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

Parry v. Tompkins County

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

In re the Arbitration between Board of Higher Education & Professional Staff Congress/CUNY

This case addresses a petition to stay arbitration initiated by a petitioner against a respondent, representing Sandra Davis and Luis Rodriquez-Abad. The grievants, non-reappointed instructional staff at CUNY (Hunter College), sought arbitration alleging discrimination. The petitioner refused to process these grievances, citing a collective bargaining agreement clause (Section 20.7) that precludes arbitration for discrimination claims if a party has filed a claim in court or with a governmental agency. Sandra Davis had filed a Title VII lawsuit, and Luis Rodriquez-Abad had filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights. The court, referencing Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., ruled that while statutory rights cannot be prospectively waived, the contractual right to arbitration can be waived if a superior forum is chosen. Consequently, the court granted the petition to stay arbitration of the discrimination claim, allowing other claims to proceed to arbitration.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementDiscriminationNonreappointmentTenureGrievance ProcedureTitle VIICivil Rights ActExecutive Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lyman v. NYS OASAS

This Memorandum-Decision and Order addresses Defendants' motion to dismiss a plaintiff's amended complaint. The plaintiff, an employee of the New York State Office of Alcoholism Substance Abuse Services (OASAS), alleged various claims including discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII, breach of privacy, First Amendment violations, Equal Pay Act violations, and due process infringements. The court granted the motion to dismiss, dismissing most claims with prejudice. It found that the plaintiff failed to establish membership in a protected class for Title VII discrimination and did not sufficiently allege materially adverse employment actions for Title VII discrimination and retaliation. The hostile work environment, breach of privacy, Equal Pay Act, and due process claims were also dismissed due to legal deficiencies. However, the plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint for the First Amendment retaliation claim, as the court found the existing allegations lacked a plausible causal connection between the protected speech and the alleged adverse actions. The court also addressed Eleventh Amendment immunity for official capacity claims.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentFirst Amendment RightsDue ProcessEqual Pay ActMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil ProcedurePublic Employee Speech
References
89
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2015

Dechberry v. New York City Fire Department

Plaintiff Eileen Dechberry, representing herself, commenced this action against the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), alleging employment discrimination based on gender and disability, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under Title VII, ADA, and the New York City Human Rights Law, as well as wrongful termination without due process. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court dismissed all claims, finding those prior to July 13, 2012, barred by a previous settlement and general release, and those prior to August 21, 2012, as time-barred. The remaining claims for discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment were dismissed for failing to provide plausible factual allegations. The due process claim was also dismissed because an Article 78 proceeding in state court offers an adequate post-deprivation remedy. The plaintiff was granted 14 days to file an amended complaint, excluding the claims already barred or dismissed with prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIADANYCHRLMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsSettlement AgreementGeneral ReleaseRetaliationHostile Work Environment
References
133
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jowers v. LAKESIDE FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Lynn Jowers sued Lakeside Family and Children’s Services for wrongful termination, alleging discrimination based on his medical condition (atrial fibrillation) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Jowers filed an EEOC complaint more than two years after his termination, exceeding the 300-day statutory limit. Lakeside moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, while Jowers cross-moved to dismiss Lakeside's motion, citing ignorance of the law regarding disability discrimination. The court granted Lakeside’s motion, dismissing Jowers’ complaint with prejudice, ruling that his explanation for the late filing was insufficient for equitable tolling, particularly as he had previously filed an EEOC complaint.

Employment DiscriminationADAAtrial FibrillationWrongful TerminationStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingEEOCMotion to DismissCriminal Background CheckFalsified Employment Application
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Inc.

Plaintiff Patricia Harris Lee sued her former employer, SONY BMG Music Entertainment, Inc., and her supervisor, Barbara Warnock-Morgan, for alleged discrimination and retaliation based on disability, race, and national origin, alongside a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Lee claimed constructive termination, a hostile work environment, and refusal to accommodate her disability following a physical altercation with Warnock-Morgan. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court dismissed certain claims with prejudice, including all Title VII and ADA claims against Warnock-Morgan, the national origin discrimination claim under Section 1981, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Disability discrimination claims under the ADA, state, and local law, as well as retaliation claims, were dismissed without prejudice due to insufficient pleading. The court denied the motion to dismiss the race discrimination claims in employment, termination, and hostile work environment under Title VII, state, and local law, granting the plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.

Disability DiscriminationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationMotion to DismissEmployment LawFederal CourtADA ClaimsTitle VII ClaimsSection 1981 Claims
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

This case examines the State Division of Human Rights' power to dismiss complaints for administrative convenience. Six employees initially filed age discrimination complaints against their employer (petitioner) with the Division. A subsequent federal action resulted in a settlement, with only one of the six employees receiving proceeds. The Division later dismissed the state complaints for administrative convenience due to the burden of prolonged hearings. The State Human Rights Appeal Board reversed this dismissal, arguing it denied due process. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appeal Board's order, holding that the Division's dismissal was not 'purely arbitrary' and that the complainants still had access to State court remedies, thus satisfying due process requirements. The Appeal Board exceeded its limited review powers by substituting its judgment for that of the Division.

Administrative ConvenienceAge DiscriminationHuman Rights LawScope of ReviewDue ProcessStatute of Limitations TollingState Division of Human RightsHuman Rights Appeal BoardJudicial DiscretionEmployer Liability
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manolov v. Borough of Manhattan Community College

Plaintiff Alex Manalov, a former nursing student at Borough of Manhattan Community College (BMCC), filed a pro se action alleging race and gender discrimination, violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, breach of contract, and negligent supervision by BMCC professors. Manalov claimed his professors inadequately prepared students, treated him unfairly, and discriminated against white males, leading to his failure in exams and withdrawal from the nursing program. BMCC moved to dismiss the complaint. Magistrate Judge Frank Maas recommended granting the motion, finding insufficient factual basis for discrimination claims and no deprivation of a cognizable property or liberty interest for the due process claim. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report in its entirety and granted BMCC's motion to dismiss.

Academic discriminationGender discriminationRace discriminationDue ProcessFourteenth AmendmentBreach of contractNegligent supervisionMotion to dismissHigher educationNursing program
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Paragon Process Service, Inc.

Paragon Process Service, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which held the company responsible for unemployment insurance contributions for its process servers from 1978 to 1980. Paragon contended that these process servers were independent contractors, not employees, over whom it exercised no control beyond legal requirements. The court, referencing precedents like *Matter of 12 Cornelia St. (Ross)*, determined that the Board lacked a rational basis for classifying the process servers as employees. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision. The matter was then remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings consistent with this new finding.

Unemployment insuranceIndependent contractorProcess serversEmployer liabilityEmployee classificationAppellate reviewAdministrative decisionRational basis reviewLabor lawNew York law
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 8,393 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