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

Curtis v. Radioshack Corp.

Plaintiff Jennifer Curtis filed a discrimination charge against RadioShack Corporation alleging pregnancy-based sex discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII. Her charge was filed 342 days after her termination, exceeding the 300-day statutory limit. Curtis sought equitable tolling, arguing that the Dutchess County Human Rights Commission (DCHCR) misled her and lost her file. However, the court found that DCHCR explicitly stated it did not investigate complaints and that Curtis lacked reasonable diligence in following up for over seven months. Consequently, the court denied equitable tolling and granted RadioShack's motion to dismiss Curtis's First, Second, and Third causes of action as time-barred. Surviving claims exist under New York State Human Rights Law, Fair Labor Standards Act, and New York State Labor Law.

Equitable tollingTitle VIIDiscriminationPregnancy discriminationTimelinessStatute of LimitationsFederal courtDutchess CountyHuman Rights CommissionEEOC
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falso v. Sutherland Global Services

Plaintiff Anthony Falso sued his former employer Sutherland Global Services, Inc. and several individual employees for alleged discrimination under Title VII and the ADA. Falso claimed disability discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination due to a learning disability and other alleged medical conditions. The individual defendants moved to dismiss, arguing no individual liability under Title VII or the ADA, which the court granted. Sutherland moved for partial summary judgment on the Title VII claim, contending Falso failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court agreed, finding Falso's administrative complaint only alleged disability discrimination and was not reasonably related to a Title VII claim, thus dismissing the Title VII claim.

DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationTitle VIIADAEmployment LawAdministrative RemediesSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissIndividual LiabilityFederal Court
References
19
Case No. ADJ8814296
Regular
Feb 16, 2017

JANET WILDER vs. CAPRI GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to review the Findings and Award (F&A) concerning applicant Janet Wilder's work-related injuries. The WCAB affirmed the F&A's findings regarding the nature of the injuries and psychiatric disability but found the medical evidence supporting the cranial/trigeminal nerve impairment was not substantial. Consequently, the WCAB deferred the issues of permanent disability and attorney's fees, remanding the case to the WCJ for further proceedings to develop the record on those specific issues.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityApportionmentQualified Medical EvaluatorCranial Nerve ImpairmentFacial DisorderPsychiatric Disability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gray v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc.

Eddie Gray sued Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc., and three individual defendants for employment discrimination under Title VII, New York Executive Law, and New York City Human Rights Law, along with unlawful termination under New York's whistleblower statute. Defendants moved to dismiss various claims. The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing portions of the Title VII claims as time-barred, all Title VII claims against individual defendants, and the claims under the whistleblower statute and New York City Human Rights Law entirely. The court found that Gray's 1987 and 1989 Title VII claims were time-barred, not falling under the 'continuing violation' exception. It also ruled that individual defendants cannot be held personally liable under Title VII and dismissed those claims. Finally, Gray's whistleblower claim was dismissed as time-barred, and his New York City Human Rights Law claim was dismissed due to non-compliance with statutory prerequisites.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIITime-Barred ClaimsWhistleblower StatuteNew York City Human Rights LawIndividual LiabilityContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of LimitationsRetaliatory TerminationRacial Discrimination
References
26
Case No. 15CV3421ADSARL
Regular Panel Decision

Falcon v. City University of New York

This case involves allegations by Plaintiff Nancy Falcon against her employer, the City University of New York (CUNY), for gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII. CUNY filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss the complaint. The Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It dismissed the hostile work environment claim and limited the Title VII discrimination claim by barring reliance on events before 2008. However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the Title VII discrimination claim regarding a 2012 promotion denial and the Title VII retaliation claim concerning alleged acts after an internal complaint in December 2014, finding sufficient facts for these aspects to survive scrutiny.

Title VIIGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationMotion for Judgment on PleadingsRule 12(c)McDonnell Douglas FrameworkPlausibility StandardStatute of LimitationsEEOC Complaint
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simonton v. Runyon

The plaintiff, a male homosexual and former employee of the United States Postal Service, filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination and a hostile work environment based on his sexual orientation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Title VII does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court, citing established precedent and an interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., concluded that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not considered discrimination "based upon sex" under Title VII. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, affirming that while the alleged conduct was offensive, Title VII did not provide a legal remedy for the plaintiff's claim.

Sexual Orientation DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIIMotion to DismissFederal CourtPrecedentStatutory InterpretationCivil RightsEmployment Discrimination
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prunella v. Carlshire Tenants, Inc.

Plaintiff, Angelo Prunella, a Jehovah's Witness, sued Carlshire Tenants, Inc. and Garthchester Realty, Ltd. under Title VII, alleging religious discrimination after his employment termination. Defendants moved to dismiss Carlshire for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing it wasn't an "employer" under Title VII, and for summary judgment, claiming a prior settlement stipulation barred Prunella's action. The court granted Carlshire's motion to dismiss, finding it did not meet Title VII's definition of an employer due to insufficient employees, and also granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court determined that Prunella's May 1997 settlement agreement, which he signed knowingly and voluntarily after negotiations with his union representative, broadly waived "any and all claims," including his Title VII claims. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Religious DiscriminationTitle VIIEmployment TerminationSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionEmployer DefinitionSettlement AgreementWaiver of ClaimsKnowing and Voluntary ConsentCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robles v. Cox & Co.

Carmen Robles ("Plaintiff") sued her former employer, Cox and Company, Inc. ("Defendant"), alleging age discrimination under ADEA, Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL; retaliation under Title VII; breach of contract; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Defendant filed a partial motion to dismiss several claims. The court, presided over by Judge Spatt, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the age discrimination claim under NYCHRL, the Title VII retaliation claim (for failure to state a claim), the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, and the breach of contract claim. The court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Title VII retaliation claim based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies but ultimately dismissed it for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff was granted twenty days to file an amended complaint.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIADEANYSHRLNYCHRLBreach of ContractIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMotion to Dismiss
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hughes v. Xerox Corp.

Alicia Hughes, an African American woman, sued her employer, Xerox Corporation, alleging employment discrimination based on race and gender, including unequal pay, hostile work environment, and failure to promote. She filed charges with the EEOC and DHR before initiating the lawsuit. Xerox moved to dismiss most of her claims. The court granted dismissal for the unequal pay claims (EPA, Title VII, HRL) due to insufficient factual support and for the racially hostile work environment claims (Title VII, HRL) as the alleged incidents were not severe or pervasive enough. However, the court denied dismissal for the gender discrimination claims under Title VII and HRL, and race discrimination claims under Title VII and Section 1981, finding plausible allegations of adverse employment actions within the respective statutes of limitations.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationUnequal Pay Claims DismissedHostile Work Environment Claims DismissedFailure to PromoteAdministrative ExhaustionStatute of LimitationsAdverse Employment ActionTitle VII
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saaidi v. CFAS, LLC

Huda Saaidi sued CFAS, LLC (doing business as EDIFI) and John Braat for employment-related gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and the Administrative Code of the City of Albany. Saaidi alleged sexual harassment by co-workers, a hostile work environment, and retaliation after complaining to management. Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment. The court denied the motion to dismiss and granted summary judgment in part, dismissing Saaidi's Title VII claims against Braat, claims under the Administrative Code of the City of Albany, and Title VII hostile work environment claims. However, the court denied summary judgment on Saaidi’s Title VII retaliation and constructive discharge claims, and all NYSHRL claims for retaliation, constructive discharge, and hostile work environment, finding sufficient evidence for a jury.

Gender DiscriminationUnlawful RetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeTitle VIINYSHRLSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissEmployment LawAdministrative Remedies
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 702 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