job risks. The decision distinguished this case from situations where a woman's gender directly impairs her ability to perform core job functions, which was not applicable to a cook position. Consequently, the court annulled the Appeal Board's order and remitted the matter for further proceedings to determine the petitioner's specific qualifications and appropriate relief.

Sexual DiscriminationBona Fide Occupational QualificationCorrectional Facility EmploymentGender-based HiringHuman Rights LawCivil Rights ActRisk AcceptanceRomantic PaternalismJob QualificationsAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Oneida County Sheriff's Department

A female Deputy Sheriff (complainant) was denied promotion to sergeant in a male housing unit by the Oneida County Sheriff's Department (respondent). The State Division of Human Rights found unlawful discrimination, but the court annulled this determination. The court ruled that sex is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for the sergeant position due to male inmates' privacy during cellblock inspections, thus finding no unlawful discriminatory practice. A dissenting opinion argued that the respondent failed to meet the heavy burden of establishing sex as a necessary BFOQ, highlighting reasonable alternatives to accommodate privacy concerns and the adverse impact on female officers' promotional opportunities.

Bona Fide Occupational QualificationSex discriminationDeputy SheriffCorrection Officer SergeantInmate privacy rightsMale housing unitEmployment discriminationHuman Rights LawCivil service promotionOneida County Jail
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 1990

Claim of Harris v. Syracuse University

The claimant, employed by Syracuse University, failed to disclose pre-existing multiple sclerosis on a pre-employment health statement in August 1986. After applying for disability benefits in March 1987, the self-insured employer initially paid but then rejected the claim in May 1987, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 220 (6) due to the false statement. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant was not precluded from receiving benefits, finding no evidence that the false statement was made specifically to obtain disability benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting § 220 (6) narrowly and noting that the claimant was not obligated to disclose medical conditions not related to a bona fide occupational qualification.

Workers' CompensationDisability BenefitsFalse StatementPre-employment MisrepresentationMultiple SclerosisEmployer Rejection of ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 220(6)Legislative IntentStatutory InterpretationBona Fide Occupational Qualification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 1981

Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co.

This case addresses whether femininity or female sex appeal constitutes a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) for flight attendants and ticket agents at Southwest Airlines. Plaintiff Gregory Wilson and a class of male applicants challenged Southwest's females-only hiring policy as sex discrimination under Title VII. Southwest conceded intentional discrimination but argued its "love" image, requiring attractive female personnel, was crucial for its financial success and customer appeal. The court, applying the Weeks and Diaz BFOQ tests, determined that safe transportation, not sex appeal, was the airline's primary function. It rejected Southwest's defense, ruling that customer preference did not establish a business necessity for gender-based hiring.

BFOQSex DiscriminationTitle VIIEmployment LawAirline IndustryCustomer PreferenceMarketing StrategyGender RolesJob PerformanceLegal Precedent
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manhattan Pizza Hut, Inc. v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

Chief Judge Cooke dissents from the majority's decision, which reversed an order finding Manhattan Pizza Hut, Inc.'s anti-nepotism rule discriminatory. The rule prohibits employees from supervising relatives, including spouses, thereby discriminating against married persons based solely on their marital status. Cooke argues that this policy violates Executive Law Section 296, which forbids employment discrimination based on marital status, as it targets married individuals while overlooking other close personal relationships. He emphasizes that this discrimination can discourage marriage or encourage divorce and impede employment opportunities, thus undermining the protected status of marriage. Cooke concludes that the rule is not a bona fide occupational qualification and votes to affirm the Appellate Division's order, which presumably ruled against Pizza Hut.

Anti-nepotism policyEmployment discriminationMarital status discriminationExecutive Law Section 296Bona fide occupational qualificationAppellate reviewDissenting opinionEmployee rightsWorkplace conflictFamily status
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ward v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

Plaintiff Floyd E. Ward, a white male employee of Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., filed an action under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging sex-based employment discrimination after his request for a job transfer was denied. Ward sought a 'light work' position, typically reserved for women or physically disabled men, which he claimed offered more money and alleviated back pain. The defendants, Firestone and two unions, argued that Ward would not receive the purported benefits and that reserving such jobs constituted a bona fide occupational qualification. The court found in favor of the defendants, concluding there was no factual basis for discrimination under the statutory provisions and that the job reservation fell under a specific exception in the Act. Consequently, the plaintiff was denied relief, but the defendants' application for attorneys' fees was also denied.

Civil Rights Act of 1964Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationJob Transfer DenialBona Fide Occupational QualificationUnion GrievanceStatute of LimitationsAttorneys' FeesFederal Court DecisionLight Work Job Classification
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Neeld v. American Hockey League

Plaintiff Gregory P. Neeld, a one-eyed individual, sought a preliminary injunction against the American Hockey League (AHL) to challenge its by-law (Article 13(e)) prohibiting one-eyed players from participating in professional hockey. Neeld alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York's Human Rights Law § 296(1)(a). The court dismissed the § 1983 claim for lack of state action but found a probability of success on the state human rights claim, noting that visual impairment can only be a bar if it's a bona fide occupational qualification. The court also addressed diversity jurisdiction, dismissing a non-diverse defendant to retain the state claim. Ultimately, the court granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the AHL and its New York franchises from applying Article 13(e) to Neeld within the state.

Disability DiscriminationProfessional HockeyPreliminary InjunctionHuman Rights LawState ActionDiversity JurisdictionOccupational QualificationSports LawIrreparable HarmNew York Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2011

White v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Plaintiff Jacquelyn White, a female correction officer, sued New York State, DOCS, and several individual supervisory officers at Lincoln Correctional Facility for employment discrimination and retaliation. White alleged gender discrimination under Title VII and a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, stemming from being denied a "male-only" Officer In Charge (OIC) position in 2008. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the male-only policy was a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) and that White's retaliation claims lacked merit. The court denied summary judgment on the Title VII claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the BFOQ defense and evidence of retaliatory animus. However, the court granted summary judgment for the individual defendants on the § 1983 equal protection claim, citing qualified immunity, as reasonable officers could have disagreed on the legality of the male-only designation.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIGender DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentBona Fide Occupational QualificationEqual Protection42 U.S.C. § 1983Correction OfficerPrison Facility
References
73
Case No. 13-08-00351-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2009

Mitch Burkhart and Christine Burkhart v. Sedgwick Claim Management Services, Inc. and Concentra Integrated Services, and rgv/nueces Rehabilitation D/B/A Innovative Physical and Occupational Therapy

Mitch Burkhart sustained a foot and ankle injury while training for his employer, Verizon Communications. Verizon's workers' compensation claims were administered by Sedgwick Claim Management Services, Inc., who, along with Concentra Integrated Services, arranged a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) for Burkhart with RGV/Nueces Rehabilitation d/b/a Innovative Physical and Occupational Therapy. The Burkharts alleged that the FCE aggravated Mitch's injury, causing permanent damage. They sued Sedgwick, Concentra, and Innovative, claiming negligence, civil conspiracy, assault, fraud, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court dismissed the case against Innovative for an inadequate expert report and granted summary judgment to Sedgwick and Concentra, citing the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Mitch's aggravation injury was an 'extension injury' covered by the exclusive remedy provision of the TWCA.

Workers' CompensationFunctional Capacity EvaluationExclusive RemedyAggravation InjurySummary JudgmentMedical Expert ReportHealth Care LiabilityCivil ConspiracyBreach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair DealingTexas Court of Appeals
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 1,066 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