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

American Bank Note Co. v. State Division of Human Rights

This case concerns a petitioner challenging a determination by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which had affirmed a decision from the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The original finding stated that the petitioner discriminated against Lorraine Voigt and other female employees regarding pregnancy-related disability benefits. The court annulled the board's determination, concluding there was no substantial evidence to support the finding of discrimination. The petitioner had denied Ms. Voigt's claim as untimely according to section 217 of the Disability Benefits Law. The court found that the Human Rights Law does not compel an employer to pay benefits for pregnancy-related disability if the employer would not pay similar disability claims for male employees under the same timeliness rules, which the petitioner consistently applied.

Pregnancy DiscriminationDisability Benefits LawHuman Rights LawTimeliness of ClaimSex DiscriminationEqual TreatmentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewAnnulmentSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Regal Entertainment Group v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Doudou B. Janneh was terminated from his employment at a movie theater after falling ill and being deemed ineligible for Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. He subsequently filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights (SDHR), alleging disability discrimination. Although an Administrative Law Judge recommended dismissal, SDHR ultimately sustained the complaint but found no damages. The movie theater owner, referred to as the petitioner, initiated a proceeding to annul SDHR's determination. The court found that Janneh failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination because he was unable to perform his job duties even with reasonable accommodation, which is not a protected disability under the Human Rights Law. Consequently, the court annulled SDHR's determination, granted the petitioner's request, dismissed Janneh's original complaint, and dismissed SDHR's cross-petition for enforcement.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment TerminationFamily and Medical Leave ActHuman Rights LawJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawPrima Facie CaseInability to Perform Job DutiesUnlawful Discriminatory PracticeArticle 15 Executive Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. State Division of Human Rights

This decision vacates a previous order and remands the matter to the State Division of Human Rights for a hearing. The initial court had dismissed a complaint, finding New York's Human Rights Law pre-empted by ERISA regarding pregnancy disability benefits. The Court of Appeals remitted for reconsideration in light of Shaw v Delta Airlines, which clarified that pre-emption only applies when a state law prohibits practices lawful under federal law. The court noted that the discrimination, alleged in 1977, predated the federal prohibition against pregnancy discrimination (effective April 29, 1979). However, ERISA exempts plans maintained solely for complying with disability insurance laws. The record is unclear if petitioner's plan is a separate plan (where NY Human Rights Law would apply) or part of a larger employee benefit plan (where ERISA would control). Therefore, the case is remanded for a determination on this specific factual issue only.

ERISA Pre-emptionHuman Rights LawPregnancy DiscriminationDisability Benefits LawState Law Pre-emptionFederal Law ConflictRemittiturEmployee Benefit PlansJudicial RemandWorkers' Compensation Law Art 9
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Housing Authority Tenant Selection Division v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) initiated a proceeding to review an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which had affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that NYCHA discriminated against Constance Orlando, a mentally disabled public housing applicant. The court found insufficient evidence to support the discrimination claim. While acknowledging that denying housing solely based on mental disability is unlawful, the court determined that NYCHA denied Orlando's application due to a valid reason: her persistent disruptive, harassing, and threatening behavior, which made her an undesirable tenant according to housing regulations. Consequently, the court granted NYCHA's petition, annulled the Appeal Board's order, denied the cross-application for enforcement, and dismissed the complaint.

DiscriminationMental DisabilityPublic HousingTenant EligibilityUndesirable TenantExecutive LawJudicial ReviewAdministrative OrderDisruptive BehaviorHarassment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Elizabeth A. Horton Memorial Hospital

A proceeding was initiated by the State Division of Human Rights to enforce an order against Elizabeth A. Horton Memorial Hospital. The hospital had discriminated against a female employee by denying disability benefits for pregnancy-related disability, despite being a self-insured employer providing benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law. The State Division's order, affirmed by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, directed the hospital to pay benefits, furnish proof, and establish a nondiscrimination policy. The hospital failed to comply, leading to this enforcement action almost two years after the Appeal Board's order. The court granted the petition for enforcement, denied the hospital's cross-motion, found the enforcement proceeding timely and not barred by laches, and affirmed that the original discrimination finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Sex DiscriminationPregnancy Disability BenefitsEnforcement ProceedingHuman Rights LawWorkers' Compensation LawTimelinessLachesSubstantial EvidenceEmployer DiscriminationDisability Benefits Denial
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tosha Restaurants, LLC v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Shane A. Fuller was terminated from his part-time dishwasher position at a Denny's Restaurant due to a skin condition (psoriasis and cellulitis). He filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, alleging disability discrimination. The Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Commissioner of Human Rights found the employer guilty of an unlawful discriminatory practice under Executive Law § 296 and awarded Fuller damages for lost pay, counseling, and pain and suffering. The employer (petitioner) commenced a proceeding to annul this determination. The court reviewed the employer's explanations for termination (customer complaints, health concerns, scheduling issues) and found them to be pretexts for discrimination. The court confirmed the determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights and dismissed the employer's petition.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment TerminationPsoriasisCellulitisUnlawful Discriminatory PracticeExecutive LawHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewAdministrative DeterminationPretext for Discrimination
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. County of Monroe

