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

Mauze v. CBS Corp.

Lynda Mauze, an African-American woman and former Manager of Sports Production Services at CBS, sued CBS for discrimination based on race and sex, hostile work environment, and retaliation after her termination in April 2014. She alleged CBS refused to promote her, raise her pay, and ultimately fired her, violating Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, EPA, and New York Labor Law § 194. CBS moved for summary judgment, arguing Mauze was fired for insubordination and job abandonment. The court granted summary judgment for CBS on discrimination and hostile work environment claims, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding pretext or pervasive hostility. However, the court denied summary judgment on Mauze's retaliation claim, concluding that the circumstances and timing of her termination, particularly after her internal and EEOC complaints, allowed for a plausible inference of retaliatory animus.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIISection 1981NYSHRLNYCHRL
References
82
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03417 [205 AD3d 1269]
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

Matter of Hogan v. CBS Tel. Stas.

Thomas Hogan, a freelance per diem technician for CBS Television Stations, filed a discrimination complaint under Workers' Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge after injuring his finger and filing a workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially ruled in Hogan's favor, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding no violation of WCL § 120. The Board's decision was based on findings that Hogan was informed of his assignment's termination prior to his injury and claim, and there was no causal nexus between his claim and the termination. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's amended decision, deferring to the Board's credibility determinations and finding substantial evidence supported its conclusion that Hogan failed to prove a retaliatory discharge.

Workers' Compensation DiscriminationRetaliatory Discharge ClaimCausal Nexus Burden of ProofSubstantial Evidence ReviewBoard Credibility DeterminationsFreelance Employee RightsOccupational InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board ReversalAppellate Division AffirmationMoot Appeals Doctrine
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

CBS Inc. v. Liederman

CBS Inc. sued David and William Liederman for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act and New York law, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from opening a restaurant named “Television City.” CBS operates a television production facility by the same name and holds a registered service mark. The court applied the Polaroid factors to evaluate the likelihood of confusion, finding that despite the identical marks, the strength of CBS's mark was limited to television production, and there was insufficient proximity between a production studio and a restaurant. Consequently, the court denied CBS's motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion or success on the merits, and also rejected the unfair competition and dilution claims.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionTrademark DilutionLanham ActPreliminary InjunctionLikelihood of ConfusionPolaroid FactorsService MarkRestaurant IndustryEntertainment Industry
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Gregorio v. CBS, Inc.

Plaintiff Carl De Gregorio sued CBS after footage of him holding hands with a co-worker on Madison Avenue was broadcast for a news segment about romance, despite his explicit request to prevent its use. De Gregorio alleged invasion of privacy under the New York Civil Rights Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, and defamation. The court granted summary judgment to CBS, finding that the broadcast, filmed in a public place for a newsworthy topic, did not constitute an invasion of privacy or defamation. The decision emphasized that incidental use and the constitutional protection of freedom of the press precluded liability, even if the subject desired greater privacy.

Invasion of PrivacyCivil Rights LawFreedom of the PressSummary JudgmentDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPrima Facie TortNewsworthinessIncidental UsePublic Street
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Clumber Transportation Corp.

Clumber Transportation Corporation and Poppy Cab Corporation appealed decisions from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board found both corporations to be employers, subject to workers’ compensation insurance requirements, because they leased taxicab medallions and, in Clumber's case, had more than one corporate officer prior to January 1, 1987. The corporations challenged the statutory employment relationship and the Board Chairman's authority to delegate penalty imposition. The court affirmed the Board’s interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 2, finding that medallion leases created a statutory employment relationship. It also upheld the Board's finding regarding Clumber's multiple officers and the Chairman's delegation authority. However, the court modified the penalty against Poppy Cab Corporation, reducing it from $7,200 to $6,000, while affirming the decision against Clumber.

