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

Scott v. City of New York Department of Correction

Plaintiff Collette J. Scott sued Norman Seabrook, the Corrections Officers’ Benevolent Association of the City of New York (COBA), and the City of New York Department of Corrections (DOC), alleging sexual assault, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and state law. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein recommended granting summary judgment for all defendants on retaliation claims and for DOC on hostile work environment, but denying it for the Seabrook defendants on the hostile work environment claim. District Judge Sidney H. Stein adopted this recommendation in its entirety after de novo review. The Court dismissed all claims against DOC and retaliation claims against Seabrook defendants but denied summary judgment for Seabrook defendants on the hostile work environment claim.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIILabor Union LiabilitySex DiscriminationCorrectional OfficersMagistrate Judge RecommendationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 56
References
65
Case No. 08-cv-6567L
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. NYS Department of Corrections Attica Correctional Facility

Plaintiff Stefanie A. Davis, a former employee of the New York State Department of Corrections at Attica Correctional Facility, filed a lawsuit alleging race and gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. She claimed her supervisor assigned her a disproportionate number of minority inmates, and she faced retaliation after complaining. Defendant's initial motion for summary judgment was granted for all claims except retaliation. Following this, Defendant filed a second motion for summary judgment on the remaining retaliation claim. The court granted Defendant's second summary judgment motion, concluding that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation, specifically noting the absence of protected activity and materially adverse employment action.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationProtected ActivityAdverse Employment ActionPro Se Litigant
References
24
Case No. ADJ3685729 (SJO 0231212)
Regular
Jun 15, 2009

Eva Diaz vs. Hung Quoc Nguyen individually, and dba SAFETRANS TRANSPORTATION, aka SAFETRANS and UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant employer's petition for reconsideration of an award finding industrial injury to the applicant's shoulders, back, neck, and psyche. The Board granted the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund's petition to correct a clerical error in identifying the defendant employer and affirmed the original award with the corrected employer name. The Board also clarified that a prior decision on similar facts was res judicata regarding the injury specifics.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers FundPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryBilateral ShouldersPsychePermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4663
References
1
Case No. 73 Civ. 1540
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1980

Kirkland v. NY STATE DEPT. OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

This case, on remand from the Second Circuit, addresses the constitutionality of a new examination (No. 36-435) for correctional sergeants and a proposed 250-point score adjustment for minority applicants. Plaintiffs and defendants sought approval of the exam and summary judgment against intervenors who opposed the score adjustment and the job performance evaluation component. The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, granted both requests, finding the revised examination procedure compliant with EEOC Guidelines and federal anti-discrimination laws, and the job performance rating sufficiently objective under state law, concluding that the score adjustment was not an impermissible quota but rather served to balance the examination's validated procedure.

Employment DiscriminationCorrectional ServicesCivil Service ExamsAffirmative ActionSummary JudgmentEEOC GuidelinesTest ValidityMinority PreferenceJudicial ReviewFederal Court
References
6
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
Sep 15, 2008

Brown v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Plaintiff Curtis Brown, an African-American Correction Officer, sued his employer, the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), and other defendants, alleging severe and continual racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation by his white coworkers. He filed multiple administrative charges and then commenced this action asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The court addressed the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims against individual defendants under Title VII, various institutional defendants, all constructive discharge claims, and state law claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity or the election of remedies. However, the court denied summary judgment on Brown's Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS, and his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims against individual defendants, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the pervasive nature of harassment and the adequacy of the employer's remedial actions.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983Eleventh AmendmentSummary Judgment MotionCorrectional Services
References
76
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

Rumsey v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Plaintiffs, employees of the New York State Department of Correctional Services and military reservists, challenged Departmental Directive # 2212, which allowed the rescheduling of their regular days off to coincide with military drills. They claimed this violated their rights under federal and state military laws and the Equal Protection Clause, arguing it discriminated against them by not requiring similar rescheduling for other types of leave. The defendants asserted the directive was necessary to address staffing shortages and prevent abuse of military leave, noting that pass days were routinely rescheduled for various other reasons. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the directive did not constitute discrimination, as it did not require 'special accommodations' for reservists beyond what was afforded to other employees, consistent with the precedent set in Monroe v. Standard Oil Co.

Military LeaveEmployment RightsWork ScheduleDiscrimination ClaimSummary Judgment MotionCollective BargainingSeniority RightsDepartmental DirectiveFederal LawState Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. State of New York Department of Corrections

Plaintiff Melvin Davis, an African-American correction officer at Fishkill Correctional Facility, sued his employer DOCCS and coworkers Keith Canfield and James McAnney for hostile work environment under Title VII and § 1983, and for retaliation under Title VII. Davis alleged three incidents: a bag remnant and twine resembling a noose, a toy rat with a noose outside his apartment, and racist graffiti in the workplace restroom. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the bag remnant did not objectively resemble a noose, the toy rat incident could not be attributed to the defendants, and DOCCS took appropriate remedial action regarding the graffiti. Consequently, the court concluded that the incidents were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment, and the retaliation claim also failed due to lack of attributable adverse action.

DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentCorrection OfficerWorkplace HarassmentRacial DiscriminationCivil RightsTitle VIISection 1983
References
52
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07262
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Ass'n v. County of Westchester

The case involves an action brought by the Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Association and several retired correction officers against the County of Westchester. The plaintiffs sought damages for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement, claiming the county failed to provide benefits equivalent to Workers' Compensation Law for permanent disability. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss but later granted their motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that no provision in the collective bargaining agreement mandated such payments and that the proposed amendment to the complaint lacked merit.

Collective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLoss of Earning CapacityPermanent DisabilityLeave to Amend ComplaintAppellate ReviewAffirmationJudiciary Law
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 16,784 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