Wachtler, J., dissents, arguing that the Appellate Division's order should be reversed because substantial evidence supports the State Human Rights Division's determination that Monroe County discriminated against a complainant due to his physical disability. The complainant, a Vietnam War veteran with a combat injury affecting his right knee, was hired as a maintenance mechanic by Monroe County. Despite satisfactorily performing all duties, he was fired after an employment physical revealed he could not assume a full squatting position. The county admitted firing him due to his disability but failed to provide factual support that his disability hampered his job performance or posed a safety risk, relying instead on abstract assumptions. This decision, the dissent argues, undermines the Human Rights Law's purpose to protect individuals from discrimination based on unreasonable fears, especially given the complainant's disability resulted from military service.

Physical DisabilityDiscriminationEmployment LawHuman Rights LawVietnam VeteranMonroe CountyWrongful TerminationAppellate DivisionDissenting OpinionWorkplace Discrimination
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Office of Mental Health v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Alphonso Purse Jr. was terminated by his employer (petitioner) in March 1992 after being absent from work due to alcohol rehabilitation and osteoarthritis. He subsequently filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights (SDHR), alleging discriminatory practice based on his status as a recovering alcoholic. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found discrimination and awarded Purse $5,000 for emotional distress but denied back pay. SDHR later reversed the ALJ's decision on back pay, awarding Purse an additional $385,750. The petitioner (employer) then challenged SDHR's determination in court. The court upheld the finding of unlawful discriminatory practice and the award for emotional distress, but annulled the award of back pay, concluding that Purse's economic losses were due to his disability, not discrimination, as he was receiving disability benefits concurrently with his removal from the payroll.

Disability DiscriminationAlcohol Abuse RehabilitationEmployment TerminationExecutive LawState Division of Human RightsBack Pay AwardEmotional Distress DamagesCollective Bargaining AgreementMedical DocumentationSubstantial Evidence Review
References
10
Case No. 2015184839
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2015

Lallo, Ralph Joseph v. Marion Environmental, Inc.

Ralph Joseph Lallo, an employee, filed a motion seeking temporary disability benefits against his employer, Marion Environmental, Inc. Mr. Lallo sustained a compensable injury to his right upper extremity on April 2, 2015. The court found that Marion Environmental, Inc. did not terminate Mr. Lallo for cause, and thus, his separation would not preclude him from receiving temporary partial disability benefits. Medical evidence from Dr. Donald Huffman indicated substantial restrictions on Mr. Lallo's right arm, rendering him partially disabled. The court concluded that Mr. Lallo was entitled to temporary partial disability benefits and ordered Marion Environmental, Inc. to pay past benefits from May 1-6, 2015, and from September 28, 2015, onward at a compensation rate of $696.03 per week.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsTemporary Partial DisabilityUpper Extremity InjuryOrthopedic DiagnosisEmployment TerminationMedical Work RestrictionsWage Loss ClaimsExpedited Hearing DecisionEmployer Accommodation DisputeDr. Donald Huffman
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chavkin v. Santaella

The petitioner, a male probation officer in New York City, sought to use accrued sick leave in conjunction with infant care leave for his second child, but was denied based on a departmental regulation. This regulation permitted only pregnant female employees to utilize sick leave for infant care leave without requiring medical proof of disability. The petitioner filed a sex discrimination complaint with the State Division of Human Rights, which was dismissed for lack of probable cause, a decision upheld by the State Human Rights Appeal Board. The court found that the Division's investigation was inadequate and its interpretation of the regulation erroneous, noting that the policy appeared to discriminate by allowing mothers to use sick leave without proof of disability while denying fathers. Consequently, the court annulled the Board's determination and remanded the case to the State Division of Human Rights for further investigation and a consistent determination of rights.

Sex DiscriminationInfant Care LeaveSick Leave PolicyParental LeaveHuman Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationProbation OfficerNew York City Department of ProbationState Human Rights Appeal BoardRemand
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 14,666 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