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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ernestine Tolar and other African American temporary workers, alleging race discrimination by Paramount Staffing, Inc. in violation of Title VII. The EEOC claimed Paramount Staffing, a staffing agency, systematically chose Hispanic workers over African American applicants for positions at a Technicolor warehouse. Paramount Staffing moved for summary judgment, asserting the EEOC failed to conciliate in good faith by not disclosing class member identities and misrepresenting the class size during settlement negotiations. The Court denied the defendant's motion, finding that the EEOC's conciliation efforts were adequate, it sufficiently outlined the class, and its estimated class size was subject to change as litigation progressed.

Title VIIRace DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary Judgment MotionEEOC ConciliationGood FaithClass ActionTemporary StaffingRacial BiasDamages Claims
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The claimant suffered work-related injuries and was awarded compensation for a permanent partial disability through conciliation. The self-insured employer delayed payment, leading the claimant to seek a 20% penalty under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f). However, a WCLJ and the Workers’ Compensation Board imposed only a $500 fine under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2-b) (h), citing a regulation that exempted conciliation cases from the 20% penalty. On appeal, the Court reversed, ruling that the statutory 20% penalty applies to conciliation awards and that the regulation (12 NYCRR 312.5 [j]) which barred it was invalid for conflicting with the enabling statute.

Workers' CompensationPenaltyConciliationStatutory InterpretationLate PaymentPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewRegulation Invalidity
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Rock-Tenn Services Company, Inc., alleging racial discrimination and creation of a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, specifically concerning former employee Michael Scott and other similarly situated individuals. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Rock-Tenn contested the EEOC's conciliation efforts, the merits of the hostile work environment claim, and sought to apply judicial estoppel against Michael Scott due to a prior bankruptcy. The Court denied Rock-Tenn's motions regarding conciliation and the hostile work environment claim, finding genuine issues of material fact. However, the Court granted Rock-Tenn's motion for summary judgment on judicial estoppel against Michael Scott, preventing him from individually pursuing his claims, but affirmed the EEOC's right to proceed on his behalf. The Court also granted the EEOC's motion for partial summary judgment against several of Rock-Tenn's affirmative defenses, including waiver, unclean hands, laches, statute of limitations, and failure to conciliate.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIICivil Rights ActConciliationJudicial EstoppelContinuing Violation DoctrineEllerth/Faragher DefenseEmployer Liability
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Plaintiff, a counselor for Tompkins County, alleged unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation after her job duties were changed due to client allegations. She filed a grievance and a complaint under Local Law No. 6. A settlement resolved the grievance, but conciliation efforts for the discrimination complaint ceased in May or October 1996. Plaintiff later filed a lawsuit in December 1997, alleging a violation of Local Law No. 6, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court as time-barred. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the action was time-barred under Local Law No. 6's one-year statute of limitations, as conciliation efforts terminated earlier than claimed and no continuing pattern of discrimination was established.

DiscriminationSexual OrientationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsConciliation EffortsGrievance ProcedureAppellate ReviewTime-Barred ClaimContinuing Violation DoctrineLocal Law No. 6
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Norlite Corporation brought suit against Local 106-106B of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Wayne Horvitz to enjoin arbitration of a labor dispute concerning the discharge of two employees and to recover monetary damages for a wildcat strike. The Union counterclaimed, asserting that the discharges were subject to arbitration and seeking an order to compel it. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment regarding arbitrability, while the complaint against Horvitz was dismissed by consent. The central issue was whether employee discharges fell under the collective bargaining agreement's arbitration clause. The court, citing national policy favoring arbitration and the agreement's broad language, concluded that the discharges were arbitrable, denying Norlite's motion and granting the Union's. Additionally, Norlite's second cause of action for damages related to the wildcat strike was dismissed as premature, pending the outcome of arbitration regarding employee reinstatement and back pay.

ArbitrationLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DischargeSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionNo-strike ClauseUnionEmployerFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Plaintiff, an HIV-positive former Pan Am employee, filed a discrimination complaint against Delta Airlines with the New York City Commission on Human Rights. A conciliation agreement included a confidentiality clause regarding his identity and HIV status. The defendants allegedly issued a press release that, without explicitly naming the plaintiff, contained enough information to identify him and his HIV status, leading to newspaper disclosures. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of constitutional right of privacy, stating it does not extend to matters of public record. The remaining state law claims for breach of contract and violation of New York Public Health Law § 2782(1) were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Privacy RightsHIV ConfidentialityBreach of ContractSection 1983Constitutional LawHuman Rights CommissionMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsConciliation Agreement
References
2
Case No. CV-24-0993
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Claimant sustained a work-related left shoulder injury in 2014, leading to differing medical opinions on schedule loss of use (SLU) between her treating physician and the carrier's orthopedic consultant. A conciliation decision directed depositions, and claimant's counsel subpoenaed the carrier's consultant, who failed to appear. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Board found no SLU, with the Board refusing to preclude the consultant's report due to claimant's counsel's failure to timely request an extension for the deposition. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that claimant waived the right to cross-examine the consultant by not making reasonable efforts to reschedule or seek an extension for the deposition. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the Board's decision not to preclude the medical report.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Medical Report PreclusionDeposition TestimonyCross-Examination RightsWaiver of RightAppellate DivisionBoard Decision AffirmationOrthopedic InjuryMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 1989

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This age discrimination action stems from the termination of plaintiff Realmuto's employment with defendant Yellow Freight System, Inc. at age 57. Realmuto alleged age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York State Human Rights Law, along with breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the defendant's motion to strike demands for compensatory and punitive damages under the ADEA, as these are not recoverable. Additionally, the court dismissed the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, finding the allegations did not meet New York's strict standards. Finally, the court refused to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the New York Human Rights claim, citing concerns about jury prejudice, confusion regarding damages, and the importance of incentivizing administrative conciliation.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationADEANew York Human Rights LawIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressCompensatory DamagesPunitive DamagesPendent JurisdictionAdministrative ExhaustionWorkers' Compensation Exclusivity
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case concerns a public assistance recipient's challenge against the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) for its practices related to work activity requirements. The petitioner, a full-time employed individual, repeatedly faced penalties due to mandatory HRA appointments conflicting with his known work schedule. The court found HRA's practices unlawful, ruling that the agency failed to accommodate known work schedules, improperly denied representation at conciliation appointments, and issued punitive notices without adequate case record review. The court granted declaratory and injunctive relief, compelling HRA to adjust scheduling, permit representatives, and conduct thorough reviews before imposing sanctions. However, it denied further injunctive relief that would exempt full-time employed recipients from all work activity appointments.

Public AssistanceWork RequirementsNon-compliance PenaltyDue ProcessAdministrative LawInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory JudgmentSocial Services LawHRAOTDA
References
33
Case No. 89-1200T
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Plaintiff Carmen Lippa initiated this action under Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and New York Human Rights Law, alleging sex, marital, and retaliatory discrimination during her employment with General Motors Corporation, A.C. Rochester Products, and Steven Medwid. The court initially dismissed the state Human Rights Law claim, citing an unwarranted exercise of pendent jurisdiction and an election of remedies. Plaintiff sought reconsideration of this decision, moving to alter or amend the judgment. The court granted the request for reconsideration but ultimately denied the motion to alter or amend, affirming its prior dismissal of the plaintiff's Human Rights Law claim. The decision to decline pendent jurisdiction was based on concerns about potential jury confusion due to differing remedies and evidentiary requirements between the federal and state claims, and to uphold the incentive for conciliation in administrative processes.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationMarital Status DiscriminationRetaliatory DiscriminationTitle VIIEqual Pay ActNew York Human Rights LawPendent JurisdictionElection of RemediesAdministrative Convenience
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 16 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