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
Dec 21, 2000

Clarke v. One Source Facility Services, Inc.

This case concerns Sylvester Clarke's claims of employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII against One Source Facility Services, Inc. Clarke, an African-American male, alleged discrimination stemming from a refusal of non-union work, which he claimed led to his removal from a position and a series of adverse employment actions. He pursued these grievances through union complaints and two administrative complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights in 1996 and 1998. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the discrimination claim, finding a lack of evidence for racial animus. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding a potential pattern of retaliatory conduct by the employer following Clarke's protected activities.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeTitle VIISummary JudgmentMcDonnell-Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretextRacial DiscriminationUnion GrievanceAdministrative Complaint
References
21
Case No. 02-CV-6666L
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2008

Brown v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF CORREC. SERVICES

Plaintiff, Curtis Brown, a Correction Officer, sued his employer, the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), and several individuals for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, and the New York Human Rights Law. Brown alleged a hostile work environment due to continuous harassment, verbal abuse, and physical violence by white coworkers at Elmira Correctional Facility since 2001, along with retaliatory discipline. Defendants sought summary judgment. The court dismissed claims against individual defendants under Title VII, all claims against Elmira, the State Comptroller, Civil Service, and all constructive discharge claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity or other legal deficiencies. However, the court denied summary judgment on Brown's Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS, finding sufficient evidence of fact disputes for these claims to proceed to trial.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIICivil Rights ActSection 1981Section 1983Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04542
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2025

Carbone v. ISS Facility Servs., Inc.

Joseph Carbone, an airline employee, sued ISS Facility Services, Inc. for personal injuries after a slip and fall at JFK Airport. The parties entered into a settlement agreement for $150,000, conditional upon the defendant resolving a workers' compensation lien, which the defendant subsequently did. Carbone then refused to complete the settlement paperwork. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendant's motion to enforce the agreement. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, holding that the settlement met CPLR 2104 requirements, contained all material terms, and evidenced mutual assent, with no valid grounds presented by the plaintiff to invalidate it.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSettlement AgreementContract EnforcementCPLR 2104Workers' Compensation LienAppellate ProcedureMutual AssentUnconscionable ContractSupreme Court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. 120 AD3d 1323
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2014

Tara N.P. v. Western Suffolk Board of Cooperative Educational Services

The plaintiff, Tara N.P., commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries after being sexually assaulted by Larry I. Smith, a level three sex offender, at a facility where she was attending a GED course. Smith was referred to the facility by the Suffolk County Department of Labor as part of a 'welfare to work' program, despite an agreement that the facility would not accept individuals with criminal records. The Department of Labor allegedly failed to disclose Smith's criminal background. The appellants (County of Suffolk, Suffolk County Department of Social Services, and Suffolk County Department of Labor) moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them, asserting governmental immunity. The Supreme Court denied their motion. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to the appellants on the complaint against them, finding no special duty owed to the plaintiff. However, the Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the cross-claims, citing a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellants breached a duty of care to NACEC.

Personal InjuryGovernmental ImmunitySpecial DutySummary JudgmentContribution ClaimSex OffenderNegligenceDepartment of LaborSexual AssaultAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 09 Civ. 4390 (PKC)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2010

Aiello v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Richard Aiello, a civilian contractor, sued Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc. for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in a latrine at Camp Shield, a forward operating base in Iraq. Aiello alleged negligent construction, renovation, repair, and/or maintenance of the facility. Defendant Kellogg moved for summary judgment, asserting defenses including the political question doctrine and federal preemption under the combatant activities exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The District Court found the political question doctrine inapplicable but granted summary judgment for Kellogg, holding that tort claims against government contractors integrated into military combatant activities in a war zone are preempted. The court reasoned that the maintenance of essential life-support facilities at an active forward operating base constituted combatant activity, and imposing state tort liability would significantly conflict with unique federal interests.

Military Contractor LiabilityFederal PreemptionCombatant Activities ExceptionFederal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)Political Question DoctrineSummary JudgmentNegligenceIraq War OperationsCamp ShieldLogistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP)
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Forsythe v. New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services

Plaintiff Earl Forsythe, a pro se litigant, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), alleging racial discrimination in violation of Title VII. Forsythe, a security guard employed by Tristar Patrol Services, claimed that DCAS and its employees discriminated against him based on his race by causing his transfer from desirable posts at DCAS-managed facilities to less favorable ones, disrupting his childcare schedule. DCAS moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not Forsythe's direct employer and that Forsythe failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or an inference of discriminatory motive. The court determined that a factual issue existed regarding DCAS's "joint employer" liability if a transfer was racially motivated. However, the court found no admissible evidence to suggest that Forsythe's transfers were racially motivated, thus failing the "inference of discrimination" element of his prima facie case. Consequently, DCAS's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Forsythe's Title VII claim was dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentJoint Employer DoctrineAdverse Employment ActionPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkBurden-ShiftingPretext
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2000

Gonzalez v. New York State Department of Correctional Services Fishkill Correctional Facility

Plaintiff Mildred Gonzalez, a Hispanic female corrections officer, sued the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), Fishkill Correctional Facility (Fishkill), and several individual defendants, alleging discrimination based on gender, race, color, and national origin, and retaliation under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Gonzalez claimed her co-worker, Herbert Reilly, created a hostile work environment which her supervisors failed to address. The court dismissed the complaint as to Defendant Clark for lack of service, Title VII claims against individual defendants, and state law claims against DOCS and Fishkill. However, the court allowed hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS and Fishkill to proceed and granted leave to amend the complaint to include a negligent supervision claim against Mann and Ercole.

Hostile Work EnvironmentTitle VII Discrimination42 U.S.C. § 1983Gender DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment DiscriminationMotion to DismissMotion to Amend Complaint
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greater New York Health Care Facilities Ass'n v. Local 144 Hotel, Hospital, Nursing Home & Allied Services Union, S.E.I.U., AFL-CIO

The Greater New York Health Care Facilities Association (Association) commenced an action against Local 144, Hotel, Hospital, Nursing Home and Allied Services Union (Union) and Sidney Wolff in New York State Supreme Court, seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent Wolff from arbitrating disputes. The case was removed to federal court. The core dispute revolved around whether the Association had effectively terminated Wolff's services as an impartial chairman under a collective bargaining agreement and, crucially, whether Wolff himself should decide this arbitrability question, given his alleged pecuniary interest. The court, emphasizing a strong federal policy favoring arbitration, ruled that both the validity of Wolff's termination and the question of an arbitrator's pecuniary interest were arbitrable issues to be determined by Wolff. Consequently, the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief was denied, and the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, with the disputes referred to Sidney Wolff for determination. The court retained jurisdiction solely for enforcing any subsequent arbitration award.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementImpartial ChairmanTemporary Restraining OrderInjunctive ReliefFederal PolicyPecuniary InterestArbitrator TerminationJurisdictionJudgment on the Pleadings
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 7,465 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