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
Mar 06, 2015

American Civil Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera

The American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) sued Zavala County Tax Assessor-Collector Cindy Martinez-Rivera for violating the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) by allegedly failing to maintain accurate voter rolls, indicated by a 105% registration rate. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss challenging ACRU's standing and the sufficiency of the claim, while Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Magistrate Judge Collis White recommended denying both motions, finding ACRU had organizational standing and stated a plausible claim. District Judge Alia Moses adopted the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, consequently denying both the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint.

Voter RegistrationNational Voter Registration ActOrganizational StandingMotion to DismissMotion to Amend ComplaintVoter Rolls MaintenanceZavala CountyTexas Election LawSubject Matter JurisdictionConstitutional Standing
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1993

Ray v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Larry Ray, a maintenance worker, and Blake Willett, an LIRR Police Officer, were involved in a physical altercation where Willett allegedly beat and handcuffed Ray. Ray was later released by Willett's supervisor. Plaintiffs sued Willett and the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) for battery, false arrest and imprisonment, negligent retention, and civil rights violations under 42 USC § 1983. The Supreme Court, Kings County, dismissed claims against the LIRR for negligent retention and civil rights violations and dismissed the complaint against Willett due to defective service of process. The jury found Willett liable for battery and false arrest/imprisonment but not for civil rights violation. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the dismissals, concluding that Willett's conduct was not within the scope of employment and he was not acting under color of state law, and that service upon Willett was indeed defective.

BatteryFalse ImprisonmentCivil Rights ViolationNegligent RetentionRespondeat SuperiorPolice MisconductPersonal JurisdictionService of ProcessAppellate LawKings County
References
17
Case No. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1981

MATTER OF MOHAWK FINISHING PRODS., INC. v. State Div. of Human Rights

This dissenting opinion concerns Michele Cushing, an employee of Mohawk Finishing Products Corporation, who was terminated after raising concerns about perceived sex discrimination, although actual discrimination was not proven. The State Division of Human Rights initially granted her relief for retaliation, which was affirmed by the Human Rights Appeal Board. However, the Appellate Division annulled and remitted the decision, distinguishing between protective clauses in the Human Rights Law. Justice Fuchsberg argues that the anti-retaliation provision should protect employees who reasonably believe a practice is discriminatory, even if later found lawful. He proposes reversing the Appellate Division's order and remitting the case to the State Division of Human Rights for a specific finding on the reasonableness of Ms. Cushing’s belief.

Anti-retaliationHuman Rights LawSex DiscriminationReasonable BeliefEmployment LawDissenting OpinionAdministrative ReviewWorkplace RetaliationEmployee RightsJudicial Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mohawk Finishing Products, Inc. v. State Division of Human Rights

The petitioner challenged a determination by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding of unlawful discriminatory practice against the petitioner. The original complaint stemmed from the petitioner allegedly retaliating against an employee for opposing perceived sex discrimination, although the Division of Human Rights found no actual sex discrimination. The court had previously annulled and remitted the case due to an inconsistency, but the Board failed to clarify its findings. This court now rules that retaliation for opposing practices mistakenly believed to be unlawful is not protected under the Human Rights Law if the underlying practice was, in fact, lawful. Consequently, the Board's determination against the petitioner is annulled, and the petition is granted.

RetaliationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAdministrative ReviewAppellate ReviewUnlawful Discriminatory PracticeSubstantial EvidenceClarification of FindingsEmployment Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stanford v. New York City Commission on Human Rights

The plaintiff, a provisional human rights specialist, sued her employer, the New York City Commission on Human Rights, and several individual defendants for employment discrimination. She alleged discrimination based on national origin and retaliation after her termination, which followed a history of insubordination and conflict with her supervisor. The court found no evidence to support either the national origin discrimination claim, noting similar racial backgrounds among parties, or the retaliation claim, as the Commission had encouraged employees to challenge the civil service examination in question. The decision concluded that the plaintiff's termination stemmed from an irreconcilable personal antagonism with her supervisor rather than any discriminatory reasons. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, affirming that federal courts should not intervene in personnel decisions based on non-discriminatory grounds.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimInsubordinationProvisional Employee TerminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActEEOC ComplaintSupervisor-Employee ConflictFederal District Court CaseWorkplace Conduct
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moss v. Department of Civil Service

The petitioner, a Senior Youth Parole Worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the State Department of Civil Service's requirement of a Master's degree for the Youth Parole Supervisor promotion examination. His application was denied due to the lack of this degree, despite his advanced graduate study and prior assurances of eligibility based on earlier prerequisites. The court affirmed the Civil Service Department's broad discretion in establishing minimum qualifications for competitive examinations. It ruled that earlier prerequisites or unauthorized assurances do not confer a vested right to bypass current requirements, which are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Department of Civil Service. Consequently, the application was denied, and the petition dismissed.

Civil Service LawPromotion ExaminationEducational RequirementsMaster's DegreeYouth Parole SupervisorDiscretionVested RightsArticle 78 ProceedingState EmployeesCivil Service Commission
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 1988

Levitt v. Civil Service Commission

The City of New York appealed a Supreme Court judgment that affirmed the Civil Service Commission's decision to reject the reclassification of the deckhand position from the competitive to the noncompetitive civil service class. Petitioners argued that the Commission applied an overly strict standard, acted inconsistently with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the NY Constitution, based its decision solely on a presumption despite expert opinions, and failed to adequately state its reasoning. The Appellate Division found that the Commission properly used the term "compelling" to reflect the constitutional preference for competitive examinations and that its decision, while brief, allowed for judicial review. Citing the public safety roles of deckhands, similar to police and firefighters, the court concluded that competitive examinations are feasible and petitioners failed to demonstrate an impediment to compliance with job-relatedness requirements.

Civil Service LawJob ReclassificationCompetitive ExaminationNoncompetitive ClassPublic SafetyDeckhand PositionAppellate ReviewCivil Rights Act Title VIINew York ConstitutionArbitrary Determination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harley Ex Rel. Johnson v. City of New York

Plaintiff Lucille Harley brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of her grandchildren, alleging a violation of their due process rights in connection with their removal from her home in 1990. Defendants, including child welfare caseworkers Kersandra Cox and John Byers, moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity and challenging municipal liability. The court found that the caseworkers were objectively reasonable in their belief of emergency circumstances warranting removal, thereby granting them qualified immunity. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of a municipal policy of 'deliberate indifference,' leading to the dismissal of claims against the City. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety.

Civil RightsDue ProcessChild RemovalFoster CareQualified ImmunityMunicipal LiabilitySummary JudgmentChild Abuse AllegationsFamily LawFederal Court
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Maimonides Medical Center

Plaintiff, a black staff nurse, sued her employer hospital under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and New York Human Rights Law, alleging racial discrimination after being denied a promotion in May 1980 and subsequently experiencing retaliation for filing complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights and EEOC in October 1980. The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, an injunction, promotion with back pay, damages, and attorney fees. Defendant moved to dismiss the retaliation claims, arguing § 1981 does not cover retaliation. Citing precedent like DeMatteis v. Eastman Kodak Co., the court found that § 1981 does protect against retaliation for vindicating civil rights and denied the motion to dismiss the § 1981 and state Human Rights Law retaliation claims. The court also denied the defendant's request to stay the action.

racial discriminationemployment discriminationretaliationcivil rightsHuman Rights LawSection 1981motion to dismissfederal jurisdictionsupplemental jurisdictionjudicial remedies
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 9,126 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