Workers Compensation LawTaxicab MedallionEmployer-Employee RelationshipStatutory EmploymentCorporate OfficersInsurance RequirementDelegation of AuthorityAdministrative PenaltiesAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. 531391
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Thomas Hogan

Claimant Thomas Hogan, a freelance per diem technician, injured his finger in December 2015 while working for CBS Television Stations. He reported the injury and filed a workers' compensation claim. His employment ended on December 23, 2015, and Hogan subsequently filed a discrimination complaint under Workers' Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge for filing the claim. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found in Hogan's favor, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, concluding that Hogan failed to prove a violation of § 120. Hogan appealed the Board's decisions. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's amended decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that Hogan's termination was not causally linked to his workers' compensation claim, as he had been informed of his assignment's end date prior to his injury.

Retaliatory DischargeEmployment TerminationWorkers' Compensation ClaimDiscrimination ComplaintCausal NexusSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardFreelance TechnicianOccupational Disease
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2009

Johnson v. UniFirst Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Derrick Corporation, sustained injuries when his uniform, rented from UniFirst Corporation, caught fire. UniFirst, a defendant in the main personal injury action, filed a third-party complaint against Derrick for contractual indemnification. Derrick moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing that its contract with UniFirst had expired at the time of the accident, thus barring indemnification under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied Derrick's motion. On appeal, the order was reversed, and Derrick's motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint. The appellate court found UniFirst failed to provide statutory notice for automatic contract renewal under General Obligations Law § 5-903 (2).

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral Obligations LawAutomatic Renewal ProvisionThird-Party ActionPersonal InjuryUniform FireEmployer LiabilityStatutory Notice
References
6
Case No. 81 Civ. 3958 (KTD)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 1982

In Re Pension Plan for Emp. of Broadway Maint.

This case involves a dispute between the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation over the termination date of Broadway's employee pension plan. The PBGC initiated the lawsuit to be appointed statutory trustee, declare the plan terminated, and sought a termination date of March 26, 1981, while Broadway argued for a retroactive date prior to December 31, 1979. Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy acknowledged the appointment of the PBGC as trustee and the plan's termination, with the sole issue being the precise termination date. After considering the interests of the participants, the PBGC, and Broadway, and applying legal precedent, the court ultimately set December 5, 1980, as the earliest valid termination date. This date was chosen because it marked when the PBGC filed its original Proofs of Claim, signaling its clear intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee BenefitsBankruptcyPBGCStatutory TrusteeRetroactive Termination DateJudicial TerminationParticipant InterestsFinancial Distress
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Tredegar Corp.

Exxon Mobil Corporation sued Tredegar Corporation alleging breach of an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA). Exxon claimed Tredegar failed to indemnify it for a settlement in an underlying personal injury action and failed to cooperate in Exxon's defense as per the APA. Tredegar filed a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion to dismiss Count I, finding the indemnification provisions of the APA ambiguous regarding whether the liability was 'assumed' or 'retained'. However, the court largely denied the motion to dismiss Count II, concluding that Exxon plausibly alleged a breach of Tredegar's duty to cooperate and provide reasonable access to employees, with a partial grant for the records access claim under Section 12.7 of the APA.

asset purchase agreementindemnification clausebreach of contractduty to cooperatemotion to dismisscontract ambiguitycorporate acquisitionpre-closing occurrencespost-closing eventslitigation defense
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 1987

Constantine v. Sperry Corp.

James Constantine, a passenger in a van leased by his employer Sperry Corporation, was injured when the van, operated by a fellow employee Oligario, struck a curb. The plaintiffs appealed a judgment denying their motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross motion, dismissing the complaint. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that Constantine's injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment, making his sole remedy the Workers' Compensation Law. Consequently, both the employer and co-worker were immune from suit, and no liability could be imputed to the van owner, Gelco Corporation. The derivative claim by Constantine's wife was also dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationEmployer ImmunityCo-employee ImmunitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDerivative ClaimVan AccidentNassau CountyNew York
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,577 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